[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 153 (Thursday, September 18, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4423-H4428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROMOTING CROSS-BORDER ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE ACT
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 707, I call up
[[Page H4424]]
the bill (H.R. 3062) 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 ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 707, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3062
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. STRENGTHENING NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY.
(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 Presidential permit (or similar permit) for the
construction, connection, operation, or maintenance has been
issued pursuant to any provision of law or Executive order;
or
(C) if an application for a Presidential permit (or similar
permit) 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 of enactment.
(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) 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) shall be required pursuant to any
provision of law or Executive order 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 Presidential permit (or
similar permit), 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 Presidential permit (or similar permit)
has been issued pursuant to any provision of law or Executive
order; or
(3) a border-crossing facility for which a certificate of
crossing has previously been issued under subsection (a).
(f) Prohibition on Revocation of Presidential Permits.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may
not revoke a Presidential permit (or similar permit) issued
pursuant to Executive Order No. 13337 (3 U.S.C. 301 note),
Executive Order No. 11423 (3 U.S.C. 301 note), Executive
Order No. 12038 (42 U.S.C. 7151 note), Executive Order No.
10485 (15 U.S.C. 717b note), or any other Executive order for
the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of an
oil or natural gas pipeline or electric transmission
facility, or any border-crossing facility thereof, unless
such revocation is authorized by an Act of Congress.
(g) 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).
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Border-crossing facility.--The term ``border-crossing
facility'' means the portion of an oil or natural gas
pipeline or electric transmission facility that is located
within 1,000 feet of the international boundary of the United
States, measured from the point at which the facility crosses
such boundary into the United States.
(2) Modification.--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) Natural gas.--The term ``natural gas'' has the meaning
given that term in section 2 of the Natural Gas Act (15
U.S.C. 717a).
(4) Oil.--The term ``oil'' means petroleum or a petroleum
product.
(5) Electric reliability organization; regional entity.--
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).
(6) Independent system operator; regional transmission
organization.--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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
[[Page H4425]]
General Leave
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 3062.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, North America has grown to be an energy superpower due
to the robust trade of oil, gas, and electricity. As energy demand is
projected to increase in staggering numbers over the coming years, the
expansion of cross-border energy infrastructure throughout this
integrated market will be important.
One challenge confronting the expansion of energy trade with Mexico
and Canada is that Congress has not asserted authority to establish
procedures for permitting cross-border infrastructure.
Cross-border infrastructure, especially oil and natural gas pipelines
and electrical transmission lines, is essential to American communities
across the Nation.
Instead of a clear statutory process, a myriad of executive orders
over decades have provided the legal context for permitting procedures
of cross-border energy infrastructure.
Under this permitting regime that has been cobbled together, the
Secretary of State has the authority to issue Presidential permits for
cross-border liquid pipelines; the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, or FERC, for cross-border natural gas pipelines; and the
Department of Energy for cross-border electric transmission facilities.
Unfortunately, this regime has subjected infrastructure permitting
processes to the political whims of an administration, as we saw for 12
of the last 16 years under Presidents Obama and Biden. This can
severely curtail America's energy.
H.R. 3062, introduced by the gentlewoman from North Dakota (Mrs.
Fedorchak), would remedy these permitting inconsistencies by
establishing a uniform process for authorizing energy infrastructure
construction that crosses U.S. boundaries. Instead of the complex
existing process, projects would simply be required to receive a
certificate of crossing from the relevant agency for the border-
crossing segment.
Nothing in this legislation alters additional permitting requirements
of other statutes, like the National Environmental Policy Act or Clean
Water Act.
It is past time for Congress to assert its authority and establish a
modern and transparent process for cross-border energy infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Fedorchak for her leadership. I
urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this trio of pro-polluter
bills that we are debating today. These bills just double down on the
Trump administration's commitment to raising American electricity
prices by discriminating against clean, cheap energy. They prove that
Republicans have never been for an all-of-the-above energy strategy and
that they don't care about fixing the insanely high cost of living that
is crushing families across this country right now.
