[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.
____________________