[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H6010-H6023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            PROMOTING CROSS-BORDER ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include 
extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2883.
  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 H.R. 2883 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. 
2883.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1534


                     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. 2883) to establish a more uniform, transparent, and modern 
process to authorize the construction, connection, operation, and 
maintenance of international border-crossing facilities for the import 
and export of oil and natural gas and the transmission of electricity, 
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.

[[Page H6011]]

  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 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2883, the 
Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act.
  This legislation continues the great tradition of bipartisan 
legislation coming out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Our 
focus has been and will continue to be building America's 
infrastructure, creating jobs, and strengthening our economy.
  I want to congratulate my colleagues and sponsors of this bill, 
particularly Mr. Mullin and Mr. Gene Green, Republican and Democrat, 
for their work on this legislation.
  H.R. 2883 would establish coordinated procedures to authorize the 
construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of international 
border-crossing facilities for the import and export of oil and natural 
gas, and the transmission of electricity. That is what the bill does.
  The legislation would replace the requirements established under 
executive order that persons obtain a Presidential permit before 
constructing an oil and gas pipeline or electric transmission facility 
that crosses the border between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.
  To date, Congress has not asserted its authority to establish 
proceedings for permitting cross-border energy infrastructure. In the 
absence of a statutorily directed process, agencies have made decisions 
regarding cross-border energy infrastructure within the context of 
their interpretation of a series of executive orders dating back to the 
1950s.
  Recent proposals, most notably the Keystone XL pipeline, have faced 
significant and unnecessary delays as a result of political 
interference in what should have been a straightforward review. There 
is bipartisan agreement that we should have a free flow of energy in 
North America.
  This bill is going to level the playing field for energy 
infrastructure projects located at the international border. The 
legislation takes important steps to bring fairness to the process and 
provide certainty to countries whom we already have a free trade 
agreement with and businesses that want to create jobs in the U.S. It 
is going to strengthen our effort to improve and update NAFTA and 
enhance our trilateral trading relationships.
  It is time Congress exercised its constitutional authority to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations and replace the Presidential 
permit requirement with a more transparent, efficient, and effective 
review process.
  Establishing the cross-border permitting process in law would lead to 
more objective and timely decisions, which, in turn, is going to create 
the jobs, strengthen our Nation's energy security, and support 
affordable and reliable energy for all Americans.
  Again, I want to thank my colleagues for their efforts on this 
important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy 
Infrastructure Act. My Republican colleagues argue that we need more 
bills like H.R. 2883 to extract and transport more oil and gas as 
quickly as possible. But building a modern energy infrastructure for 
the 21st century requires a lot more than drilling wells, laying more 
pipelines, filling more railcars with crude oil, and putting more 
tanker trucks on our highways.

  A modern, American, 21st century energy infrastructure plan must 
address the threat of climate change. This is the biggest energy 
challenge that we face as a country. We cannot have a meaningful 
conversation about America's energy infrastructure without also having 
a conversation about the changing climate and the huge costs heaped on 
hardworking American families and businesses because of the change in 
climate.
  I am proud to represent the State of Florida, but here is what my 
neighbors are experiencing now: higher AC bills, more extreme weather 
events, heat waves, higher cost for flood insurance and property 
insurance, and property taxes that are having to go now to repair our 
water and wastewater infrastructure on the coast.
  We have a rapidly diminishing window to act to reduce our carbon 
pollution before the catastrophic impacts of climate change are 
irreversible. The energy infrastructure decisions that we make today 
will have a real impact on whether we can mitigate climate change in 
the future. We need to understand this risk before we lock in 
infrastructure that will produce carbon pollution for decades to come.
  This bill's supporters don't like to be reminded of the daunting 
challenges of the changing climate. That is reflected in our discussion 
today, and, frankly, it is reflected in the glaring inaction of this 
Republican Congress to address climate change.
  If enacted into law, H.R. 2883 would move us backwards in our fight 
for the clean energy economy and the jobs of the future. H.R. 2883 
would rubber-stamp permits for pipelines to carry oil, natural gas, 
even tar sands crude into the United States.
  Tar sands crude is the dirtiest fuel on the planet from a climate 
perspective, and this bill creates a permitting process for cross-
border pipelines that make it difficult, if not impossible, for the 
Federal Government to say no to any of these projects.
  This bill asserts that every cross-border energy project is always in 
the public interest. It is up to a project's opponent to try to prove 
otherwise. The bill even allows the oil industry to make major 
modifications to its pipelines without getting any approval at all. 
That means, if a company wants to increase its pipeline capacity or 
reverse an existing pipeline to carry more oil, natural gas, or tar 
sands crude into the United States, the company can do just that, no 
questions asked.
  Building new pipelines or expanding existing ones could have a 
profound environmental impact, but the bill allows for no meaningful 
environmental review for a cross-border pipeline. The bill says the 
Federal Government can only examine the cross-border segment of the 
project.
  Who thought that up? That is very creative.
  It is almost hard to believe that this is what the bill does, but it 
is true. For a pipeline spanning hundreds of miles, the environmental 
review will focus on only that tiny part that crosses the U.S. border. 
That is irresponsible. That would eliminate the possibility of any 
meaningful examination of the carbon pollution impacts of these 
pipelines.
  We should be examining the carbon impact of every pipeline before we 
approve it. Many are very important. But to do so without important 
environmental reviews in this day and age is frightening.
  The future will belong to the country that builds an energy 
infrastructure to support a cleaner, lower carbon economy, and it is 
our responsibility to lead the country in the clean energy future with 
all of the jobs, consumer savings, and economic growth that would be 
provided.
  This bill also provides more proof of what is plain: In this 
Republican-led Congress, it is, unfortunately, likely to go down in 
history as having failed to meet one of its greatest responsibilities 
of this time--the challenge of the changing climate. Our children and 
grandchildren will be poorer for it, and they will ask us, and 
especially my Republican colleagues: Why didn't you act when you had 
the chance?
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague on 
the Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding me the time.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border 
Energy Infrastructure Act.
  The Presidential permitting process dates back through many 
administrations, beginning with the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. 
The executive branch has taken the necessary steps to ensure our cross-
border infrastructure with Canada and Mexico was constructed.
  These past administrations, and even the current administration, were

[[Page H6012]]

forced to issue executive orders because Congress failed to act. 
Congress has the duty to regulate the commerce of the United States, 
and cross-border energy infrastructure projects fall well within that 
space.
  Opponents of this bill argue the executive permitting process has 
worked well in the past. It is true that in the past the process has 
been proven effective. Unfortunately, cross-border decisions have now 
fallen victim to election year-cycle politics.
  We cannot build infrastructure in this country or on the continent 
based on who sits in the White House, whether they be Democrat or 
Republican. It is Congress' responsibility to create regulatory rules 
by which infrastructure is constructed.

