[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H6001-H6010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROMOTING INTERAGENCY COORDINATION FOR REVIEW OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINES 
                                  ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2910.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 454 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2910.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1426


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2910) to provide for Federal and State agency coordination in the 
approval of certain authorizations under the Natural Gas Act, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Duncan of Tennessee in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 19, 2017, on page H6001, the following appeared: The 
SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The CHAIR. 
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2910, the Promoting 
Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, 
introduced by my colleague and friend from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  I want to congratulate him for his work on this very important piece 
of legislation that, in fact, will streamline the permit process for 
the building of energy infrastructure, which will strengthen our 
economy, create the jobs that we want, and, in fact, increase our 
energy security. Very important.
  This bill is going to address the critical need to expand and 
modernize the Nation's natural gas pipeline infrastructure by promoting 
a more timely and efficient review.
  Mr. Chairman, by establishing FERC as the lead agency, this bill is 
going to bring greater certainty, accountability, and transparency to 
the siting process for interstate natural gas pipelines. Unfortunately, 
many important projects have been delayed unnecessarily while waiting 
for permits from participating agencies, and when siting a pipeline 
project, multiple permits are always required, permits under the Clean 
Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act.
  So FERC often coordinates with a variety of Federal, State, and local 
governments and Indian Tribes to balance a wide range of issues, 
including the potential impacts on environmental and wildlife 
resources, land use, and, of course, property rights.
  This bill is going to improve the permitting process by strengthening 
the lead agency role of FERC in further defining the process for 
participating in Federal and State agencies, and the intent of these 
provisions is to involve stakeholders sooner so that they can be 
involved in the setting of the schedule and identify issues of concern 
earlier in the process.
  Further, the legislation requires that agencies conduct their 
respective reviews concurrently and in conjunction with the project-
related review conducted by FERC in compliance with NEPA--in compliance 
with NEPA.

                              {time}  1430

  To be clear, we are not skipping steps, we are just saying that one 
part of the process shouldn't hold up the entire project if progress 
can be made on other required permits.
  So this bill is going to encourage more timely and efficient reviews, 
a more robust and reliable energy pipeline system, more affordable 
energy prices for every American.
  Mr. Chair, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas, who has brought 
this bill before us through the committee process.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2910. The bill shortcuts the 
important review process for interstate natural gas pipeline projects, 
a process which already boasts one of the quickest review periods for 
any type of major energy project. The bill is unnecessary.
  To my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee's point when 
he says that too many of these projects are being delayed: to the 
contrary. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission testified in front 
of our committee

[[Page H6002]]

that almost 90 percent of interstate natural gas pipeline projects are 
approved within 1 year. This is a dangerous bill because of what it 
does to short-circuit safety and environmental review processes.
  Now, I want to say, at the outset, pipelines can be a safe and 
practical way to transport natural gas. Natural gas pipelines are part 
of a modern energy infrastructure system--I would say that almost all 
Democrats agree with that--but what this bill does is it shortcuts, it 
overrides safety, private property rights, environmental concerns.
  This is a problem, because when you look at the long list of serious 
accidents involving natural gas pipelines, the fatalities, the 
accidents, the injuries, it is just inappropriate and very poor public 
policy to give those natural gas pipelines a pass.
  Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy and 
Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Castor), a wonderful colleague and a Member who has really shown 
extraordinary leadership on this matter and other matters that appear 
before this Congress and the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 2910 because it is a bill that 
offers a solution in search of a problem.
  As FERC testified before the Energy Subcommittee just this past May, 
a whopping 88 percent of natural gas pipeline applications are 
currently processed within a year, and the number one reason for the 
delays in the approval process was due to applicants submitting 
incomplete paperwork.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 2910 does nothing to actually address the reason 
behind the delays, but instead will allow incomplete applications to be 
considered, will allow incomplete data from aerial surveys to be 
considered, and would minimize the input of States and agencies 
responsible for protecting the environment, sensitive lands, and other 
natural resources.
  However, that said, one of the most egregious aspects of this bill is 
that it would actually make it easier for private pipeline companies to 
claim eminent domain and seize private property of hardworking American 
citizens.
  Mr. Chair, as we have seen in the past and continue to witness today, 
the issue of constructing these major pipelines through aquifers, 
private property, cultural sites, and other sensitive lands is a topic 
that causes great public consternation and great public concern.
  Congress should be taking into account the sensitive nature of this 
extremely divisive issue by listening to our own constituents, the 
American people, and giving them more of a voice in these very 
difficult decisions, rather than trying to limit their input.
  Mr. Chair, to address this critical issue, both Ranking Member 
Pallone, as well as my colleague, Congresswoman Watson Coleman of New 
Jersey, and I offered amendments to deny private companies the right to 
claim eminent domain unless constructing a pipeline was found to be in 
the public interest, and not solely as a way for companies to turn a 
profit.
  Mr. Chair, even though this amendment was brought up and voted down 
by my Republican colleagues in the Energy and Commerce Committee, it 
was ruled nongermane to today's discussion for some very odd, but also 
for some very obvious reason.
  In other words, Mr. Chair, the majority party has determined that 
although they are pushing a bill that would make it easier for private 
companies to seize lands from private citizens for financial gain, 
Members of Congress are not allowed to take up an up-or-down vote on 
that issue on the floor here today.
  This Congress is telling the American people: Hell, no, you won't 
have a voice in this. We are here operating solely in the interests of 
private companies for their private profit.
  Mr. Chair, I can assure you that the American people will not agree 
with this decision to place the interests of private natural gas 
companies above the rights and interests of private landowners.
  Congress should not make it easier for private companies to claim 
eminent domain and potentially negatively impact historical sites, 
reservoirs, farms, and other private properties while at the same time 
limiting the ability for States, Tribes, and local communities to 
provide input into the process.
  Mr. Chair, why are we allowing these private companies to have 
eminent domain over the private property, over the land of American 
citizens, without any input from States on this particular matter?
  Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I strongly oppose this bill, and I urge 
all my colleagues to oppose it as well.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a reason why the parliamentarians ruled that 
the amendments on eminent domain are not applicable here: because they 
are not germane. Eminent domain is not part of this bill. In fact, the 
underlying natural gas act requires that eminent domain proceedings, 
``shall conform as nearly as may be with the practice and procedure in 
similar action or proceedings in the courts of the State where the 
property is situated.''
  This doesn't change that, and that is why those eminent domain 
amendments were not made in order.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Flores), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Upton for yielding me time 
in his effort to bring this bill to the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
2910. Thanks to the shale revolution, America is a top global producer 
of natural gas, and in the past several years, natural gas has become 
the top fuel choice for generating electricity in our Nation.
  My constituents in Texas have seen the dramatic benefits of the shale 
revolution and pay some of the lowest electricity costs in the Nation. 
For example, last April, the residential price for electricity was just 
over 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. However, the average price in 
Massachusetts was almost 21 cents per kilowatt-hour.
  America's domestic energy outlook has completely flipped from 
scarcity to abundance, yet why do some parts of the country, primarily 
in the northeast, pay twice as much for electricity? There is one clear 
reason: some areas lack the needed pipeline infrastructure to bring 
natural gas to consumers.
  The reason for this is that some State and Federal agencies are 
failing to make timely decisions on the necessary pipeline permits to 
deliver natural gas to consumers.
  We can and we should modernize our pipeline infrastructure to match 
our abundant natural gas resources. Making the permitting process more 
efficient enables and encourages a more robust and reliable pipeline 
infrastructure system; that way, all parts of the country can realize 
the benefits of clean, affordable, and abundant natural gas.
  My bill, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural 
Gas Pipelines Act, builds on important permit reforms under the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 by bringing greater accountability, predictability, 
and transparency to the process to approve interstate natural gas 
pipelines.
  This bill requires early notification to all participating agencies, 
States, and Indian Tribes, and it reinforces FERC's status as the lead 
agency for coordination.
  It further establishes a clear process for consultation and 
concurrent reviews among Federal and State agencies and Indian Tribes, 
and sets deadlines for final decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, these are commonsense reforms that reduce interagency 
bureaucracy, and I think that we can all agree that permitting should 
be more transparent and more accountable.
  H.R. 2910 enhances certainty for pipeline applicants, but it is 
important to note that this bill does not guarantee an outcome, it does 
not guarantee an approval on any application, and it does not change 
any existing environmental laws. So all the rhetoric we just heard over 
the last few minutes about it changing the environment is absolutely 
100 percent false.
  It does not change any eminent domain laws or adversely affect 
private property rights. So all that argument we heard a few minutes 
ago is false. So