{time} 1250
The only thing Republicans care about is making their fossil fuel
friends even richer.
All of this comes a few months after Republicans passed their big,
ugly bill. That law will cause Americans' utility bills to go up by
about nearly $300 per year. That is on top of the nearly $29 billion in
electricity bill rate hikes that utilities have requested just since
the start of President Trump's term. All this from a President who
promised to cut Americans' electricity bills in half. That is just one
of President Trump's broken promises.
President Trump and House Republicans also claim to care about China,
particularly about beating China in the artificial intelligence race.
That requires getting as much power on to the grid as quickly as
possible, but the big, ugly bill will do the opposite. It will instead
cause electricity capacity to decrease by more than 2\1/2\ times the
size of the entire Midwestern electric grid, and Trump's law will
render the United States unable to meet growing power demand or to
compete with China.
All this doesn't factor in the enormous toll that Trump's tariffs
will take on America's energy bills. A recent analysis found that
Trump's tariffs will cost your average American family $2,300 each
year. That is $2,300 that families need to pay rent, to buy groceries,
and to afford clothes and school supplies for their kids. Trump decided
to make everything more expensive, even the energy we buy.
The inconvenient truth that Republicans don't want to acknowledge is
that clean energy can compete with fossil fuels. They don't like that.
They are trying to put their thumb on the scale, and that is where this
week's bills come into play.
The first bill we are discussing right now, H.R. 3062, the cross-
border energy bill, was first proposed way back in 2013 to respond to
the energy politics of the 2010s. It is simply irrelevant in this day
and age. The Keystone Pipeline has been dead for 4 years. The Canadians
are not interested in building energy infrastructure connecting our two
nations thanks to Trump's tariffs, yet this bill would gut the Federal
Government's ability to review the environmental impact of oil and gas
pipelines that cross into Canada and Mexico.
Currently, the Federal Government reviews the entirety of a cross-
border oil pipeline, but under this bill, the review would be limited
to only 1,000 feet crossing the border. There would be virtually no
Federal review for natural gas pipelines running from Texas to Mexico.
This will make it easier to export American natural gas to liquid
natural gas facilities in Mexico, which, again, will drive up utility
prices here at home in the United States.
Finally, the bill creates a massive loophole allowing any existing
cross-border facility to expand without any review whatsoever. A
pipeline could be expanded by 10 times, dramatically increasing its
environmental impact, and there would still be no review.
If Republicans want to get serious about permitting reform, they need
to work with Democrats to advance policies that will fix the way we
permit and plan our Nation's grid.
Later today, we are going to consider another bill, H.R. 3015, that
would reestablish the National Coal Council, something that Energy
Secretary Wright has already done. Instead of using floor time on
anything important, like maybe trying to fix the affordability crisis
that is strangling middle-class America, Republicans are wasting time
passing a bill to do something that has already happened.
Then after that, the third bill, H.R. 1047, the GRID Power Act, would
require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to allow electric grid
operators to prioritize connecting fossil fuel plants to the grid over
connecting clean energy power plants to the grid.
Now, this is just another way Republicans are tipping the scales
toward fossil fuels over wind and solar energy.
Taken together, Mr. Speaker, these three bills will only continue to
raise America's energy bills and, in some cases, do so while also
removing the guardrails that keep our communities safe and healthy.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge opposition to all three bills, including
the one we are debating right now, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I introduce my next speaker, I will make clear
that tariffs don't affect these products. USMCA-qualifying products,
which is crude oil, natural gas, refined petroleum products, and
biofuels, are tariff-free. Additionally, this legislation does not
remove permitting requirements. All environmental and regulatory
reviews of this infrastructure would continue. It is not accurate to
say that we would go around any of the qualifying. The other side talks
about us tipping the scales toward fossil fuel energy and dispatchable
power, but theirs tips the scale toward wind and solar. I think we need
all of the above, but when you say we are going to subsidize a more
expensive power, that doesn't make power cheaper. Maybe in the short-
term, but certainly not in the long run, and that is where we need to
focus.