                              {time}  1545

  This bill will create a regulatory process at the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, the Department of State, and the Department of 
Energy to permit cross-border infrastructure. It is not different than 
building roads, bridges, or railways. The Department of Transportation 
coordinates with the Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure 
projects are completed and the environment is protected. We will do the 
same thing for pipes and wires. We need to build electric transmission 
lines and pipelines to move resources from where they are to where they 
are needed.
  The bill complies with the National Environmental Policy Act and 
requires a full environmental review of any cross-border facility 
including analysis of climate change impacts. More so, the entire 
length of the pipeline or electric transmission line will be reviewed 
for environmental impacts not just for the cross-border pipeline.
  While there is some confusion on this issue, opponents of the bill 
talk about how we will gut the NEPA process--the National Environmental 
Policy Act. This is simply not the case. My colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Veasey) will offer a bipartisan amendment to the bill clarifying that 
the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act review shall not be 
limited in any way by this act.
  The bill is about the future and how to meet energy demands for the 
21st century. We should embrace the changes taking place in North 
America and harmonize our policies with those of our neighbors both to 
the north with Canada and to the south with Mexico, and this bill, if 
it becomes law, will do that.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here talking about how to take politics out of 
our infrastructure. As we just heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene 
Green), this is a bipartisan bill. We hear a lot of stuff about it 
damaging the environment; it doesn't. We are talking about crossing a 
border and taking a situation that was held up for 8 years with the 
Keystone pipeline and making sure it has the transparent and consistent 
approach on how we regulate these permits.
  The United States is a powerhouse around the world. We want to keep 
it that way. We want our country to compete freely in the global market 
and continue to positively benefit our economy. My bill, H.R. 2883, the 
Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act, supports the 
construction of energy infrastructure across our North America borders.
  Simply put, this bill takes the politics out of energy infrastructure 
projects. The construction of these border-crossing facilities should 
be done effectively and efficiently without getting caught up in our 
Nation's politics. These facilities are used for importing and 
exporting oil, natural gas, and electricity that enhance the trade of 
our energy products that benefit our economy.
  This bipartisan piece of legislation allows a transparent and 
efficient process to be followed the same way every time and for every 
project. Most importantly, it provides regulatory certainty to those 
charged with carrying out these projects. I want to thank this House 
for allowing such bills to come forth and the opportunity to allow this 
bill to be heard.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, lest anyone be left with the 
impression that there is a problem with cross-border pipeline 
approvals, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, from a December 
2016 report, says that over the last 5 years, natural gas pipeline 
capacity between the U.S. and Mexico has grown substantially and is 
projected to double through 2018.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2883, 
the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act.
  This bill would enact crucial reforms allowing efficient trade of 
energy products with our North American friends and allies. 
Unfortunately, the existing process has politicized vital cross-border 
energy infrastructure.
  H.R. 2883 offers a narrowly crafted, sensible solution to this 
problem. The bill will create a process at the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, State Department, and the Department of Energy 
to permit cross-border infrastructure projects.
  This new procedure will bring regulatory certainty while ensuring 
these projects are environmentally sound and within public interest. 
These projects create jobs in my district in south Texas and across the 
country.
  I congratulate and thank Mr. Green and Mr. Mullin for this important 
piece of legislation. Energy security, targeted regulatory reforms, and 
smart infrastructure investments are things we can all support, and we 
should all support.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this sensible bipartisan 
legislation.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, as you have heard, two of my colleagues 
from Texas have just come out, obviously, in support of this bill. 
There is not a lot that Texas and Oklahoma agree on, especially this 
time of the year when we enter football season. Other than that, we 
agree that Oklahoma is better at football than Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MULLIN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman 
Mullin for partnering together.
  Like he said, Texas and Oklahoma have a lot of things in common. We 
both are energy States. But believe me, the Red River does divide us on 
football.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the 
International Union of Operating Engineers, a letter from Edison 
Electric Institute, a letter from the IOSA, and a letter from the 
Plains All American Pipeline all in support of this bill.

         International Union of Operating Engineers, Affiliated 
           with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of 
           Industrial Organizations,
                                                    July 18, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The International 
     Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) supports H.R. 2883, the 
     Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act, legislation that 
     provides clear congressional authority to the process of 
     evaluating transnational pipeline projects. Further, the IUOE 
     endorses H.R. 2910, a bill Promoting Inter-Agency 
     Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act.
       We respectfully request that you support both of these 
     pieces of legislation when they come to the floor of the 
     House of Representatives this week.
       The International Union of Operating Engineers represents 
     400,000 working men and women in the United States and 
     Canada, thousands of whom build and maintain the nation's 
     energy infrastructure. We are one of four unions that are 
     signatory to the National Pipeline Agreement. Operating 
     Engineers perform millions of hours of work on pipeline 
     projects around the United States every year; millions of 
     additional hours were performed on pipeline work by IUOE 
     members in Canada.
       North America's energy network is inextricably linked. 
     Eliminating legal and regulatory uncertainty regarding the 
     permitting of cross-border energy facilities will promote 
     investment and job creation in North America, and that is why 
     the IUOE supports H.R. 2883. Removing these regulatory 
     barriers will ultimately increase the interconnection of the 
     North American energy network and at the same time improve 
     reliability, security, and affordability.
       Today, the process for permitting this energy 
     infrastructure lives only through Executive Order. North 
     America's energy future is simply too important to leave to 
     the ambiguity and imprecision of administrative fiat.

[[Page H6013]]

     Granting clear legislative authority and delegating 
     responsibility to an agency experienced with the National 
     Environmental Policy Act and permitting processes, the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), rather than the 
     Department of State, will increase the competency and 
     capacity of the review of cross-border energy projects. It is 
     a clear improvement in the administration of major project 
     permitting.
       Updating the American domestic permitting and regulatory 
     framework for natural-gas pipelines is also essential. 
     Several steps are necessary in this regard, and H.R. 2910 is 
     one of them. 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 maximize 
     coordination in the permitting process.
       H.R. 2910 requires reporting and transparency in the review 
     of major projects. These requirements raise the bar for 
     regulators and provides the public with a better 
     understanding of the environmental impacts that are receiving 
     particular rigor and examination--or perhaps needlessly 
     delaying the overall project-review timeline. Democrats and 
     Republicans supported similar reporting and transparency in 
     the FAST Act. Enactment of H.R. 2910 is a necessary step to 
     help place the booming energy sector on a sound footing for 
     the future.
       The International Union of Operating Engineers supports 
     both H.R. 2883 and H.R. 2910 and respectfully requests that 
     you support the legislation this week when it comes before 
     you.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                James T. Callahan,
     General President.
                                  ____



                                    Edison Electric Institute,

                                                    July 18, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: The Edison 
     Electric Institute supports H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-
     Border Energy Infrastructure Act, which is scheduled for 
     floor action this week.
       Timely decisions for the siting and permitting of energy 
     infrastructure are essential to building the smarter and more 
     resilient infrastructure that electric companies need to 
     deliver reliable, affordable, safe, and increasingly clean 
     energy to Americans. H.R. 2883 would replace the need for a 
     presidential permit for transmission lines or pipelines that 
     cross a U.S. border with a certificate of crossing to be 
     approved by the Department of Energy for electric 
     transmission facilities, or the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission for oil or natural gas pipelines. The National 
     Environmental Policy Act and other federal laws that apply to 
     the project would not be affected.
       H.R. 2883 would improve the process for decisions on cross-
     border projects while protecting the public's interest in 
     such projects. We urge the House to pass H.R. 2883.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Thomas R. Kuhn,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                         IOSA,