[[Page H6003]]

we could conclude this debate pretty quickly if the other side will 
acknowledge the fact of what this bill really does do and what it 
doesn't do.
  It does, however, ensure that involved agencies do their job and that 
they act on appropriate projects in a timely manner.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas.
  Mr. FLORES. Similar provisions have passed the House as stand-alone 
legislation and were also included in the comprehensive energy bill 
that passed the House last Congress. Additionally, H.R. 2910 passed out 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee on a bipartisan vote.
  My bill enables more reliable infrastructure to deliver affordable, 
environmentally friendly natural gas to consumers.
  This American energy resource serves as an important energy source 
for hardworking families and powers our economy.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2910.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I think the point on eminent domain 
is the fact that this bill will trample on the rights of landowners, 
because my colleague is correct, current law gives natural gas pipeline 
companies access to Federal eminent domain authority, allowing these 
corporations to take private property to build their pipelines. But 
what the bill does, it would further narrow the already few 
opportunities that landowners and stakeholders have for review of 
safety and important environmental protections.
  It also would allow surveying while circumventing local permitting 
and without property owner consent, and that is a very significant 
change, because it would allow Federal and State agencies to accept 
aerial survey data and provides that the agencies may grant conditional 
approvals based on that data, and that can be unwise and unsafe. So we 
wanted to highlight that as a very significant concern for those 
Members who are concerned about eminent domain and private property 
rights.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. 
Watson Coleman).
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chair, I would like to take this opportunity 
to thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me some time to speak 
on what I consider to be a very important issue.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 2910, the Promoting 
Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act.

                              {time}  1445

  This industry-backed bill provides FERC with unnecessary authorities 
that put the interest of companies over that of the people and the 
environment.
  The current process that FERC uses to approve pipelines is inherently 
flawed, genuinely threatens our green spaces, water resources, and 
public and private lands.
  By allowing this bill to pass, we are permitting FERC to exclude the 
input of those who would be directly impacted in exchange for 
benefiting the fossil fuel industry. We need to have a more 
comprehensive process that considers the effects these pipelines will 
have on local communities, which is why I introduced H.R. 2649, the 
Safer Pipelines Act of 2017.
  My legislation is about inclusiveness, ensuring that the voice of 
communities impacted by a proposed pipeline are heard loud and clear.
  I have seen this problem up close.
  One project before FERC is a proposed PennEast pipeline, which would 
run through my congressional district. The PennEast plan has been 
fraught by community concerns on issues ranging from potential 
contamination of drinking water and destruction of environmentally 
sensitive areas.
  Despite these issues, FERC's final environmental impact statement 
erroneously concluded that the project would have minimal impact.
  Just last month, the New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection rejected the construction permits due to PennEast's 
continuous refusal to provide simple environmental surveys and 
information requested by the State.
  Not only does this bill severely threaten clean water in 
environmentally sensitive areas, it also tramples on the rights of 
private property owners and communities.
  Jacqueline Evans of New Jersey has shared this story with us:

       The farm I built with my children would be completely 
     destroyed by the 36-inch pipe built to the weakest standards 
     allowable.
       The pipeline route is less than 200 feet from my children's 
     bedrooms, putting them in a designated ``incineration zone.''
       Our well, that provides water for our family and our 
     livestock, is threatened.
       PennEast has threatened me by insisting I sign a ``deal'' 
     of less than 4 percent of the value of our home, or lose it 
     through eminent domain.
       PennEast's intimidation tactics include telling us that 
     FERC will approve the pipeline with or without surveys and 
     environmental studies that are required.

  Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable.
  I offered two amendments to this bill that the Rules Committee 
refused to allow on the floor. One would have limited the use of 
eminent domain for gas pipeline projects, and the other would have 
limited the use of area remote surveys.
  We cannot prioritize the wishes of private pipeline companies at the 
expense of clean drinking water, our environment and natural resources, 
and the rights of private owners.
  So I stand here today begging my colleagues to vote for the people 
and to reject this bill by voting against it.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Upton and Mr. Flores 
for the work that they have done on this piece of legislation. Mr. 
Flores spoke of the need to do this and why it is so important for us 
to begin to simplify and clean up the rules and the regulation process 
so that we do provide certainty not only for our constituents, but also 
for industry.
  In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, what we do is to provide hope to 
millions of workers who work in the energy sector.
  I want to read from a letter of support. This is from the 
International Union of Operating Engineers. They sent a letter in 
support of Mr. Flores' bill, and it gets right to the heart of the 
issue.
  ``Domestic energy production provides good-paying jobs for members of 
the IUOE and other construction craftworkers and continues to employ 
thousands of our members. Uncertainty and delay during environmental 
reviews, however, hinder the growth of jobs related to the Nation's 
energy infrastructure. Congress should give FERC additional tools to 
keep Federal agencies accountable and maximum coordination in the 
permitting process.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is from individuals who work in this energy 
sector, who understand the vital importance of having a secure, safe, 
and stable energy supply. They are individuals who want to see growth 
in this industry. They also want to make certain that we do this in the 
appropriate way--as we have done, as H.R. 2910 does--to respect 
individual and private property works.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Giving FERC the authority that they need to go in and 
consolidate and simplify this environmental process for these 
interstate gas projects is the right thing to do.
  Many times, what slows these projects down and causes the situation 
that the International Union of Operating Engineers speaks to is the 
fact that you have multiple permits that are required, and they are 
from multiple agencies and multiple levels of government. Any time you 
are going through that, there are more opportunities for mistakes and 
it is going to be more costly.
  So I congratulate my colleague for a job well done, and I encourage 
my colleagues to vote for and support H.R. 2910.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear: I heard 
the comments of my colleague from Tennessee, and the Democrats do 
support natural gas pipelines, a very important part of our energy 
infrastructure.