[[Page H4426]]
We do need to work together, as he said, to make sure we can do
permit reform and produce the energy this country needs for AI and
other things.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Dakota
(Mrs. Fedorchak), my good friend and the sponsor of this bill and a
viable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mrs. FEDORCHAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Guthrie for his
leadership on this issue, on all energy issues, and for the entire
Energy and Commerce Committee. He provides the exact type of leadership
we need at this time in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, the Promoting
Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act and in strong opposition to what
my colleague from New Jersey just said about this bill, much of which
is just simply not true.
Energy is the foundation of everything we do. It powers our homes,
fuels our farms, and drives our economy. If we want to stay a global
leader, we must build the pipelines and power lines that move energy
from where it is produced to where it is needed. That is much more
challenging than it needs to be under current law in our country. I
know many of my colleagues across the aisle want to change that through
permitting reform. My legislation begins to address that and is a step
in the right direction.
This bill is about strengthening American energy security, protecting
good-paying jobs, and restoring common sense to a process bogged down
by bureaucratic delays and partisan politics.
For far too long, energy developers have faced an outdated and
unpredictable permitting process that has delayed and even canceled
critical infrastructure projects, costing taxpayers millions of
dollars, and weakening American energy security.
Right now, if you want to build a pipeline or a power transmission
line between the U.S. and Canada or the U.S. and Mexico, you are stuck
navigating a patchwork of executive orders, undefined agency processes,
and shifting political winds. That is no way to build long-term
infrastructure in our country.
We need a cross-border permitting process that is transparent,
predictable, and durable, a process that can't be undone with the
stroke of a pen. The Keystone XL Pipeline should have been a wake-up
call. It would have carried 800,000 barrels of oil each day from Canada
to refineries in the Midwest and Texas. It would have meant real
opportunity for North Dakota communities: more jobs, more tax revenue,
and more energy produced for the entire Nation.
After a decade of delays, protests, and litigation, Keystone XL was
finally approved in 2017 by President Trump, but on day one of the
Biden administration, that permit was canceled. It wasn't canceled
because the project wasn't needed or because it wasn't safe, but to
appease radical activists.
With that single decision, the Biden administration cost the U.S.
more than $3 billion in GDP and thousands of jobs, including many in my
State of North Dakota.
This uncertainty has created a chilling effect on investment in the
infrastructure we desperately need for American energy dominance.
That is why I introduced the Promoting Cross-Border Energy
Infrastructure Act. This legislation will help fix this problem. This
bill requires Congress to approve the reversal of a cross-border
project, no more unilateral decisions based on politics.
This bill would also replace the outdated Presidential permitting
process with a clear statutory framework: the certificate of crossing.
This process will be overseen by FERC for oil and gas projects and by
the Department of Energy for electricity. It establishes firm timelines
for reviewing applications and puts subject matter experts, not
politicians, in charge of decisions.
By creating a consistent statutory framework that protects all
existing requirements and environmental reviews, we can provide the
regulatory certainty energy developers need to invest, hire, and build.
Most importantly, this strengthens America's role as a global energy
leader.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and stand with
American energy dominance.
{time} 1300
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Energy
Subcommittee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, here we are 9 months into the Trump administration and
Republicans in Congress, despite their promises, have done nothing to
lower energy costs. In fact, costs keep going up, up, and up, and the
GOP policies are making it worse. I have to say that Americans deserve
a whole lot better.
We understand that the impact of the big, ugly bill passed a couple
months ago is going to raise the cost of living on hardworking families
across the country. There has been a lot of attention on healthcare
costs in the State of Florida because the Republicans would not
reinstate the cost-saving and lifesaving tax credits. Millions of
Floridians, like many more across America, are facing higher healthcare
costs.
What wasn't covered as much in the big, ugly bill and its impact is
what it is going to do to drive up people's electric bill. Already,
this year, household electricity prices are up 10 percent. One in three
households is cutting back on necessities, like groceries, to afford
their energy bills.