                                                    June 19, 2017.
     Rep. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Energy Subcommittee,
     Washington, DC.
     Rep. Bobby Rush,
     Ranking Member,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Rush: The In Situ 
     Oil Sands Alliance (IOSA) offers strong support for the 
     Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act reintroduced 
     by Congressman Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) and Congressman Gene 
     Green (D-TX) and urges you to back its timely passage. IOSA 
     is an alliance of Canadian oil sands developers dedicated to 
     the responsible development of the resource using drilling 
     technologies. We support this legislation as it establishes 
     greater predictability in the process of developing 
     additional energy transportation links between our two 
     countries which will serve a critical role in continuing 
     towards North American energy independence and reducing 
     dependence on unstable overseas suppliers. These links will 
     help to ensure that growing Canadian oil sands production 
     remains a secure, affordable, environmentally responsible and 
     economically beneficial source of supply for the United 
     States.
       Historically, Canada and the United States have enjoyed a 
     mutually beneficial energy trade relationship. The Canadian 
     oil sands provide substantial economic benefits to U.S.--for 
     every two oil sands jobs created in Canada, one job is 
     created in the U.S. Nearly 1,600 U.S. companies directly 
     supply the oil sands, representing $1.9 billion in sales in 
     2014 and 2015. Canada is the United States' most trusted 
     trading partner, providing 41% of U.S. oil imports in 2016.
       Canada's oil sands represent the third largest reserves in 
     the world and are well-positioned to provide a secure and 
     affordable supply for American refining and consumption for 
     years to come. However, the benefits accruing to the United 
     States from Canadian oil sands development depend on 
     sufficient energy transportation infrastructure capacity. The 
     Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act proposes 
     four key modernizations of the cross-border infrastructure 
     regulatory process that can ensure the timely development of 
     projects:
       Introduction of a Definitive Decision Timeline: Introducing 
     timing and development certainty currently absent from the 
     approval process, the Act requires a decision no later than 
     120 days after any applicable environmental review is 
     complete.
       Determination of National Interest: Lead agencies would be 
     able to make national interest determination for cross border 
     energy infrastructure projects but the assumption would be 
     that cross border energy projects are in the national 
     interest unless determined otherwise by that lead agency.
       Agency Decision-Making: By removing the requirement for a 
     Presidential permit, the relevant official or agency would 
     serve as final authority, further streamlining the process 
     while assuring that the lead agency is the Federal agency 
     with relevant subject-matter expertise. The bill would 
     designate FERC as the responsible official for oil and gas 
     pipelines and the Secretary of Energy for electric 
     transmission lines. These agencies already have 
     responsibility for evaluating aspects affecting the national 
     interest with respect to these types of projects. The only 
     change from current practice is to substitute FERC for the 
     Secretary of State as lead with respect to oil pipelines. 
     This change is appropriate given the level of expertise at 
     FERC for review and approval of liquid pipeline projects, 
     including rate setting and ensuring equal access.
       Streamlining of the approval process: New certificates of 
     crossings and Presidential permits would not be required for 
     modifications to existing border-crossing projects that are 
     operating or for which approvals have previously been issued.
       The Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act will 
     serve to enhance the existing mutually beneficial Canada-U.S. 
     energy partnership. Thank you for your consideration of and 
     support for the Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Patricia Nelson,
     Vice Chair, In Situ Oil Sands Alliance.
                                  ____

                                               PLAINS ALL AMERICAN


                                                PIPELINE, L.P.

                                                    July 18, 2017.
     Hon. Markwayne Mullin,
     Member of Congress,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Gene Green,
     Member of Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Mullin and Congressman Green: I am writing 
     on behalf of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. in support of 
     your legislation, H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border 
     Energy Infrastructure Act.
       This legislation will provide the needed reform of the 
     existing Presidential Permit process for liquid pipeline 
     projects crossing international borders. As you know, there 
     is no authorizing statute from the Congress laying out the 
     requirements for this program. There is no guidance in the 
     law on what should be reviewed, and what can be exempted 
     because it is too small to make a difference. There are no 
     laws on what criteria to use, what to examine, or a time 
     certain for completing a review. The unfortunate result of 
     the lack of clear guidance is uncertainty and delay. In fact, 
     the sum total of State Department rules and procedures for 
     this process is one single page, so almost all applications 
     can be dealt with subjectively, which results in a lack of 
     certainty for our business.
       Plains All American experienced this uncertainty first hand 
     when we purchased seven pipelines crossing the U.S.-Canadian 
     border. The guidelines used by the State Department triggered 
     our need to apply for a new presidential permit in 2012. 
     These pipelines already had an ownership ``name change'' 
     permit application that remained pending from their previous 
     change of ownership in 2007. Plains applications for ``name 
     change'' permits remained pending until 2016. So, for 4 
     years, the State Department had been considering whether to 
     issue a presidential permit for something almost as simple as 
     a name change at the top of the permit. There were no 
     operational changes of the pipelines, no change in materials 
     or any physical or environmental impacts.
       Hopefully, having this process come under the jurisdiction 
     of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will provide an 
     objective standard with set timelines that will provide 
     greater certainty.
       Thank you for your work,
           Best,
     Harry N. Pefanis,
       President & COO,
       Plains All American Pipeline.

  Mr. MULLIN. Once again, I understand that there is opposition to the 
bill because of a fear. But the true fear is: Are we willing to hold up 
the infrastructure needs of this country for political gain? For the 
years that we had from the previous administration, that is exactly 
what happened. It was political.

[[Page H6014]]

  What we are trying to do when we take it out of the State 
Department's hands and put it with FERC is put it with a bipartisan 
oversight agency that takes an approach to looking at the 
infrastructure needs that this country has and saying: Is this in the 
country's best interest?
  They have been doing it, and they do it well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters from a number of 
environmental and other organizations in opposition to the bill.
  They write, in part: ``On behalf of the undersigned organizations and 
our millions of members and supporters across the country, we write 
today to express our strong opposition to H.R. 2883, the `Promoting 
Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act.' This bill represents a fourth 
irresponsible attempt to pass the previously titled `North American 
Energy Infrastructure Act' in as many years. For the reasons below, we 
are opposed to the passage of this legislation and its attempt to ram 
through permits for new cross-border oil and gas pipelines and electric 
transmission lines without meaningful environmental review or public 
participation.''

                                                    June 26, 2017.
     Re Please Oppose H.R. 2883, the ``Promoting Cross-Border 
         Energy Infrastructure Act''.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned 
     organizations and our millions of members and supporters 
     across the country, we write today to express our strong 
     opposition to H.R. 2883, the ``Promoting Cross-Border Energy 
     Infrastructure Act.'' This bill represents a fourth 
     irresponsible attempt to pass the previously titled ``North 
     American Energy Infrastructure Act'' in as many years. For 
     the reasons below, we are opposed to the passage of this 
     legislation and its attempt to ram through permits for new 
     cross-border oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission 
     lines without meaningful environmental review or public 
     participation.
       Our reasons for opposing H.R. 2883 are as follows:
       It is unnecessary and eliminates longstanding procedure. 
     Executive Order 13337 established a longstanding process that 
     has been used by both Republican and Democratic 
     administrations for decades to ensure that energy 
     transmission projects crossing our international borders from 
     Canada and Mexico are in the national interest.
       It eliminates critical environmental and economic analysis. 
     H.R. 2883 eliminates the current requirement that proposed 
     oil and natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines 
     that cross the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada obtain a 
     presidential permit, after an environmental review and 
     determination that the project is in the national interest.
       It irresponsibly narrows the scope of environmental review. 
     HR 2883 replaces existing processes with one that limits 
     environmental review to a narrow portion of the project, 
     exempts certain types of projects from any permit 
     requirement, and shifts the burden of proof to make it 
     difficult to not approve a project.
       It undermines the National Environmental Policy Act. The 
     bill effectively exempts cross-border projects from 
     meaningful environmental review under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by dramatically narrowing the 
     focus of that review. Under the bill, the permit requirement 
     and NEPA review apply only to the cross-border segment of the 
     project. Trans-boundary pipelines and transmission lines are 
     multi-billion dollar infrastructure investments that stretch 
     hundreds of miles, last for decades, and pose environmental 
     risks well beyond their border crossings. However, contrary 
     to NEPA, the bill precludes review of the project's full 
     impacts, such as oil spills and the consequences for 
     landowners, public safety, drinking water, climate change, 
     and wildlife.
       It eliminates the need to justify projects as in the 
     national interest. The bill eliminates the requirement that 
     to issue a permit, the federal permitting agency must find 
     the project to be in the national interest. Instead, the bill 
     requires an agency to approve the project, unless it finds 
     that the narrow segment that crosses the border ``is not in 
     the public interest of the United States.'' By shifting the 
     burden of proof to require a showing that the project is 
     contrary to the public interest and sharply narrowing the 
     focus of that inquiry, this provision makes it extremely 
     difficult for an agency to ever deny a permit, and it largely 
     eliminates the ability to approve a permit subject to 
     protective conditions.
       Large, complicated, risky projects like oil and gas 
     pipelines and electric transmission facilities are precisely 
     the types of activities that ought to be well-planned and 
     reviewed before they are built. Failure to do so not only 
     results in threats to public safety, but can also harm our 
     economy and environment.
       Instead of improving responsible siting, construction, and 
     operation of oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission 
     facilities, this bill goes in the opposite direction by 
     forcing these projects through no matter what the costs may 
     be. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose this bill.
           Sincerely,
         350.org; Bold Alliance; Clean Water Action; Defenders of 
           Wildlife; Greenpeace USA; Indigenous Environmental 
           Network; League of Conservation Voters; Natural 
           Resources Defense Council; Oil Change International; 
           Power Shift Network; Seeding Sovereignty; Sierra Club.
                                  ____