  And, as a reminder, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves

[[Page H6004]]

almost 90 percent of all pipeline applications within 1 year. And if 
there is any holdup recently, it is because the Republican-led Senate 
has not confirmed an additional FERC appointee. That is holding up the 
process of approving more natural gas pipelines.
  What we don't approve of, however, is a spill that attempts to short-
circuit very important safety and environmental review processes and 
take private property rights away from landowners.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency 
Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act.
  This bill is a solution in search of a problem.
  We heard from FERC that 88 percent of projects are certified within 1 
year following a completed application. It is clear that, under the 
existing process, these projects are moving forward without significant 
delays.
  We have not seen good evidence that we need to further tilt the 
process in favor of pipeline companies, which is what the bill before 
us today would do.
  While I am concerned about a number of provisions in this bill, I 
specifically want to highlight the section that would require Federal 
and State agencies to accept aerial survey data, such as data collected 
by drones, and allow these agencies to grant conditional approvals 
based on that data.
  Aerial data have limitations and can be insufficient. These data may 
not account for historic sites, endangered species, or wetlands. But, 
under this bill, agencies would be required to consider the project.
  Granting conditional permits based on inadequate data will ultimately 
not speed up the process, but what it does instead is circumvent the 
rights of landowners.
  We also should be more thoughtful about changing this process, given 
the implications that will impact private landowners' rights.
  Under the law, pipeline companies are able to use eminent domain 
authority, allowing these corporations to take private property to 
build their pipelines. This bill would further restrict the already 
limited opportunities that private landowners and concerned citizens 
have to weigh in on proposed projects.
  Streamlining is fine, but we are considering expediting a process 
that can result in the use of eminent domain. The bar for seizing 
private property should be high, and lowering that bar is to the 
detriment of private landowners.
  Historically, when considering the use of eminent domain, the 
question has been: Is it in the public's interest?
  But this bill is forcing the question to shift to: Is it in the 
company's interest?
  That is not acceptable to me, and it certainly isn't acceptable to 
the general public.
  If we continue to expedite and rubber stamp these projects, consumers 
will be on the hook for unviable and, eventually, stranded assets.
  We need to look at our energy infrastructure based on holistic, 
regional needs that take into account how many projects are under 
consideration and how it would impact existing infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2910, 
legislation sponsored by my friend and Western Caucus member, Bill 
Flores.
  One area of wide bipartisan agreement is the need to support critical 
infrastructure in the United States. This bill presents an important 
opportunity to deliver on our commitment to modernize infrastructure, 
grow the economy, and support safe, reliable American-made energy.
  By improving agency and industry coordination, we can provide more 
certainty regarding the timeframe and procedures of the pipeline review 
process. By making these improvements, we will ensure that the energy 
we produce right here in America can be transported in the safest 
possible manner.
  If my colleagues are truly serious about protecting the environment, 
we should be promoting American-made energy, where we know it will be 
produced in adherence to the highest environmental and safety 
standards.
  This bill does exactly that by making the improvements necessary to 
modernize our pipeline approval process. These improvements are 
necessary to match the advancements in shale gas technology and 
increased demand for safe, reliable, and domestically-sourced energy.
  While roads and bridges often get the most attention when we talk 
about the need for updated infrastructure, modern pipelines and other 
energy infrastructure are sorely needed to support our economy and 
power our homes and businesses.
  Promoting efficient and comprehensive cooperation within our 
regulatory process is an effort that is not only bipartisan, but plain 
common sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for sponsoring this 
much-needed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of 
this commonsense bill.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when we had a hearing earlier in the year in the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, I assumed there was a major backlog of 
unreviewed applications that spurred my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to draft this bill. But then we heard from experts from the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about this, and they testified 
that nearly 90 percent of these major infrastructure projects are 
approved in less than a year.
  Many companies working to have other interstate energy projects 
approved can only dream of a Federal review occurring in less than a 
year. So this is already a very efficient process.

  I would say this bill is unnecessary, it is duplicative, and it is 
wasteful. And I know many in the Congress here are looking for ways to 
eliminate government waste and duplication.
  The Congress has already taken action to streamline the Federal 
environmental permitting review process for major infrastructure 
projects. Sometimes our memories are short, but it was just last 
Congress where Congress adopted the major Transportation and 
Infrastructure bill, the FAST Act. It passed in a bipartisan manner and 
was signed into law.
  The FAST Act authorized the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering 
Council, or FPISC, to improve the timeliness, predictability, and 
transparency of Federal environmental review processes for these major 
infrastructure projects.
  Now, FPISC is already getting underway. It has set up this enhanced 
coordination and transparency by establishing a lead agency for the 
project, recommends performance schedules, and public project 
timetables. Many of the provisions in this bill, however, seem to be 
largely duplicative of the activities of FPISC and what they are 
already doing.
  FPISC is already overseeing and coordinating permitting processes for 
32 major infrastructure projects, including seven interstate natural 
gas pipelines--just to highlight that this is an unnecessary power grab 
that really is short-circuiting very important safety and environmental 
review processes.

                              {time}  1500

  There is no problem across this country right now with getting your 
natural gas pipeline approved unless there is a real problem in the 
details of the application.
  Now, I used to practice environmental law in a previous lifetime, and 
what I learned is, when you provide for these short-circuited processes 
that keep the public out, that keep other stakeholders out, what you 
are going to do on the back end, you are going to cause more lawsuits, 
more delays, rather than just adhering to the proper process, answering 
questions as you go along, pressing ahead, altering the route when it 
needs to be rerouted.
  So this is a very important issue. The details really matter here.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I include in the Record three letters in support. The National 
Electrical

[[Page H6005]]

Contractors Association has a letter of support. The National Taxpayers 
Union has a letter of support, as well as the National Association of 
Manufacturers.

                                               National Electrical


                                      Contractors Association,

                                      Bethesda, MD, July 18, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the National Electrical 
     Contractors Association (NECA), I am writing in strong 
     support of H.R. 2883, Promoting Cross-Border Energy 
     Infrastructure Act which would establish a more uniform and 
     transparent approval process for the construction, 
     connection, operation, or maintenance of oil or natural gas 
     pipelines or electric transmission facilities for the import 
     or export of oil, natural gas, or electricity. NECA also 
     supports H.R. 2910, Promoting Interagency Coordination for 
     Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, which would help address 
     the need to modernize the nation's natural gas pipeline 
     infrastructure by promoting more timely and efficient reviews 
     by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). NECA 
     believes these critical pieces of legislation will facilitate 
     construction projects along the United States' borders and 
     encourage energy independence.
       NECA is the nationally recognized voice of the $130 billion 
     electrical construction industry that brings power, light, 
     and communication technology to buildings and communities 
     across the U.S. NECA's national office and its 119 local 
     chapters are dedicated to enhancing the industry through 
     continuing education, labor relations, safety codes, 
     standards development, and government relations. NECA is 
     committed to advocating for a comprehensive energy policy 
     that addresses all available opportunities for energy 
     exploration and independence.
       By establishing a more concrete process for the approval of 
     construction projects to import oil, natural gas, and 
     electricity, this legislation would create more jobs in the 
     construction industry while working towards America's energy 
     independence. Construction along the U.S. border to import 
     oil, natural gas, and electricity will greatly enhance our 
     nation's energy security and promote energy independence. It 
     is clear Congress plays a critical role in streamlining the 
     approval process and enacting policies that support approval 
     and construction of energy infrastructure projects. The 
     benefits of these projects are clear: job creation, energy 
     security, energy independence, and economic growth; such 
     construction is in the national interest. NECA strongly 
     endorses H.R. 2883 and H.R. 2910 and believes that these 
     bills will deliver many benefits to our nation.
           Sincerely,
                                      Marco A. Giamberardino, MPA,
     Executive Director, Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                                     National Taypayers Union,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 2017.