Three in four Americans are concerned with their utility bills
increasing, and they should be because at least 102 gas and electric
utilities have either raised or proposed higher rates that will go into
effect next year.
Here is the proof. Here is a report from September of this year:
``Residents in at Least 41 States and Washington, D.C., Are Facing
Increased Electric and Natural Gas Bills.''
``Utilities are increasing prices for customers across the country.''
Including all the way through to 2028, monthly residential bill impacts
are going to be rough.
Here is another from PowerLines from July 2025: `` `Utility bills are
rising.' Q2 2025 Update.''
``Utility rate increases requested and approved totaled $9 billion in
Q2 2025 and $29 billion in the first half of 2025, making 2025 a record
year for utility rate increases.''
In my home State of Florida, the largest power provider has requested
the largest rate hike in history--$10 billion for most of the counties
in the State.
Here is an article I will submit for the Record from this month from
the Energy & Policy Institute: ``Key decisions loom in Florida Power
and Light's historic bid to raise rates by $10 billion.''
I include the links to these three items in the Record:
Https://powerlines.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/
0709_PowerLines_Rising-Utility-Bills-Q2-Update-2.pdf
Https://energyandpolicy.org/key-decisions-loom-in-fpl-historic-bid-
to-raise-rates
Https://www.americanprogress.org/
article/residents-in-at-least-41-states-and-washington-d-c-are-facing-
increased-electric-and-natural-gas-bills
Mr. Speaker, the big, ugly bill is having a very harsh impact on the
bottom lines of hardworking families, and now Republicans want to offer
a package of bills that is going to make it worse, add insult to
injury.
They just can't stop providing solace for polluters. They have
already gutted a lot of the tools that make energy more affordable,
like clean energy tax credits, like trying to save on energy efficiency
and things like that. However, what also adds insult to injury is--and
I don't know why, but if Republicans are talking about they believe in
fairness, they believe in permitting, they believe that we need all of
the power generation we possibly can make, why do they stand idly by
while the Trump administration wages war on a clean energy power
source? Many of them are already permitted and constructed.
In April, the administration issued a stop-work order for the Empire
Wind offshore wind project surrounding New York. Even though the order
was lifted in May, that delay cost the developer $955 million.
The President is actively trying to revoke permits for the Revolution
Wind project, which was fully permitted and 80 percent complete,
supporting more than 2,500 U.S. jobs across
[[Page H4427]]
construction, operations, shipbuilding, manufacturing. The project was
just steps away from powering more than 350,000 homes in Rhode Island
and Connecticut, but now that is at risk, so they are facing much
higher bills.
Just last week, the Interior Department asked a judge to cancel
approval of the Maryland Offshore Wind project, a project over a decade
in the making that had received all of its final permits from multiple
Federal agencies and was expected to power over 700,000 homes.
This just doesn't make sense to bring a package of bills and say: Oh,
we are really concerned. They are not concerned. Rates are going up.
They are canceling projects. They are throwing wrenches into cleaner,
cheaper energy. This is really a giveaway to the fossil fuel companies.
What other explanation can there be to sock it to hardworking people
who need a break?
They need a break. Groceries are too high. Their healthcare is being
taken away, and now they are raising the rates of their utility bills.
Mr. Speaker, I am all for cutting red tape, but what is happening
here is detrimental to the folks we represent back home. It is not
fair. It is not right. We need to do everything we can. These bills,
this bill doesn't meet the moment. It is going to keep electricity
bills going up, up, and up. I urge my colleagues to vote against this
bill and get back to work on serious solutions for people's
pocketbooks.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and
the vice chair of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, our chairman, for
yielding this time. I rise today in support of H.R. 3062, the Promoting
Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act.
Mr. Speaker, our hardworking energy developers need a clear framework
to expand America's energy footprint, not more bureaucracy and
uncertainty.
My colleague talked about energy prices. Well, just look at the gas
pump. I mean, the gas pump is down substantially.