                                                    July 18, 2017.
     Re Oppose H.R. 2910 and H.R. 2883, Dangerous Handouts to the 
         Oil and Gas Industry.
       Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters 
     (LCV) works to turn environmental values into national 
     priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National 
     Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of 
     members of Congress on environmental legislation. The 
     Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters 
     nationwide, and the media.
       LCV urges you to vote NO on H.R. 2910, the Promoting 
     Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines 
     Act, and H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy 
     Infrastructure Act.
       H.R. 2910 sacrifices public input and thorough 
     environmental review in favor of giving the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (FERC) more power to fast-track 
     approval of interstate natural gas pipelines. FERC has no 
     accountability to the public or the environment, yet this 
     bill would allow it to limit the participation and input of 
     other state and federal agencies with relevant expertise in 
     reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     (NEPA). Additionally, H.R. 2910 would allow FERC to establish 
     the scope of the environmental review and conditionally 
     approve projects with incomplete environmental impact 
     analysis, which could result in irreversible harm to our 
     environment and public health. Given FERC's history of rash 
     approval of pipelines, H.R. 2910 is unnecessary, dangerous, 
     and nothing more than a handout to the oil and gas industry 
     at the expense of the health and safety of our communities.
       H.R. 2883 would greenlight permitting of new, potentially 
     harmful cross-border oil and gas pipelines and electric 
     transmission lines without meaningful and thorough review and 
     oversight. It eliminates many important longstanding 
     procedures, undermining critical environmental and economic 
     review by abolishing the requirement that a project obtain a 
     presidential permit and be affirmatively determined to be in 
     the public interest. H.R. 2883 also narrows the scope of 
     environmental review under NEPA, exempting certain projects 
     altogether and severely limiting the review of these massive, 
     expensive, long-lasting infrastructure projects to only the 
     section that crosses the border, ignoring the potential 
     damaging impacts from the project as a whole. By only 
     reviewing a small portion of these projects and essentially 
     erasing the national interest requirement, this bill would 
     make it almost impossible for an agency to ever deny a permit 
     and could result in irreversible damage to our health, public 
     safety, climate, environment, and economy.
       Again, we urge you to REJECT H.R. 2910 and H.R. 2883, and 
     will consider including votes on these bills in the 2017 
     Scorecard.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gene Karpinski,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                    July 18, 2017.
     Re Please Oppose H.R. 2883, the ``Promoting Cross-Border 
         Energy Infrastructure Act''.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned 
     organizations and our millions of members and supporters 
     across the country, we write today to express our strong 
     opposition to H.R. 2883, the ``Promoting Cross-Border Energy 
     Infrastructure Act.'' This bill represents a fourth 
     irresponsible attempt to pass the previously titled ``North 
     American Energy Infrastructure Act'' in as many years. We are 
     opposed to the passage of this legislation and its attempt to 
     ram through permits for new cross-border oil and gas 
     pipelines and electric transmission lines without meaningful 
     environmental review or public participation.
       Our reasons for opposing H.R. 2883 are as follows:
       It is unnecessary and eliminates longstanding procedure. 
     Executive Order 13337 established a longstanding process that 
     has been used by both Republican and Democratic 
     administrations for decades to ensure that energy 
     transmission projects crossing our international borders from 
     Canada and Mexico are in the national interest.
       It eliminates critical environmental and economic analysis. 
     H.R. 2883 eliminates the current requirement that proposed 
     oil and natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines 
     that cross the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada obtain a 
     presidential permit, after an environmental review and 
     determination that the project is in the national interest.
       It irresponsibly narrows the scope of environmental review. 
     H.R. 2883 replaces existing processes with one that limits 
     environmental review to a narrow portion of the project, 
     exempts certain types of projects from any permit 
     requirement, and shifts the burden of proof to make it 
     difficult to not approve a project.

[[Page H6015]]

       It undermines the National Environmental Policy Act. The 
     bill effectively exempts cross-border projects from 
     meaningful environmental review under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by dramatically narrowing the 
     focus of that review. Under the bill, the permit requirement 
     and NEPA review apply only to the cross-border segment of the 
     project. Trans-boundary pipelines and transmission lines are 
     multi-billion dollar infrastructure investments that stretch 
     hundreds of miles, last for decades, and pose environmental 
     risks well beyond their border crossings. However, contrary 
     to NEPA, the bill precludes review of the project's full 
     impacts, such as oil spills and the consequences for 
     landowners, public safety, drinking water, climate change, 
     and wildlife.
       It eliminates the need to justify projects as in the 
     national interest. The bill eliminates the requirement that 
     to issue a permit, the federal permitting agency must find 
     the project to be in the national interest. Instead, the bill 
     requires an agency to approve the project, unless it finds 
     that the narrow segment that crosses the border ``is not in 
     the public interest of the United States.'' By shifting the 
     burden of proof to require a showing that the project is 
     contrary to the public interest and sharply narrowing the 
     focus of that inquiry, this provision makes it extremely 
     difficult for an agency to ever deny a permit, and it largely 
     eliminates the ability to approve a permit subject to 
     protective conditions.
       Large, complicated, risky projects like oil and gas 
     pipelines and electric transmission facilities are precisely 
     the types of activities that ought to be well-planned and 
     reviewed before they are built. Failure to do so not only 
     results in threats to public safety, but can also harm our 
     economy and environment.
       Instead of improving responsible siting, construction, and 
     operation of oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission 
     facilities, this bill goes in the opposite direction by 
     forcing these projects through no matter what the costs may 
     be. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose this bill.
           Sincerely,
         350.org; Bold Alliance; Center for Biological Diversity; 
           Clean Water Action; Defenders of Wildlife; 
           Earthjustice; Environment America; Greenpeace USA; 
           Indigenous Environmental Network; League of 
           Conservation Voters; Natural Resources Defense Council; 
           Oil Change International; Power Shift Network; Public 
           Citizen; Seeding Sovereignty; Sierra Club.