                  National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert

       NTU urges all Representatives to vote ``YES'' on the 
     following bills that would reduce regulatory burdens and 
     promote economic growth.
       H.R. 806, ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017'': 
     This legislation would extend the timeframe for compliance 
     with the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards and put in place 
     process reforms going forward. The bungled 2008/2015 
     revisions have created an implementation headache for many 
     states, now tasked with simultaneously working to enact dual 
     standards. The costs are high for states and localities--
     regardless of whether they achieve attainment. Nonattainment 
     means lost funds for highways and other essential 
     infrastructure projects. On the other hand, reaching 
     attainment could require limits on new construction and 
     manufacturing production, expensive retrofitting, and 
     oppressive new rules. Either way, jobs and investment will go 
     elsewhere without the more feasible, predictable reforms in 
     H.R. 806.
       H.R. 2883, ``Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure 
     Act'': This legislation would streamline the archaic cross-
     border permitting process for energy facilities that stretch 
     across the borders we share with Mexico and Canada. The 
     current Presidential Permit regime is far from clear and can 
     leave projects in regulatory limbo for years on end. Creating 
     a consolidated and standardized approval process would 
     increase the Congressional accountability provided for in 
     Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting Congress 
     the authority to ``regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,'' 
     while eliminating costly regulatory hurdles that stand 
     between consumers and low-cost energy options.
       H.R. 2910, ``Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review 
     of Natural Gas Pipelines Act'': This legislation would 
     facilitate the timely review of natural gas pipeline 
     permitting by clearly designating the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission as the lead agency responsible for 
     interstate natural gas pipeline site permitting. This, along 
     with other measures to increase efficiency such as providing 
     for concurrent reviews and commonsense timetables, would help 
     avoid duplication and other unnecessary delays. In addition, 
     H.R. 2910 would increase transparency in the permitting 
     process through more public disclosure, as well as create new 
     opportunities for public input.
       In general, markets crave certainty in order to anticipate 
     where resources should be allocated. This is doubly true for 
     the giant infrastructure and manufacturing projects these 
     bills address. Planning, personnel, and capital all depend on 
     a transparent, predictable, consistent regulatory process. 
     Together, these reforms would result in increased investment 
     in our energy infrastructure, spurring job-growth in an 
     essential and lucrative sector of our economy, and enhancing 
     low-cost energy options for consumers.
       Roll call votes on H.R. 806, H.R. 2883, and H.R. 2910 will 
     be included in our annual Rating of Congress and a ``YES'' 
     vote will be considered the pro-taxpayer position.
       If you have any questions, please contact NTU Federal 
     Affairs Manager.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                                    July 19, 2017.
       Dear Representatives: The National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in 
     the United States representing manufacturers in every 
     industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to support 
     H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review 
     of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, introduced by Rep. Bill Flores 
     (R-TX).
       Domestic natural gas has transformed the U.S. economy, made 
     our companies more competitive, created jobs and put money 
     back in the pockets of working Americans. Manufacturers use 
     natural gas as a fuel for direct process uses, such as 
     drying, melting, process cooling, machine drive and 
     refrigeration; as a fuel for direct non-process uses in 
     manufacturing establishments, such as heating, ventilation, 
     HVAC and lighting; as a fuel for indirect purposes, such as 
     boilers used to produce electricity and steam; and as a 
     feedstock in refining, chemicals and primary metals sectors. 
     Over the next decade, total demand for natural gas is 
     projected to increase by 40 percent. Domestic manufacturing 
     is poised to be a key driver of this growth. Consequently, 
     major investments in new pipeline infrastructure are required 
     to ensure manufacturers have a steady, reliable stream of 
     natural gas.
       Unfortunately, permitting these infrastructure projects 
     remains a lengthy process. Permitting should follow a 
     comprehensive process that ensures timely and predictable 
     decision-making, but federal and state permitting agencies 
     can create roadblocks and delays when coordination is 
     inadequate. Strengthening the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission's (FERC's) coordination of interagency processes 
     is critical to the permitting of natural gas infrastructure 
     and ensuring manufacturers have access to this affordable 
     resource.
       H.R. 2910 would reinforce FERC's role as the lead agency 
     for siting interstate natural gas pipelines by directing FERC 
     to identify and invite all agencies considering an aspect of 
     an application to establish a schedule for concurrent 
     reviews, and to impose deadlines for final decisions. H.R. 
     2910 would ensure projects undergo a robust agency review 
     while completing that review in a timely and predictable 
     manner.
       The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that 
     votes on H.R. 2910, including procedural motions, may be 
     considered for designation as Key Manufacturing Votes in the 
     115th Congress.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                                Aric Newhouse,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                  Policy and Government Relations.

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire if the gentlewoman has any 
further speakers.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker 
and some submissions for the Record.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers at this point, so I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I include in the Record some information on pipeline incidents from 
the U.S. Government, just to highlight the fact that it is vitally 
important that these pipelines undergo safety and environmental 
reviews. These are the pipeline incident reports from 1997-2016 for all 
States. I will just read a few of these statistics here.
  In 2016, you had 16 fatalities from natural gas pipeline incidents, 
83 injuries, total cost of property damage, over $300 million. In 2015, 
10 fatalities, 49 injuries, over 328 incidents. There is a 3-year 
average from 2014-2016 of 312 incidents. The 5-year average across the 
country is 299 incidents; 10-year average, 286 incidents.
  For fatalities, the 3-year average, 15 fatalities; the 5-year 
average, 13; the 10-year average, 13; the 20-year average, 16.
  And for injuries, the 3-year average, 75 injuries; the 5-year 
average, 64 injuries; the 10-year average, 64 injuries; the 20-year 
average, 65 injuries. And the property damage report, just the 3-year 
average is about $315 million.


[[Page H6006]]


  


       PHMSA Pipeline Incidents: Multi-Year Averages (19974-2016)

       Incident Type: Significant, System Type: All, State: All.
       Incident count:
       3 Year Average, (2014-2016), 312; 5 Year Average, (2012-
     2016), 299; 10 Year Average, (2007-2016), 286; 20 Year 
     Average, (1997-2016), 284.
       Fatalities:
       3 Year Average, 15; 5 Year Average, 13; 10 Year Average, 
     13; 20 Year Average, 16.
       Injuries:
       3 Year Average, 75; 5 Year Average, 64; 10 Year Average, 
     64; 20 Year Average, 65.
       Total cost:
       3 Year Average, $315,138,727; 5 Year Average, $306,888,604; 
     10 Year Average, $475,607,772; 20 Year Average, $389,601,666.
       2017 Year-to-date:
       Incidents, 118; Fatalities, 1; Injuries, 16; Total Cost, 
     $49,385,394.
       Calendar year, Number, Fatalities, Injuries, Total cost 
     current year dollars:
       1997, 267, 10, 77, $110,377,793; 1998, 295, 21, 81, 
     $174,516,797; 1999, 275, 22, 108, $178,313,209; 2000, 290, 
     38, 81, $257,659,464; 2001, 233, 7, 61, $79,086,596; 2002, 
     258, 12, 49, $124,067,949; 2003, 297, 12, 71, $163,459,897; 
     2004, 309, 23, 56, $314,362,210; 2005, 336, 16, 46, 
     $1,476,994,582; 2006, 257, 19, 34, $157,117,098; 2007, 265, 
     15, 46, $147,800,810; 2008, 278, 8, 54, $592,290,867; 2009, 
     275, 13, 62, $180,360,208; 2010, 264, 19, 103, 
     $1,854,123,037; 2011, 287, 12, 51, $447,059,777; 2012, 254, 
     10, 54, $233,813,285; 2013, 304, 8, 42, $355,213,552; 2014, 
     301, 19, 94, $305,253,746; 2015, 328, 10, 49, $338,297,940; 
     2016, 308, 16, 83, $301,864,494; Grand Total, 5,681, 310, 
     1,302, $7,792,033,312.