Here is the problem: With your baseload energy production, the past
administration threw it into total chaos because we know that baseload
is the only way that we can reliably produce the electricity and the
demand in the future that we are going to need to expand this economy.
I mean, we are in a race in AI with China. We have to produce more
electricity. There was a war on baseload electricity, an absolute war.
These people did not know if they were going to survive this war. Here
is the deal: If you don't provide more baseload, your price is going to
go up. We have to grow baseload in this country. The only way to reduce
energy prices is competition and more energy.
Every Member in this Chamber and the American people have witnessed
the drastic consequence of this antidomestic energy policy championed
by the previous administration, which led to record-high gas prices,
severe job loss, and dependence on foreign oil.
We have to fix this. We have a solution. You have got to fix these
problems. I mean, I am really tired of having to fix all the problems
that they created. We have got to do this if we are going to survive
this thing.
Under this House majority and administration, it is just no longer
the American way. We promised the American people energy dominance. We
had that just 6 years ago. Can you imagine? We were energy dominant. We
set the price of a barrel of oil just 6 years ago.
What happened?
The bill before us today is a necessary, much-needed solution to
ensure in the future we do not face the brunt of reckless executive
actions like the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline.
We have already heard about the horrible results of that, including
the amount of money that was put forward, and now the developer is not
going forward. That project would have provided a safe and reliable way
to transport energy resources between the United States and our
neighbor to the north, Canada. It would have created tens of thousands
of jobs, as my colleague earlier said, strengthening our energy
security and generating billions of revenue to boost economic growth.
Don't listen to this chatter out here. Talk to the folks in the
energy business. Let's give this back to the people in the energy
business. They know how to produce energy. They are in business to
produce energy. They know we have to have baseload.
I am for all-in energy. Let's do it all. I think every one of us, we
have to have more energy.
{time} 1310
All of this progress that we made was cut short by the stroke of a
pen just 4 years ago, leading the developer to abandon the XL pipeline,
as I mentioned earlier. We cannot allow that to happen again.
H.R. 3062 would require the President to receive congressional
approval before revoking any previously issued permits related to the
construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of oil or natural
gas pipelines. We cannot let an administration put us in this position
ever again.
It would also streamline the permitting process for projects that
connect U.S. energy resources with international markets, establishing
a clear regulatory framework so energy developers can tackle projects
with confidence and certainty.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have supported the Promoting Cross-Border
Energy Infrastructure Act in the Energy and Commerce Committee and look
forward to getting it passed by the full House. I strongly urge a
``yes'' vote.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan), who is a member of the
committee.
Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3062, the
Promoting Cross-border Energy Infrastructure Act.
My concern is that this bill is going to be bad for our national
security interests, in addition to leading to rising costs that will
ultimately harm consumers.
Currently, the State Department must sign off on all cross-border
energy pipelines and power lines. However, this bill would remove that
requirement so that FERC and the Department of Energy would have the
final say on pipelines and power lines, respectively.
While FERC and DOE could consult with other appropriate Federal
agencies, such consultation is optional.
If there is a disagreement between the State Department and the
Department of Energy or the State Department and FERC, this bill says
that our national security and diplomatic interests will take a back
seat, and at the end of the day, FERC and DOE will make the final call
on critical decisions that could impact international relations and
national security issues.
It is disconcerting to hear my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle call national security and diplomatic interests political, as the
committees of jurisdiction have traditionally taken great pains to keep
politics out of those agencies. More importantly, FERC and DOE simply
are not equipped to have the final say on national security and
diplomatic decisions.
As we have heard, this bill could also drive up costs for consumers
at a time when many Americans are already facing rising costs and
struggling to make ends meet.
It will allow modifications to projects without any need for a permit
or environmental review. This means a developer can radically expand a
cross-border pipeline without any Federal review.
It also specifically curtails the Federal review for pipelines from
Texas to Mexico that carry natural gas to Mexican LNG facilities.
These provisions would facilitate increasing LNG exports, which have
been shown to drive up prices for American consumers.
Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our consumers, our national security
interests, and the future of our planet, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on H.R. 3062.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this does not replace any need for
permits, so the idea that there would be no environmental review or any
review for a
[[Page H4428]]
cross-border project approved by FERC or the State Department is just
not accurate. That is not what the bill does.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on what the gentleman from Georgia
said. I know he is not here. I don't like to comment on people when
they are not here, but I am not really being critical personally, just
substantively.
The gentleman from Georgia and my colleagues on the other side keep
talking about how they are going to use this legislation to address
another pipeline from Canada. References were made to Keystone.
Keystone is dead.
There is no reason to believe in any way that the Canadians are
looking to work with us to build a pipeline and export more fossil
fuels to the United States. Right now, we barely have a relationship
with Canada because of the tariffs.
The fact of the matter is that there is a tariff on Canadian exports.
The bottom line, I guess, is the only way that we could get Canada to
maybe send us more oil or gas is if we did what President Trump says
and annex them and make them the 51st State. I am not an advocate for
that. I don't think that is going to happen.
It is unrealistic right now to talk about any kind of additional oil
or gas coming to the United States through a Canadian pipeline. That is
just not going to happen.
What I think is really happening here is that there is going to be an
effort, because of the way the bill reads, to double, triple, or even
10 times the amount of gas that would go from the United States to
Mexico, because the bill doesn't have any review with regard to that.
If you have an existing pipeline, you can just double, triple, or
quadruple it, or whatever, and send American gas to Mexico, where it is
going to be made into LNG and shipped throughout the world.
That is only going to increase our gas prices here in the United
States. That is what is going to happen here.
Again, we on the Democratic side have been stressing the fact that
when it comes to energy prices, they are going through the roof. The
Republicans don't seem to care at all about dealing with the issue. All
they want to do is make it possible for more of our gas to go abroad.
The way this bill is tailored, there would be basically no review,
other than, I think, for 1,000 feet, or something, into the other
country. The suggestion that somehow there is still going to be some
significant review here before these pipelines are permitted is simply
not the case, based on what this legislation says.
Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote in
opposition to this bill.
I will talk more about the two that are following, but the same is
true: They are not helpful to Americans. They are going to increase
energy prices. They are another indication that the Trump
administration and House Republicans don't care at all about the
increased costs of energy for the American consumer.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and be here with
my friend. Hopefully, we are going to be able to work on a lot of
issues because we do care about the cost of electricity. I know they
know we care about the cost of electricity.
If the Keystone pipeline is not going to happen, which by
Presidential fiat didn't happen, we have to worry about future
situations when we are in Congress. We don't just legislate about the
past. We have to legislate for the future as well, and this is
important.
Also, I am a big believer that we have to continue to have economic
development and growth, and work in a fair way to make sure our
products are being traded fairly as well with Canada and Mexico. This
is an opportunity to do so.
In America, the one thing we have is ample natural gas. As a matter
of fact, the price of gas is historically low now because of the oil
development in the Permian Basin. An offshoot of it is natural gas.
Because it has driven the price of gas so low, we have ample natural
gas.
What we need to do and really need to work on--hopefully, we can work
on together--is if you want to lower the price of electricity, which I
assume we all do, is that the way you do that is by taking the natural
gas that we have, converting it to electrons, and transmitting it out
so people can have access to the electricity.
{time} 1320
Mr. Speaker, that is where the expense is, not being able to permit,
to move. To create electrons and then to move them is an expense, as
well, as much as it is permitting the pipelines that we are talking
about.
We are in a battle of our time. We are in a battle where we can
choose to follow the regulatory state of Europe. We can't out-regulate
Europe. We need to out-innovate China.
Mr. Speaker, this is the beginning of a series of bills. Hopefully,
we can find a series of bills we can work on together. It needs to be
all of us, together, focused on defeating China in terms of delivering
the energy we need to do so. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this
bill, and I thank Representative Fedorchak for bringing it forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fine). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 707, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________