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2883 eliminates the current 
requirement that proposed oil and natural gas pipelines and electric 
transmission lines that cross the U.S. border obtain a Presidential 
permit. That only happens after an environmental review and a 
determination that the project is in the national interest. I know this 
might be tempting to some of my colleagues, but I encourage you to have 
a closer look at what this bill really does.
  The bill replaces this process with a new process that limits 
environmental review to a narrow portion of the project, just the 
portion that crosses the border. It exempts certain types of projects 
from any permit requirement and shifts the burden of proof to make it 
difficult to disapprove a project.
  The bill also allows a project that is rejected under current law to 
reapply under the new, weaker process and exempts all modifications to 
existing cross-border projects from any requirement for Federal review 
or approval.
  In essence, it grants a get-out-of-jail-free card, or, actually, I 
guess it is more akin to whatever you roll, you get to pass go, and you 
get to collect your $200. That is not okay for some international oil 
pipelines, natural gas pipelines, and electric transmission lines. 
These are major infrastructure projects, and we have got to maintain 
the ability to have a meaningful review; otherwise, we are going to 
suffer significant incidents, accidents, fatalities, and more.
  So let me close my remarks and my portion of the debate here today. I 
have enjoyed this debate, but I want to highlight again that the 
Congress is really missing an opportunity to address one of the most 
significant challenges that we face, and that is the challenge of 
climate change.
  What is particularly troubling about this bill, as well, is it keeps 
the public in the dark. Think about it. If you live near a major 
international pipeline project, shouldn't you have the right to 
participate and understand what such project will allow in your 
backyard?
  The bill would allow large and long-lived cross-border energy 
projects to be approved with no understanding or consideration of their 
environmental impact or to be exempted from any permitting requirement 
at all. The bill assumes that these projects are always in the public 
interest regardless of the merits. It is an unjustifiable giveaway. It 
elevates corporate profits over the public interest, and it is wrong.
  The public, including communities and landowners directly affected by 
the projects, would have little or no information and no opportunity to 
object or request mitigating action except to the extent provided under 
limited State laws.
  For all of these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the bills we are considering today which would short-
circuit the approval process of fossil fuel projects at the expense of 
our environment and private property owners.
  In my home State of New Hampshire, Granite Staters are all too 
familiar with the problems of siting natural gas projects and the 
disruption this can cause for small rural towns.
  In 2015, energy giant Kinder Morgan proposed a large natural gas 
pipeline project that would have cut through 17 New Hampshire towns in 
my district which are home to numerous environmentally sensitive areas 
that would have been negatively impacted by this project.
  Throughout the review process, I heard from thousands of my 
constituents whose concerns were not being heard by the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission.
  Thanks to the commitment and tireless efforts of these advocates, 
Kinder Morgan eventually pulled the plug on the project, but there is 
so much more that needs to be done to give average citizens a seat at 
the table during FERC's review process.
  The bills we are considering today would do nothing to elevate the 
concerns of impacted communities during the FERC proceedings, and these 
bills aim to jam through risky pipeline projects while constraining 
other agencies from concluding important environmental reviews.
  We all know that FERC acts as a rubber stamp for fossil fuel 
projects, and the bills we are considering today further narrow the 
opportunities for private landowners to push back against projects and 
try to protect their land from eminent domain.

                              {time}  1600

  At a time when pipeline expansion has increased dramatically, we 
should be working on bipartisan solutions that increase public 
participation during FERC proceedings. That is why I have cosponsored 
legislation to create an Office of Public Participation within FERC 
that would level the playing field for average citizens and give them a 
seat at the table.
  H.R. 2910, which we just debated, does nothing to achieve this goal 
and will only lead to more communities being left in the dark during 
FERC proceedings.
  H.R. 2883 would eliminate the need for a Presidential permit for 
cross-border energy projects and dramatically narrow the environmental 
review to the narrow portion of the project that crosses the border. 
These cross-border projects are oftentimes hundreds of miles long. It 
simply makes no sense to conduct an environmental review on the small 
portion that crosses the border. That is just common sense.
  For the good of our environment, for the good of our communities and 
public lands, I urge my colleagues to oppose these harmful pieces of 
legislation.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I actually have a couple of more speakers.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Florida may 
reclaim her time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I was under the impression the other side had 
yielded back the balance of her time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is correct, but by unanimous consent, the 
gentlewoman may reclaim the time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to allow the minority 
to reclaim the balance of her time.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Marshall).

[[Page H6016]]

  

  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2883, the 
Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act, introduced by my 
friend and Great Plains colleague to the south, Markwayne Mullin.
  This bill could not come at a better time. As we continue to have 
discussions in this country about both our future as an energy leader 
and our trading relationship with Mexico and Canada, it is time to 
review bureaucratic permitting processes that constrain new energy 
transportation projects. This bill does just that. It improves and 
streamlines the permitting process for pipelines and energy 
transmission equipment when they are crossing U.S. international 
borders.
  Energy trade within North America is a nearly $150 billion business 
that provides significant benefits here at home. This bill shows that 
we can focus on protecting our environment and being an energy leader. 
It maintains full environmental reviews and continues compliance with 
the National Environmental Policy Act.
  We saw how broken our current regulatory structure was when politics 
and personal interests nearly ended the Keystone XL pipeline without 
any regard to science, facts, or the livelihoods of the people who 
needed those jobs. This legislation will allow American entrepreneurs 
to stop fighting endless red tape and uncertain timelines and get back 
to doing what we do best: creating jobs, innovating, and making North 
America a leader in energy production.
  Voters have told us time and time again to get the bureaucratic 
morass of Big Government out of the way. They have asked us to promote 
an all-of-the-above energy strategy that includes oil and gas and to 
unleash the power of free trade and American innovation. They have 
asked for good jobs and more energy security.
  I thank my good friend from Oklahoma for sponsoring this. I ask my 
colleagues to support H.R. 2838, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy 
Infrastructure Act.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I stand up to oppose H.R. 2883.
  Basically, what this bill does is preapproves border-crossing energy 
products by making it extremely difficult to put a stop to them on any 
grounds.
  As a general matter, specifically for oil pipelines, within the 
United States, oil pipelines don't need Federal approval. No Federal 
reviews or permits on these projects are required. If the pipeline 
harms endangered species, the ESA will apply. If the construction 
destroys wetlands, a project permit may be needed from the Corps of 
Engineers. But generally, neither of these requirements trigger a 
broader evaluation of the project. Currently, the only reason to 
prepare an environmental assessment or impact for cross-border 
pipelines or transmission lines is because the existing Presidential 
permit requirement triggers NEPA.
  Under this bill, there would be no projectwide Federal environmental 
assessment for all these projects. State laws don't substitute for 
NEPA. Many States don't have approval authority over pipelines within 
their States.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Even those States with some instate authority don't 
have the resources or expertise to develop the information provided by 
a Federal environmental impact statement. No State has permitting 
authority over the portions of a pipeline located in other States. 
Without NEPA, there would be no broad Federal environmental review of 
cross-border transmission lines.

  Mr. Chair, we need these protections, and I ask my colleagues to 
oppose H.R. 2883.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), my good friend.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, there seems to be some confusion 
here that this bill takes away National Environmental Policy Act 
enforcement. That is just not true. In fact, during a committee hearing 
in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we produced a Congressional 
Research Service report that said that nothing in this bill will take 
away the responsibility for the NEPA process, the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
  To make sure that every inch of those pipelines will be studied for 
environmental issues is not our intention. Our intention is just to 
move product. We will go through all the efforts.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a report from the Congressional 
Research Service that we got in committee.

         [From the Congressional Research Service, May 2, 2017]

                               Memorandum

     To: The Honorable Gene Green; Attention: Justin Ackley
     From: Linda Luther, Analyst in Environmental Policy, ext. 7-
         6852
     Subject: Scope of NEPA Review Required for Federal Agency 
         Approvals

       This memorandum responds to your request asking CRS to 
     clarify the scope of an environmental review prepared by 
     federal agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     (NEPA). More specifically, you asked CRS to identify the 
     scope of environmental impacts that a federal agency would be 
     likely to evaluate before making a final decision on a 
     request to approve certain energy infrastructure projects 
     that would cross a United States border, such as the issuance 
     of a ``certificate of crossing'' that would be required in 
     the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act 
     (discussion draft released April 25, 2017). This memorandum 
     identifies the range of environmental impacts that federal 
     agencies currently evaluate when demonstrating compliance 
     with NEPA. It also discusses current agency practices, for 
     similar projects, that generally involve the evaluation of 
     the environmental impacts of any new facilities constructed 
     in the United States (i.e., impacts that may occur as a 
     result of approving a cross-border energy infrastructure 
     project). Information in this memorandum may be used or may 
     have been used in other CRS products.
       Before a federal agency can make a final decision on a 
     proposed federal action, NEPA requires that agency to 
     identify the proposal's effects on the ``quality of the human 
     environment.'' The scope and level of review required under 
     NEPA depends on whether those effects will be 
     ``significant.'' To make that determination, each agency must 
     identify and evaluate the proposal's--
       Direct effects--impacts caused by the project and occurring 
     at the same time and place, including impacts directly 
     associated with the construction and operation of the 
     facilities;.
       Indirect effects--impacts that are later in time or farther 
     removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable; and
       Cumulative effects--impacts on the environment that result 
     from the incremental impacts of the action when added to 
     other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future 
     actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) 
     or person undertakes that other action.
       If an agency is authorized to approve a cross-border 
     facility (e.g., issue a certificate of crossing for certain 
     energy infrastructure projects as in the proposed bill), that 
     agency's decision must be informed by appropriate 
     environmental review required under NEPA. As federal agencies 
     currently implement NEPA, the requirement to identify and 
     consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts has meant 
     that the agency evaluates the effects of siting, building and 
     operating the entire structure in the United States (not just 
     the cross-border segment they are authorized to approve). 
     That is, if a federal agency is authorized to approve a 
     cross-border project, that agency's existing NEPA practices 
     would likely continue to involve analysis of impacts 
     associated with the approval of the facility that physically 
     crosses the border, as well as any new facilities constructed 
     in the United States.
       I hope this information is useful to you. Please feel free 
     to contact me if you have additional questions.