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that it is 
inappropriate to short-circuit the very important safety and 
environmental review processes for our interstate natural gas 
pipelines. This is a solution in search of a problem.
  We know that FERC approves these gas pipeline applications at about 
90 percent. The only reason a little delay has fallen off recently is 
because the Senate has not approved the new FERC appointee over a 
matter of 5 months. If they would do that, I think they could get back 
on track as well.
  The ones that are not approved are undergoing very significant 
review. Even in the case for the major projects now, we have a new 
system, a coordinated effort through the FPISC, the new council that is 
overseeing interstate natural gas pipeline, so it is duplicative as 
well.
  It is inappropriate for a process that already grants eminent domain 
rights through pipeline companies to go through private property now to 
short-circuit the environmental and safety reviews. That is just really 
going too far for corporations and their profits, where landowners and 
other stakeholders have to have the ability to weigh in. Otherwise, you 
are going to cause more lawsuits and more delays at the very end of the 
process and, I think, do exactly the opposite of what the author of the 
legislation intends to do.
  So at this point, based upon all of the evidence that has been 
presented, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Don't 
elevate corporate profits over the interests of the public.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, this 
streamlines the process. There are still no shortcuts that are here. We 
require that the agencies work concurrently with each other. At the end 
of the day, we know that pipelines are literally the safest way to 
transport whatever it is, oil, gas, to the consumers, and at a lower 
cost. It is safer and, obviously, helps the most vulnerable with lower 
costs.
  We have literally millions of miles of pipelines. And I would note 
that we passed major, major bipartisan legislation in several 
Congresses--it was bipartisan, it was overwhelmingly bipartisan--that 
President Obama signed into law increasing the safety standards and 
fines for any new pipelines that are built. Those laws, obviously, stay 
on the books.
  Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. I look 
forward to the debate on a couple of the amendments.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-28. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2910

       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 ``Promoting Interagency 
     Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act''.

     SEC. 2. FERC PROCESS COORDINATION FOR NATURAL GAS PIPELINE 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission.
       (2) Federal authorization.--The term ``Federal 
     authorization'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     15(a) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717n(a)).
       (3) NEPA review.--The term ``NEPA review'' means the 
     process of reviewing a proposed Federal action under section 
     102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4332).
       (4) Project-related nepa review.--The term ``project-
     related NEPA review'' means any NEPA review required to be 
     conducted with respect to the issuance of an authorization 
     under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a certificate of 
     public convenience and necessity under section 7 of such Act.
       (b) Commission NEPA Review Responsibilities.--In acting as 
     the lead agency under section 15(b)(1) of the Natural Gas Act 
     for the purposes of complying with the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to 
     an authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a 
     certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 
     7 of such Act, the Commission shall, in accordance with this 
     section and other applicable Federal law--
       (1) be the only lead agency;
       (2) coordinate as early as practicable with each agency 
     designated as a participating agency under subsection (d)(3) 
     to ensure that the Commission develops information in 
     conducting its project-related NEPA review that is usable by 
     the participating agency in considering an aspect of an 
     application for a Federal authorization for which the agency 
     is responsible; and
       (3) take such actions as are necessary and proper to 
     facilitate the expeditious resolution of its project-related 
     NEPA review.
       (c) Deference to Commission.--In making a decision with 
     respect to a Federal authorization required with respect to 
     an application for authorization under section 3 of the 
     Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and 
     necessity under section 7 of such Act, each agency shall give 
     deference, to the maximum extent authorized by law, to the 
     scope of the project-related NEPA review that the Commission 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (d) Participating Agencies.--
       (1) Identification.--The Commission shall identify, as 
     early as practicable after it is notified by a person 
     applying for an authorization under section 3 of the Natural 
     Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and necessity 
     under section 7 of such Act, any Federal or State agency, 
     local government, or Indian Tribe that may issue a Federal 
     authorization or is required by Federal law to consult with 
     the Commission in conjunction with the issuance of a Federal 
     authorization required for such authorization or certificate.
       (2) Invitation.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall invite any agency 
     identified under paragraph (1) to participate in the review 
     process for the applicable Federal authorization.
       (B) Deadline.--An invitation issued under subparagraph (A) 
     shall establish a deadline by which a response to the 
     invitation shall be submitted to the Commission, which may be 
     extended by the Commission for good cause.
       (3) Designation as participating agencies.--The Commission 
     shall designate an agency identified under paragraph (1) as a 
     participating agency with respect to an application for 
     authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a 
     certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 
     7 of such Act unless the agency informs the Commission, in 
     writing, by the deadline established pursuant to paragraph 
     (2)(B), that the agency--
       (A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the 
     applicable Federal authorization;
       (B) has no special expertise or information relevant to any 
     project-related NEPA review; or
       (C) does not intend to submit comments for the record for 
     the project-related NEPA review conducted by the Commission.
       (4) Effect of non-designation.--
       (A) Effect on agency.--Any agency that is not designated as 
     a participating agency under paragraph (3) with respect to an 
     application for an authorization under section 3 of the 
     Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and 
     necessity under section 7 of such Act may not request or 
     conduct a NEPA review that is supplemental to the project-
     related NEPA review conducted by the Commission, unless the 
     agency--
       (i) demonstrates that such review is legally necessary for 
     the agency to carry out responsibilities in considering an 
     aspect of an application for a Federal authorization; and
       (ii) requires information that could not have been obtained 
     during the project-related NEPA review conducted by the 
     Commission.
       (B) Comments; record.--The Commission shall not, with 
     respect to an agency that is not designated as a 
     participating agency under paragraph (3) with respect to an 
     application for an authorization under section 3 of the 
     Natural

[[Page H6007]]

     Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and necessity 
     under section 7 of such Act--
       (i) consider any comments or other information submitted by 
     such agency for the project-related NEPA review conducted by 
     the Commission; or
       (ii) include any such comments or other information in the 
     record for such project-related NEPA review.
       (e) Schedule.--
       (1) Deadline for federal authorizations.--A deadline for a 
     Federal authorization required with respect to an application 
     for authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a 
     certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 
     7 of such Act set by the Commission under section 15(c)(1) of 
     such Act shall be not later than 90 days after the Commission 
     completes its project-related NEPA review, unless an 
     applicable schedule is otherwise established by Federal law.
       (2) Concurrent reviews.--Each Federal and State agency--
       (A) that may consider an application for a Federal 
     authorization required with respect to an application for 
     authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a 
     certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 
     7 of such Act shall formulate and implement a plan for 
     administrative, policy, and procedural mechanisms to enable 
     the agency to ensure completion of Federal authorizations in 
     compliance with schedules established by the Commission under 
     section 15(c)(1) of such Act; and
       (B) in considering an aspect of an application for a 
     Federal authorization required with respect to an application 
     for authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a 
     certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 
     7 of such Act, shall--
       (i) formulate and implement a plan to enable the agency to 
     comply with the schedule established by the Commission under 
     section 15(c)(1) of such Act;
       (ii) carry out the obligations of that agency under 
     applicable law concurrently, and in conjunction with, the 
     project-related NEPA review conducted by the Commission, and 
     in compliance with the schedule established by the Commission 
     under section 15(c)(1) of such Act, unless the agency 
     notifies the Commission in writing that doing so would impair 
     the ability of the agency to conduct needed analysis or 
     otherwise carry out such obligations;
       (iii) transmit to the Commission a statement--

       (I) acknowledging receipt of the schedule established by 
     the Commission under section 15(c)(1) of the Natural Gas Act; 
     and
       (II) setting forth the plan formulated under clause (i) of 
     this subparagraph;

       (iv) not later than 30 days after the agency receives such 
     application for a Federal authorization, transmit to the 
     applicant a notice--

       (I) indicating whether such application is ready for 
     processing; and
       (II) if such application is not ready for processing, that 
     includes a comprehensive description of the information 
     needed for the agency to determine that the application is 
     ready for processing;

       (v) determine that such application for a Federal 
     authorization is ready for processing for purposes of clause 
     (iv) if such application is sufficiently complete for the 
     purposes of commencing consideration, regardless of whether 
     supplemental information is necessary to enable the agency to 
     complete the consideration required by law with respect to 
     such application; and
       (vi) not less often than once every 90 days, transmit to 
     the Commission a report describing the progress made in 
     considering such application for a Federal authorization.
       (3) Failure to meet deadline.--If a Federal or State 
     agency, including the Commission, fails to meet a deadline 
     for a Federal authorization set forth in the schedule 
     established by the Commission under section 15(c)(1) of the 
     Natural Gas Act, not later than 5 days after such deadline, 
     the head of the relevant Federal agency (including, in the 
     case of a failure by a State agency, the Federal agency 
     overseeing the delegated authority) shall notify Congress and 
     the Commission of such failure and set forth a recommended 
     implementation plan to ensure completion of the action to 
     which such deadline applied.
       (f) Consideration of Applications for Federal 
     Authorization.--
       (1) Issue identification and resolution.--
       (A) Identification.--Federal and State agencies that may 
     consider an aspect of an application for a Federal 
     authorization shall identify, as early as possible, any 
     issues of concern that may delay or prevent an agency from 
     working with the Commission to resolve such issues and 
     granting such authorization.
       (B) Issue resolution.--The Commission may forward any issue 
     of concern identified under subparagraph (A) to the heads of 
     the relevant agencies (including, in the case of an issue of 
     concern that is a failure by a State agency, the Federal 
     agency overseeing the delegated authority, if applicable) for 
     resolution.
       (2) Remote surveys.--If a Federal or State agency 
     considering an aspect of an application for a Federal 
     authorization requires the person applying for such 
     authorization to submit data, the agency shall consider any 
     such data gathered by aerial or other remote means that the 
     person submits. The agency may grant a conditional approval 
     for the Federal authorization based on data gathered by 
     aerial or remote means, conditioned on the verification of 
     such data by subsequent onsite inspection.
       (3) Application processing.--The Commission, and Federal 
     and State agencies, may allow a person applying for a Federal 
     authorization to fund a third-party contractor to assist in 
     reviewing the application for such authorization.
       (g) Accountability, Transparency, Efficiency.--For an 
     application for an authorization under section 3 of the 
     Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and 
     necessity under section 7 of such Act that requires multiple 
     Federal authorizations, the Commission, with input from any 
     Federal or State agency considering an aspect of the 
     application, shall track and make available to the public on 
     the Commission's website information related to the actions 
     required to complete the Federal authorizations. Such 
     information shall include the following:
       (1) The schedule established by the Commission under 
     section 15(c)(1) of the Natural Gas Act.
       (2) A list of all the actions required by each applicable 
     agency to complete permitting, reviews, and other actions 
     necessary to obtain a final decision on the application.
       (3) The expected completion date for each such action.
       (4) A point of contact at the agency responsible for each 
     such action.
       (5) In the event that an action is still pending as of the 
     expected date of completion, a brief explanation of the 
     reasons for the delay.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 115-235. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Tsongas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-235.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 12, after line 9, add the following:
       (h) Limitation on Application.--This section shall not 
     apply to any application for an authorization under section 3 
     of the Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience 
     and necessity under section 7 of such Act with respect to 
     which any part of a pipeline facility that is a subject of 
     the application is to be located on lands required under 
     Federal, State, or local law to be managed for purposes of 
     natural resource conservation or recreation.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 454, the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment protects a robust public 
review process for any proposed pipeline that seeks to cross protected 
conservation and recreation lands. The legislation before us today, 
with its short-circuited environmental reviews, puts treasured public 
lands at risk.
  My home State of Massachusetts, like many areas around the country, 
faces real energy challenges. We need careful and strategic long-term 
planning in order to lower energy prices and maintain reliability and 
resiliency. Over the past several years, we have seen proposals for new 
natural gas pipelines that would stretch hundreds of miles and cross 
many different communities.
  We must work to identify ways to lower energy prices for our homes 
and businesses, and increasing the supply of lower cost natural gas may 
be one way to achieve that objective while we transition to cleaner, 
more affordable, and sustainable alternatives. However, we cannot, in 
the long run, afford to be careless about our other environmental 
interests as we make that transition.
  These major infrastructure proposals in New England and elsewhere 
around the country deserve close and careful scrutiny given the 
potential environmental impacts and the costs borne by ratepayers.
  Regrettably, this legislation moves us in the wrong direction. This 
bill would force FERC to rush decisionmaking, including environmental 
reviews necessary to determine if pipelines will have negative impacts 
on State forests, parks, wildlife management areas, and wetlands, lands 
expressly put aside as a result of a public decision to protect them.
  Our Nation has a longstanding history of preserving natural habitats 
and protecting open spaces for the public benefit, and we have invested 
enormous public resources toward these goals. These lands and the 
decisions behind them deserve to be honored.
  In my district, we recently went through the public review process 
for a

[[Page H6008]]

proposed natural gas pipeline. Hundreds of my constituents expressed 
their concerns about the project. Construction of the pipeline could 
have jeopardized local wildlife and impacted both State and federally 
designated conservation land, as well as Massachusetts' scarce 
farmland.
  Thanks to a robust review process, the public had numerous 
opportunities to question the project and express these legitimate 
concerns, and their views were able to be fully considered.
  While I believe we must protect that review process for all 
infrastructure projects, my amendment focuses on pipelines that cross 
protected conservation and recreation lands.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and protect investments 
by Federal taxpayers, States, and local communities in preserving their 
natural and historic resources.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that all current reviews 
that we do now for pipeline siting, they all remain in place. None of 
it goes away. Those same reviews take place.
  The gentlewoman's amendment, in our view, is unnecessary because 
nothing in this legislation would limit environmental protections or 
affect laws that govern the multiple use of our public lands.
  Pipelines, we know, as I said earlier, are the safest, most efficient 
way to transport energy supplies. The overwhelming majority of 
Americans strongly support modernizing our infrastructure, including 
pipelines, to ensure stable, affordable supplies. And I would note, we 
have millions of miles of pipelines across the country.
  So what is the alternative if you don't have a pipeline?
  Well, it is going to be more expensive and, frankly, the accident 
record is not perfect either. It includes rail or truck, often at a 
higher cost, which then is passed along to those consumers, impacting 
the most vulnerable the most.
  Infrastructure modernization and job growth go hand in hand with 
environmental and natural resource protection. Investing in our 
infrastructure is a smart investment for energy security, job growth, 
manufacturing, and creating the jobs that we want.
  Maintaining and expanding these economywide benefits is dependent on 
a transparent and a predictable regulatory approval of infrastructure 
projects. That is what the underlying bill does.
  This amendment, however, we would view as a step backward. I would 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, first, that energy 
infrastructure is critical to our economy; yet we cannot simply give 
the fossil fuel industry carte blanche to build pipelines without 
robust public reviews.
  I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to co-lead this amendment with my 
colleagues, Ms. Tsongas and Mr. McGovern.
  FERC, as it is currently structured, is not adequately protecting our 
most valued public lands designed for recreation and conservation, and 
this bill will only make this particular mismanagement worse. We are 
witnessing this firsthand in my Virginia.
  At stake is one of our Nation's treasured landscapes, the Appalachian 
National Scenic Trail, the A.T., and the surrounding national parkland 
and national forestlands. The A.T. was congressionally dedicated as a 
national scenic trail nearly 50 years ago, and it is one of the most 
significant land features in the Eastern United States. It is famous 
around the world.
  Its cultural heritage, its recreational options, its natural 
resources all serve crucial roles in the lives and communities of the 
Appalachian region, but it is at risk.
  The proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline route impacts 19 prominent 
views over nearly 100 miles of the Appalachian Trail. Tinker Cliffs, 
the Dragon's Tooth, even the totally iconic McAfee Knob all will be 
corrupted by this pipeline.
  I am not anti-pipeline. I am not anti-energy. I am an avid 
Appalachian Trail hiker. I have crossed almost all of the 60 pipeline 
crossings that exist on the trail. But the Mountain Valley's proposal 
route doesn't take the least impactful route. It doesn't cross the 
trail. It runs alongside it for almost 100 miles.

                              {time}  1515

  You will be able to see the impact day after day after day. It 
doesn't sound like the developers thought about minimizing their impact 
on this important cultural icon.
  It has also become clear that the proposed route would require an 
amendment to the Jefferson National Forest management plan, which was 
carefully constructed and well balanced.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect 
one of America's most treasured natural places.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I again remind my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Lynch

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-235.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 12, after line 9, add the following:

     SEC. 3. PIPELINE SECURITY.

       In considering an application for an authorization under 
     section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public 
     convenience and necessity under section 7 of such Act, the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall consult with the 
     Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration 
     regarding the applicant's compliance with security guidance 
     and best practice recommendations of the Administration 
     regarding pipeline infrastructure security, pipeline 
     cybersecurity, pipeline personnel security, and other 
     pipeline security measures.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 454, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I would like to thank Chairman Upton and 
Ms. Castor, the ranking member from Florida, for their articulate 
debate this afternoon on this important issue.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member 
Slaughter, and all of the members of the Rules Committee for making 
this amendment in order.
  This commonsense amendment will simply ensure that the Transportation 
Security Administration, the Federal agency with the primary 
jurisdiction over pipeline security on behalf of the American people, 
will retain a meaningful seat at the table when it comes to 
determinations made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, 
on whether to approve a pipeline construction permit.
  In particular, this amendment provides that, in considering a 
pipeline permit application, FERC must simply consult with TSA 
administrators as to whether a pipeline developer is compliant with 
existing TSA guidelines and best practice recommendations governing 
pipeline security. That includes an examination of facility security, 
cybersecurity, and other critical measures that are designed to 
safeguard the American people against the threat of terrorists and 
cyber attacks perpetrated on the U.S. pipeline system.
  While H.R. 2910 seeks to expedite the FERC review process for 
pipeline construction projects in the name of efficiency, we also know 
that recent terrorist and cyber attacks launched against pipeline 
facilities nationwide

[[Page H6009]]

have more than demonstrated that we cannot place expediency above 
national security and public safety.
  In 2015, a domestic terrorist received a maximum 20-year sentence 
after pleading guilty to Federal charges relating to his use of a 
highly volatile explosive device to damage a natural pipeline in Texas. 
Four years earlier than that, a similar attack was perpetrated in 
Oklahoma by an individual armed with a homemade improvised explosive 
device.
  In addition, the 2017 series on ``Pipelines in Peril,'' published by 
Energy and Environment News, reported that advanced cyber threats 
targeting U.S. pipelines have only increased and evolved over the past 
5 years, following a so-called pipeline hacking spree undertaken by 
members of the Chinese military. The theft of sensitive data from at 
least 23 separate U.S. pipeline companies in 2011 and 2012 constitute 
the sort of cyber breach that the Congressional Research Service has 
described as allowing hackers the ability to ``disrupt pipeline service 
and cause spills, explosions, and fires all from remote locations.''
  I would also like to express my concern regarding an issue that was 
the subject of an amendment of mine which was not ruled in order, and 
that is the issuance of pipeline construction permits by FERC in areas 
where a project site and its surrounding community is already 
experiencing preexisting unsafe levels of air pollutants.
  In my own congressional district in Massachusetts, FERC recently 
approved a proposal for a natural gas compressor station in the 
beautiful town of Weymouth, Massachusetts, and as evidenced by the 
certificate of independent and quality testing conducted by Dr. Curt 
Nordgaard and other community stakeholders, the air quality in Weymouth 
is already at toxic levels of so-called criteria air pollutants such as 
benzene.
  My amendment would have suspended the certificate issued by FERC for 
the Weymouth compressor station and other projects that the commission 
approves for construction and communities that have unsafe air quality 
levels.
  In addition to my concerns around air quality, I have to highlight 
the public safety issues surrounding the route of a natural gas 
pipeline that FERC approved in West Roxbury, a local neighborhood in 
the heart of my district. The pipeline runs through a densely populated 
neighborhood. It runs right through an active blasting area in a quarry 
that is located next to a residential area, and I don't know how that 
happens if public safety and national security are considerations.
  Whether a pipeline is blown up because of stupidity because FERC has 
located it in a blasting zone or it is because of a nefarious attempt 
of outside actors, the bottom line is that FERC should sit down and 
talk with TSA when they are looking at these siting decisions. The 
bottom line is, what this amendment will accomplish, it will require 
that to happen, that consultation to happen between TSA and FERC.
  Mr. Chair, I ask Members to vote in support of this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out by saying that we 
are prepared to accept the amendment. I know that all of us here take 
pipeline safety very seriously, and certainly since my chairmanship of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, we put safety at the forefront of 
our efforts to modernize our pipeline infrastructure. We passed two 
major bills that President Obama signed, and I think there may have 
been maybe a single Member that opposed that legislation over the 
years, but we care a lot about that.
  In the last Congress, we passed the PIPES Act and the FAST Act. 
Again, major bipartisan initiatives that Mr. Pallone and I worked out 
that got to President Obama's desk. Each of these two bills took 
important steps to update our laws to protect against emerging physical 
attacks as well as cyber attacks, threats to the grid, in our energy 
delivery systems, including pipelines.
  We know that multiple Federal and State agencies have a role to play 
and an opportunity to lead with that expertise. While the Department of 
Energy is the lead sector-specific agency for cybersecurity and for the 
energy sector, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, PHMSA, is responsible for administrating minimum 
pipeline safety standards, and the TSA, the Transportation Security 
Administration, does monitor threats to our transportation sector. I 
think that is where the gentleman from Massachusetts is coming from 
with this amendment.