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, the other issue, though, is we 
are going to do belts and suspenders. That is an old saying I heard. We 
already had a belt, but now we are going to deal with an amendment from 
Congressman Veasey. We will make sure it is belts and suspenders and 
that the National Environmental Policy Act is applied to these 
pipelines, because that is not our intent.
  So we not only have the Congressional Research Service saying it is, 
we are going to put language into this bill, and I understand it will 
be accepted by our side, to make sure that is there.
  What we need to do is make sure that our closest neighbors, Canada 
and Mexico--right now, Mexico needs the natural gas that we are 
producing in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and New Mexico; but 20 years 
from now, our wells may be dry for natural gas, and

[[Page H6017]]

we will need that natural gas that Mexico will be producing when they 
work in northern Mexico.
  So that is why we need to structuralize this, if we are really going 
to have a North American energy market for electric transmission like 
they do up in the New England States or electric transmissions even 
along the border in Texas. I know they do the same thing in southern 
California. We need to have some certainty with our closest neighbors.
  We have a free trade agreement with these two countries. It is 
already decided it is in our national interest. Why would we set aside 
energy as something different? That is why this bill is so important.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote for this legislation.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2883, 
the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act, introduced by my 
friend and Western Caucus member Markwayne Mullin.
  H.R. 2883 streamlines the permitting process for pipelines and 
electricity transmission equipment that crosses the United States' 
international borders.
  Energy trade between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada is nearly a $150 
billion business that provides significant benefits to America. This 
bill will prevent another Keystone XL-like delay and takes politics out 
of the decisionmaking process.
  Cross-border oil and gas pipelines and cross-border electric 
transmission facilities should not be held up by government 
bureaucracies. Without this legislation, important projects that 
provide benefits to our economy will continue to incur unnecessary 
delays and government red tape.
  Edison Electric Institute supports H.R. 2883, stating:

       Timely decisions for the sifting and permitting of energy 
     infrastructure are essential to building more resilient 
     infrastructure that electric companies need to deliver 
     reliable, affordable, safe, and increasingly clean energy to 
     Americans.

  The National Taxpayers Union supports the bill, stating:

       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 to come. Creating a 
consolidated and standardized approval process would increase the 
congressional accountability provided for in Article I, section 8 of 
the Constitution.
  The bill requires a full environmental review and complies with NEPA. 
This legislation makes so much sense that even labor unions support it. 
Let's fulfill our constitutional obligations, streamline important 
energy infrastructure projects, and advance a true all-of-the-above 
energy strategy.
  I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for sponsoring this much-needed 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this 
commonsense bill.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly urge the Members of this body to oppose this 
misguided bill so that the Congress can turn its attention to the most 
daunting challenge of our time: climate change, our clean energy 
future, and the clean energy economy and all of the jobs it entails.
  Mr. Chair, again, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, this bill has absolutely no effect on any environmental 
law. The bill expressly provides that approval of a project under this 
act does not affect the application of any other Federal laws that are 
applicable to the construction, operation, or maintenance of a project. 
The Congressional Research Service has reviewed the legislation and has 
confirmed that fact.
  My point is, other than the fact that they just want to oppose this 
because, maybe, people oppose fossil fuels as a whole, this makes 
sense. This is a bill that moves forward. As we stated earlier, it 
takes politics out of our permitting process. It brings structure and 
certainty to those that are providing our infrastructure needs.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and 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.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be 
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-29. 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. 2883

       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 Cross-Border 
     Energy Infrastructure Act''.

     SEC. 2. APPROVAL FOR BORDER-CROSSING FACILITIES.

       (a) Authorization of Certain Energy Infrastructure Projects 
     at an International Boundary of the United States.--
       (1) Authorization.--Except as provided in paragraph (3) and 
     subsection (e), no person may construct, connect, operate, or 
     maintain a border-crossing facility for the import or export 
     of oil or natural gas, or the transmission of electricity, 
     across an international border of the United States without 
     obtaining a certificate of crossing for the border-crossing 
     facility under this subsection.
       (2) Certificate of crossing.--
       (A) Requirement.--Not later than 120 days after final 
     action is taken, by the relevant official or agency 
     identified under subparagraph (B), under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
     with respect to a border-crossing facility for which a person 
     requests a certificate of crossing under this subsection, the 
     relevant official or agency, in consultation with appropriate 
     Federal agencies, shall issue a certificate of crossing for 
     the border-crossing facility unless the relevant official or 
     agency finds that the construction, connection, operation, or 
     maintenance of the border-crossing facility is not in the 
     public interest of the United States.
       (B) Relevant official or agency.--The relevant official or 
     agency referred to in subparagraph (A) is--
       (i) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with respect 
     to border-crossing facilities consisting of oil or natural 
     gas pipelines; and
       (ii) the Secretary of Energy with respect to border-
     crossing facilities consisting of electric transmission 
     facilities.
       (C) Additional requirement for electric transmission 
     facilities.--In the case of a request for a certificate of 
     crossing for a border-crossing facility consisting of an 
     electric transmission facility, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     require, as a condition of issuing the certificate of 
     crossing under subparagraph (A), that the border-crossing 
     facility be constructed, connected, operated, or maintained 
     consistent with all applicable policies and standards of--
       (i) the Electric Reliability Organization and the 
     applicable regional entity; and
       (ii) any Regional Transmission Organization or Independent 
     System Operator with operational or functional control over 
     the border-crossing facility.
       (3) Exclusions.--This subsection shall not apply to any 
     construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of a 
     border-crossing facility for the import or export of oil or 
     natural gas, or the transmission of electricity--
       (A) if the border-crossing facility is operating for such 
     import, export, or transmission as of the date of enactment 
     of this Act;
       (B) if a permit described in subsection (d) for the 
     construction, connection, operation, or maintenance has been 
     issued; or
       (C) if an application for a permit described in subsection 
     (d) for the construction, connection, operation, or 
     maintenance is pending on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     until the earlier of--
       (i) the date on which such application is denied; or
       (ii) two years after the date of enactment of this Act, if 
     such a permit has not been issued by such date.
       (4) Effect of other laws.--
       (A) Application to projects.--Nothing in this subsection or 
     subsection (e) shall affect the application of any other 
     Federal statute to a project for which a certificate of 
     crossing for a border-crossing facility is requested under 
     this subsection.
       (B) Natural gas act.--Nothing in this subsection or 
     subsection (e) shall affect the requirement to obtain 
     approval or authorization under sections 3 and 7 of the 
     Natural Gas Act for the siting, construction, or operation of 
     any facility to import or export natural gas.
       (C) Oil pipelines.--Nothing in this subsection or 
     subsection (e) shall affect the authority of the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission with respect to oil pipelines 
     under section 60502 of title 49, United States Code.
       (b) Importation or Exportation of Natural Gas to Canada and 
     Mexico.--Section 3(c)

[[Page H6018]]

     of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``In the case of an 
     application for the importation of natural gas from, or the 
     exportation of natural gas to, Canada or Mexico, the 
     Commission shall grant the application not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which the Commission receives the complete 
     application.''.
       (c) Transmission of Electric Energy to Canada and Mexico.--
       (1) Repeal of requirement to secure order.--Section 202(e) 
     of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) State regulations.--Section 202(f) of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(f)) is amended by striking ``insofar as 
     such State regulation does not conflict with the exercise of 
     the Commission's powers under or relating to subsection 
     202(e)''.
       (B) Seasonal diversity electricity exchange.--Section 
     602(b) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 
     (16 U.S.C. 824a-4(b)) is amended by striking ``the Commission 
     has conducted hearings and made the findings required under 
     section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end and inserting ``the 
     Secretary has conducted hearings and finds that the proposed 
     transmission facilities would not impair the sufficiency of 
     electric supply within the United States or would not impede 
     or tend to impede the coordination in the public interest of 
     facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary.''.
       (d) No Presidential Permit Required.--No Presidential 
     permit (or similar permit) required under Executive Order No. 
     13337 (3 U.S.C. 301 note), Executive Order No. 11423 (3 
     U.S.C. 301 note), section 301 of title 3, United States Code, 
     Executive Order No. 12038, Executive Order No. 10485, or any 
     other Executive order shall be necessary for the 
     construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of an oil 
     or natural gas pipeline or electric transmission facility, or 
     any border-crossing facility thereof.
       (e) Modifications to Existing Projects.--No certificate of 
     crossing under subsection (a), or permit described in 
     subsection (d), shall be required for a modification to--
       (1) an oil or natural gas pipeline or electric transmission 
     facility that is operating for the import or export of oil or 
     natural gas or the transmission of electricity as of the date 
     of enactment of this Act;
       (2) an oil or natural gas pipeline or electric transmission 
     facility for which a permit described in subsection (d) has 
     been issued; or
       (3) a border-crossing facility for which a certificate of 
     crossing has previously been issued under subsection (a).
       (f) Effective Date; Rulemaking Deadlines.--
       (1) Effective date.--Subsections (a) through (e), and the 
     amendments made by such subsections, shall take effect on the 
     date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Rulemaking deadlines.--Each relevant official or agency 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(B) shall--
       (A) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, publish in the Federal Register notice of a 
     proposed rulemaking to carry out the applicable requirements 
     of subsection (a); and
       (B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, publish in the Federal Register a final rule to 
     carry out the applicable requirements of subsection (a).
       (g) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``border-crossing facility'' means the portion 
     of an oil or natural gas pipeline or electric transmission 
     facility that is located at an international boundary of the 
     United States;
       (2) the term ``modification'' includes a reversal of flow 
     direction, change in ownership, change in flow volume, 
     addition or removal of an interconnection, or an adjustment 
     to maintain flow (such as a reduction or increase in the 
     number of pump or compressor stations);
       (3) the term ``natural gas'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 2 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717a);
       (4) the term ``oil'' means petroleum or a petroleum 
     product;
       (5) the terms ``Electric Reliability Organization'' and 
     ``regional entity'' have the meanings given those terms in 
     section 215 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o); and
       (6) the terms ``Independent System Operator'' and 
     ``Regional Transmission Organization'' have the meanings 
     given those terms in section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 796).

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B 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.

                              {time}  1615


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Engel

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

       Page 2, after line 16, insert the following:
       (i) the Secretary of State with respect to border-crossing 
     facilities consisting of oil pipelines;
       Page 2, line 17, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(ii)''.
       Page 2, line 19, strike ``oil or''.
       Page 2, line 21, strike ``(ii)'' and insert ``(iii)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 454, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, since 1968, oil pipelines that cross 
international borders have been reviewed and authorized by the 
Department of State. That is nearly 50 years. This is common sense. 
After all, the State Department handles diplomacy, the State Department 
manages treaties related to our international boundaries, and the State 
Department is responsible for the security of pathways for our 
pipelines.
  But the bill we are considering today would shift decisionmaking 
authority for those pipelines from the State Department, which is 
equipped to handle all aspects of this issue, to Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, which isn't equipped.
  So it just doesn't make any sense to me, Mr. Chairman. It seems quite 
arbitrary and quite foolish and moving in the wrong direction. This is 
change for change's sake, and it wouldn't improve the process.
  My amendment would prevent this mistake. It would simply ensure that 
permitting authority for cross-border oil pipelines remains with the 
Department of State. That is the permitting authority for cross-border 
oil pipelines to remain with the Department of State.
  In each of the past two Congresses, my friends in the majority 
agreed. They passed substantially similar legislation to change the 
cross-border pipeline permitting process, but they kept the final 
approval authority where it belongs, with the Department of State.
  Cross-border oil pipelines are matters of international diplomacy and 
national security, and oversight should remain with the State 
Department. The old adage, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' I don't 
know what we are trying to do here. So I urge support for my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, H.R. 2883 was designated the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, the lead agency of the permitting cross-border 
oil pipelines.
  FERC is an independent agency made up of a bipartisan commission that 
regulates interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. 
FERC also reviews proposals to build liquefied natural gas terminals, 
interstate natural gas pipelines, and cross-border natural gas 
facilities.
  FERC has a proven track record of working with a wide array of 
stakeholders on complex pipeline projects to balance the public 
interest. It is clearly the best suited agency for the job of 
permitting cross-border oil pipelines.
  As we learned from the Keystone XL experience during the Obama 
administration, the State Department lacks the ability to pull out 
politics from our Nation's infrastructure. There is nothing in this 
bill that would prevent the State Department from being consulted about 
an application, but FERC should take the lead on cross-border oil 
pipelines.
  H.R. 2883 would provide the permitting process with much-needed 
consistency and transparency. The gentleman's amendment would double 
down on the failures of the past and reinject bipartisan politics into 
the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the

[[Page H6019]]

amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Tsongas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B 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 3, after line 14, insert the following:
       (D) Additional requirement for oil and natural gas pipeline 
     facilities.--In the case of a request for a certificate of 
     crossing for a border-crossing facility consisting of an oil 
     or natural gas pipeline facility, the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission may not issue a certificate of crossing 
     under subparagraph (A) if any part of the oil or natural gas 
     pipeline project 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, this time for pipelines that 
includes a crossing with Canada or Mexico. The legislation before us 
today, with its narrowly defined environmental reviews and limited 
public input, puts treasured public resources 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 increase reliability and 
resiliency.
  However, as with H.R. 2910 that we considered earlier this afternoon, 
H.R. 2883 moves us in the wrong direction. In fact, it doesn't allow 
any careful or strategic planning when it comes to fossil fuel 
pipelines.
  Cross-border and natural gas pipeline interests should not be 
permitted to cavalierly tread on public lands, lands expressly set 
aside by Federal taxpayers, State and local communities for the benefit 
of conservation and public recreation.
  Our Nation has a longstanding history of preserving natural habitats 
and protecting open spaces for the public benefit, and we have invested 
significant public resources toward these goals. These lands and the 
decisions behind them deserve to be honored.
  The potential negative environmental impacts of an oil or natural gas 
pipeline are too great to risk such treasured investments by Federal 
taxpayers and State and local communities, and we should not quickly 
forego the essential public review process that has helped ensure these 
public treasures are available to future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time for closing.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I don't have any additional speakers.
  I would just like to say that energy infrastructure is critical to 
our economy, yet we cannot simply give the fossil fuel industry a carte 
blanche to build pipelines that adversely impact conservation and 
recreation lands.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas 
(Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. In the United States today, there is 150 million acres of 
protected land set aside in the National Wildlife Refuge System for 
protected designation for America's fish, wildlife, and plants.
  Conservation efforts like the National Wildlife Refuge System build 
up America's great conservation legacy that began with Teddy Roosevelt. 
Ensuring that future generations of Americans have access to these 
great traditions must be our priority as a body going forward.
  In this 150 million acres of National Wildlife Refuge System land, 
though, there currently stretches 1,339 miles of pipeline already. 
Protecting our natural resources and building much-needed 
infrastructure are not mutually exclusive goals.
  These pipelines are already there. They are not destroying the lands 
or their ecosystem or prohibiting the American people from enjoying 
access to this public land. Companies must pay the government for use 
of the land for pipelines. That money, in turn, goes into acquiring 
more land for conservation efforts and recreational use.
  The Department of Transportation's review of safety accidents 
conducted under President Obama's administration showed that in 
addition to providing a substantial cost advantage, pipelines result in 
fewer spillage incidents and personal injuries than either road or 
rail.
  As coal-fired power plants continue to shut down, the demand for 
natural gas, a lower emission alternative, is going to keep going up. 
Whether the gas is produced in Canada, Alaska, North Dakota, 
Pennsylvania, or the Gulf of Mexico, it will be used all over the 
country, and we need to ensure that a regulatory framework is in place 
that allows us to get this supply to where it is needed.
  The amendment is a backhanded way to prevent any pipelines or 
electrical transmission infrastructure from being built.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, H.R. 2883 strikes a right balance for wise 
management of our multiuse public lands and natural resources. The 
amendment would upset this careful balance.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Weber of Texas). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gene Green of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 115-235.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Veasey, I 
offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, after line 3, insert the following:
       (D) Scope of nepa review.--Nothing in this Act, or the 
     amendments made by this Act, shall affect the scope of any 
     review required to be conducted under section 102 of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to a 
     project for which a certificate of crossing for a border-
     crossing facility is requested under this subsection.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 454, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, again, this is Congressman 
Veasey's idea, and I am doing it for him because he couldn't be here.
  Our intent when crafting the bill was never to reduce or limit the 
National Environmental Policy Act applicability when considering 
whether to approve a cross-border project.
  Before a Federal agency can make a final determination on a proposed 
Federal action, the National Environmental Policy Act requires that the 
agency identify the proposal's effects on the quality of human 
environment and whether these effects will be significant.
  To make this determination, Federal agencies identify and evaluate 
the direct and indirect cumulation of effects of the proposal. Direct 
effects are the impacts caused by the project occurring at the same 
time and place. Indirect effects are the impacts that are later in time 
or further removed but still reasonably foreseeable. And cumulative 
effects are impacts on the environment that result with incremental

[[Page H6020]]

impacts on the action, regardless of what person or agency undertakes 
that action.
  The Federal agencies currently implement NEPA. The requirement to 
identify all three of these impacts has required the analysis of 
impacts to include not just the cross-border section of the project, 
but any new facility or structure constructed within the United States.
  Our office had the bill analyzed by the experts at the Congressional 
Research Office, who confirmed that the underlying bill did not in any 
way limit the scope of future National Environmental Policy Act reviews 
under it. Under our language, they will continue to involve reviews of 
the entire project, not just that part that crosses the border section.
  With that said, I have heard concerns from Members who are worried 
that the bill will limit the NEPA in some way. I am happy to support 
this bipartisan amendment with my colleague, Mr. Veasey, which 
unequivocally states that nothing in this act or the amendments made by 
this act shall affect the scope of any review required to be conducted 
by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
  I support this good faith amendment--and like I said earlier, it is 
belts and suspenders, but sometimes we need them to pass legislation--
and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I do 
not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oklahoma is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment, which would clarify the intent of the legislation not to 
affect the application of any or other Federal laws that are applicable 
to the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project.
  Despite the talking points used by some of my friends, nothing in 
this bill would exempt a project from complying with applicable 
environmental laws or restrict the scope of environmental review.
  The gentleman from Texas' amendment makes this abundantly clear. H.R. 
2883 would lead to a more objective and timely decision, create jobs, 
strengthen our Nation's energy security, and support affordable and 
reliable energy for all Americans.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1630


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
115-235 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Engel of New York.
  Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Tsongas of Massachusetts.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Engel

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 246, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 395]

                               AYES--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--246

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cummings
     Labrador
     Napolitano
     Scalise
     Tenney

                              {time}  1658

  Ms. STEFANIK, Messrs. VELA, GOTTHEIMER, PALAZZO, BURGESS,

[[Page H6021]]

VEASEY, CHABOT, CUELLAR, WALBERG, and MEADOWS changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. FUDGE changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Tsongas

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 247, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 396]

                               AYES--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--247

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lawson (FL)
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cummings
     Hudson
     Labrador
     Napolitano
     Scalise
     Tenney
     Wittman

                              {time}  1703

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained from the House 
floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 
396 (Tsongas Amendment to H.R. 2833).
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Rodney Davis of Illinois) having assumed the chair, Mr. Weber of Texas, 
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 2883) to establish a more uniform, transparent, and modern 
process to authorize the construction, connection, operation, and 
maintenance of international border-crossing facilities for the import 
and export of oil and natural gas and the transmission of electricity, 
and, pursuant to House Resolution 454, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Mr. O'Halleran   moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2883 to 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       Page 3, after line 14, insert the following:
       (D) American iron and steel.--As a condition of issuing a 
     certificate of crossing under subparagraph (A), the relevant 
     official or agency shall require that all of the iron and 
     steel products used in the construction, connection, 
     operation, and maintenance of the border-crossing facility 
     are produced in the United States, as determined by the 
     relevant official or agency in a manner consistent with 
     United States obligations under international agreements.

  Mr. MULLIN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent

[[Page H6022]]

to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, hardworking families across Arizona and across our 
country are sick and tired of Congress putting partisan politics ahead 
of creating jobs at home.
  As I travel across rural Arizona and speak to workers, miners, 
farmers, and families, I am asked the same questions: ``When is 
Congress going to get serious about helping rural America?
  ``When are you guys going to work together and create good-paying 
jobs?
  ``When are we going to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and 
roads?
  ``When are we finally going to get reliable broadband?''
  In my 7 months in Congress, I have seen firsthand the failure to 
address these problems in a truly bipartisan manner. American workers 
are counting on all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to focus on 
bringing back jobs to our country.
  The underlying bill before us does not go far enough to ensure 
pipelines, which involve major investments and can span hundreds of 
miles across sensitive areas, are made with quality, reliable, 
American-made materials.
  My commonsense amendment simply requires Federal agencies to certify 
that all of the iron and steel products used in any cross-border 
pipelines are produced in the United States before they can be 
approved.
  Mr. Speaker, foreign steelmakers now supply half the oil and gas 
drilling and extraction pipes used in the United States, and it is only 
getting worse. The American Iron and Steel Institute estimates that 
imports of steel pipes for the oil and gas industry are up 237 percent 
in the first half of 2017 from a year earlier.
  Earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order 
instructing the Secretary of Commerce to develop a plan that would 
require any company building a pipeline within U.S. borders to use 
American-made materials and equipment. My amendment mirrors the spirit 
of that executive order by applying the same rules to any proposed 
cross-border pipelines.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to rebuild America. We need to rebuild America's 
infrastructure. We need to rebuild America's energy infrastructure, but 
we need to rebuild America by creating American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better message to send during 
President Trump's ``Made in America Week'' than by standing up for 
American workers and supporting this commonsense amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, this is just a procedural motion to deny the 
important benefits of this legislation to the American workers, 
businesses, and our collective energy security. It fits a pattern of 
delay and obstruction that we simply cannot support. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and vote ``yes'' on final 
passage.
  Mr. Speaker, 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was 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.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 232, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 397]

                               AYES--193

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney

[[Page H6023]]


     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cummings
     Labrador
     Napolitano
     Pelosi
     Reed
     Rogers (KY)
     Scalise
     Valadao


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1718

  Ms. JACKSON LEE changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 397.
  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.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 254, 
nays 175, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 398]

                               YEAS--254

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cook
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--175

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cummings
     Labrador
     Napolitano
     Scalise


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1724

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

                          ____________________