  The amendment, I have got to say, appears to be consistent with 
current law, while a rigid consultation requirement could end up 
resulting in delays if the TSA is not able to consult in a timely 
manner, but, again, the language is ``consult.'' I would hope that that 
would happen.
  The amendment also appears to address pipeline facilities, but it is 
not clear whether it includes LNG as an example. Given the overlapping 
nature of Federal and State jurisdiction over pipeline safety, we want 
to make sure that we are doing it right and that we have got all the 
tools in the toolbox to make sure that that happens and we don't wonder 
what would have happened without this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. We are ready to 
work with him, but certainly, at this point, ready to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. LYNCH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, first of all, I thank the gentleman very much 
for accepting the amendment. I agree, there may be some other areas 
that are not particularly addressed, such as the LNG situation. 
Obviously, we want to increase the level of safety with respect to LNG 
as well, but I understand those questions can be answered during our 
debate with the Senate as well and in conference.
  But the bottom line is I thank him for accepting the amendment.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding, I 
believe, that a GAO report has been requested by some of our friends on 
both sides of the aisle, and we welcome the completion of that report 
and are anxious to see the result.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Beyer

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-235.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 12, after line 9, add the following:
       (g) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements.--
       (1) In general.--In conducting a project-related NEPA 
     review, the Commission shall prepare a supplement to a draft 
     environmental impact statement or a final environmental 
     impact statement if--
       (A) the Commission makes a substantial change in the 
     proposed action that is relevant to environmental concerns; 
     or
       (B) there are significant new circumstances or information 
     relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the 
     application for authorization under section 3 of the Natural 
     Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and necessity 
     under section 7 of such Act with respect to which the 
     project-related NEPA review is being conducted, or its 
     impacts.
       (2) Mitigation plans.--In conducting a project-related NEPA 
     review, if a draft environmental impact statement does not 
     include information about mitigation plans for adverse 
     impacts that cannot reasonably be avoided, the Commission 
     shall prepare a supplement to the draft environmental impact 
     statement that includes such information.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 454, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor to come after this 
bipartisan discussion between Mr. Lynch and Mr. Upton. I hope a 
precedent has been set, Mr. Chairman.
  I offered this amendment to improve the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's public comment period and transparency process.

[[Page H6010]]

  This amendment would require FERC to issue a supplemental 
environmental impact statement if there is critical new information 
relevant to a pipeline proposal, and to require mitigation plans for 
adverse impacts if not already provided.
  The case of the Mountain Valley Pipeline demonstrated how the current 
FERC process has failed us and why this amendment is necessary.
  I recently wrote a letter to FERC on this very issue, asking that 
they initiate a supplemental environmental impact statement before 
moving forward with the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience 
and Necessity.
  Quite simply, the process was flawed.
  In response to a September 2016 draft environmental impact statement, 
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, had to present more information and an 
updated route for the pipeline proposal to FERC. Originally, Mr. 
Chairman, they offered 1,000 pages of updates for public comment, but 
then their updates extended beyond the public comment period, which 
ended in December 2016, and included thousands of additional pages of 
crucially important information--20,000 pages of crucially important 
information. Think about how long it would take to read 20,000 pages.
  What is most egregious is that, because this document dump came after 
the public comment period had ended, affected stakeholders weren't able 
to offer their comments for FERC consideration. They had already closed 
the public comment period, but the pipeline company was still 
submitting thousands of pages.
  Even more ridiculous, the developers have continued to add more 
documents, even after FERC issued the final environmental impact 
statement. So apparently it wasn't final in the eyes of the developers.
  For many, FERC's recent decision to issue this final statement for 
the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline is patently alarming.
  The appropriate course would be to issue a supplemental environmental 
impact statement and allow for public comment on those 20,000 pages.
  Let's fix this woefully incompetent process.
  Local communities affected most by proposed energy infrastructure 
projects naturally have concerns regarding the projects near them.
  On my extensive visits to southwest Virginia last summer, there were 
two kinds of signs everywhere, Mr. Chairman. There were ``Make America 
Great Again, Donald Trump for President,'' and there were ``No Mountain 
Valley Pipeline.''
  They deserve the opportunity to express their views fully and to 
participate in a robust public engagement process, especially for 
projects which will use eminent domain to seize their private land from 
homeowners and farmers.
  If there are major changes offered after the public comment period is 
open, let's make sure the public has the ability to weigh in with their 
proposals.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, FERC is the lead agency for siting 
interstate natural gas pipelines. We all know that. But there are a 
number of other Federal and State agencies that also have to issue 
associated permits for large-scale projects.

                              {time}  1530

  Through the FERC prefile process, sponsors engage with landowners, 
local communities, and government agencies to educate stakeholders and 
collect the information about the best location for siting that 
pipeline.
  The underlying bill, H.R. 2910, brings much-needed certainty and 
transparency to the process by encouraging the stakeholders to 
participate in good faith early in the process. Unfortunately, this 
amendment, the way that we read it, would create more uncertainty and 
create more opportunities for delays.
  The overwhelming majority of Americans strongly support expanding the 
infrastructure. Creating the jobs, the pipelines, ensures stable and 
affordable supplies. Flexibility, affordable, and reliable energy is 
important for American families and businesses to thrive.
  I would note, at this point we still don't have a quorum with FERC, 
and we want that to change. That will be an issue that goes through the 
confirmation process in the Senate, but consumers really only benefit 
from domestic energy if we can get it to them.
  Investing in infrastructure is a smart investment, so I would urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I very much agree with the lead sponsor of the bill, Mr. Upton, that 
we don't want any more uncertainty, and we certainly don't want more 
delays.
  In fact, this amendment was originally in a bipartisan bill sponsored 
by my Republican friend from Virginia, Morgan Griffith. I literally 
lifted it word for word.
  What we want to do is make sure that all of the information is on the 
table at the beginning. It is just not fair to the people who are 
affected by a pipeline that an environmental impact statement is issued 
and they wouldn't have a chance to comment on it.
  So let's make sure that the developers are putting all of the 
information out first. And if they put it out and the public comment 
period closes and then they give you the rest of the information, then, 
clearly, FERC has made the decision without all that, and the public 
has been cheated out of the ability to comment on what is going to 
happen to their land and to their homes. It is just not fair.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this good, bipartisan amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Flores) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2910) to 
provide for Federal and State agency coordination in the approval of 
certain authorizations under the Natural Gas Act, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________