Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1900, the ``Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Act.''

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated this week as this House has debated the other energy bills, I am not anti-energy exploration. I am not pro- or anti-fracking. I am, however, strongly ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-economic growth,'' and ``pro-sustainable environment.''

As a Member of Congress from Houston I have always been mindful of the importance of, and have strongly advocated for, national energy policies that will make our nation energy independent, preserve and create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.

That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when they are sound, balanced, fair, and promote the national interest.

Where they fall short, I believe in working across the aisle to improve them if possible by offering constructive amendments.

Although I believe the nation would benefit by increased pipeline capacity to transport our abundant supplies of natural gas, the legislation before contains several provisions that are of great concern to me.

Pursuant to Section 2, paragraph (4) of the bill, a permit or license for a natural gas pipeline project is ``deemed'' approved if the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) or other federal agencies do not issue the permit or license within 90-120 days.

I have three concerns with this regulatory scheme.

First, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact.

Thus, the provision is unwise.

Second, the provision is unnecessary because FERC has, since fiscal year 2009, completed action on 92 percent (504 out of 548)

of all pipeline applications that it has received within one year of receipt. And the remaining 8% of decisions that have taken longer than one year involve complex proposals that merit additional review and consideration.

Mr. Chairman, the process may not be perfect or as quick as we would like but it is working well and administered by hardworking individuals who carefully and meticulously consider permits and license applications for natural gas pipelines on a case-by-case basis--as they should.

The approval process for a pipeline is not like deciding to grow a garden in the backyard of your home--given the inherently dangerous nature of the activity, the review and approval process takes time and requires careful attention--as it should be.

In short, the bill before us is a remedy in search of a problem. There is no lengthy or intolerable backlog of neglected natural gas pipeline projects awaiting action by FERC.

Third, the provision is irresponsible because it would require FERC and other agencies to make decisions based on incomplete information or information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time.

Compounding the problem is that the fact that FERC, like virtually every federal agency, is operating under the onerous and draconian provisions of the disastrous sequestration which has caused so much misery and disruption across the nation and to our economy.

FERC, for example, with a budget of $306 million faces a $15 million reduction in spending authority this fiscal year, according to OMB. That sum amounts to 5% of FERC's budget.

So the likely impact of this bill if passed is to put FERC in the position of having to work faster to issue decisions with fewer experienced employees and a reduction in resources.

Thus, because of sequestration the legislation would achieve the opposite effect intended by proponents.

In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more.

Mr. Chairman, given the inherent dangers involved in the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline, does anyone doubt that were this bill to become law FERC will be more likely to err on the side of caution and deny applications that may otherwise have been approved if it had more time and more resources to carry out its responsibilities?

Mr. Chairman, we should not take that chance. An amendment I offered, and which was made in order by the Rules Committee, avoids this outcome by conditioning the effective date of this bill upon the termination of sequestration.

Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in recognizing how detrimental sequestration has been to our fiscal policy and to the economy.

Earlier this week, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, joined by the 12 Subcommittee chairs, wrote a letter to the Budget Conferees in which they call upon the Budget conference to reach an agreement as soon as possible because among other things: ``the current sequester and the upcoming 'Second Sequester' in January would result in more indiscriminate across the board reductions that could have negative consequences on critically important federal programs''.

The Appropriators go on to state that: ``The American people deserve a detailed budget blueprint that makes rational and intelligent choices on funding by their elected representatives, not by a meat ax.''

Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with Chairman Rogers and the Subcommittee chairs.

Sequestration is bad fiscal policy. It results in unwanted and unintended legislative consequences. It is bad for the economy. It is unfair to the American people and they know it.

According to an analysis conducted by Regional Economic Models, Inc. and Third Way, the damage to the economy caused by sequestration is substantial.

Sequestration has cost the United States $179.4 billion in lost economic activity and more than 1.88 million jobs, which means the economy grew by -1.04% less than it would have otherwise.

The corresponding figures for my home state of Texas are $15.2 billion in lost economic activity and 153,541 jobs.

The human toll of the sequestration is even greater.

Texas, for example, will lose approximately $67.8 million for primary and secondary education, putting around 930 teacher and aide jobs at risk.

In addition about 172,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 280 fewer schools would receive funding.

Texas will lose approximately $51 million for about 620 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.

Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 4,800 children in Texas, reducing access to critical early education.

Approximately 52,000 civilian Department of Defense employees in Texas may be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $274.8 million in total.

Texas will lose about $1,103,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

More than 83,000 fewer Texans will get the help and skills they need to find employment because Texas will lose about $2,263,000 for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning.

Up to 2300 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.

Because of sequestration, 9,730 fewer children in Texas will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations.

Texas could lose up to $543,000 to provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 2,100 fewer victims being served.

Texas will lose approximately $2,402,000 to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events.

In addition, Texas will lose about $6,750,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 2,800 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Texas State Department of Public Health will lose about $1,146,000 resulting in around 28,600 fewer HIV tests.

Mr. Chairman, I join with Chairman Rogers and the Subcommittee chairs in calling upon the Budget conference ``to reach an agreement on the FY 2014 and 2015 spending caps as soon as possible to allow the appropriations process to move forward to completion by the January 15 expiration of the current short-term Continuing Resolution.''

I agree with them that if an agreement is not reached and sequestration remains in place, ``the likely alternatives could have extremely damaging repercussions.''

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us compounds the damage already being done by sequestration. It is for this reason that I urge all Members to join me in voting against H.R. 1900 as an unwise, unnecessary, and irresponsible measure.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I offer an amendment that responds, I believe, to the importance of the issue and also to the purpose of the underlying bill, and it deals with safety.

My amendment delays the date upon which the bill can be implemented until such time that the Federal Government is no longer operating under a budget dictated by the sequester, which some would call a ``meat-ax,'' that is dipping into and diving into the works of the Federal Government, such as agencies like FERC.

The likely impact of this bill, if passed, is to put FERC in a position of having to work faster, to issue decisions with fewer experienced employees, and to have a reduction in resources, thereby impacting safety and security, if I might say, because FERC, like virtually every other Federal agency, is operating under the onerous and draconian provisions of the disastrous sequestration which has caused so much misery and disruption across the Nation and to our economy. I might add, Mr. Chairman, the important aspect of this is that the ultimate results will be, FERC, if you don't do your work, if you are not thoughtful, if you are not deliberative, we deem the approval.

There is no evidence that FERC is backlogged. This has nothing to do with the Keystone pipeline, the procedures of which are in another agency altogether. So you would ask: What problem is this bill solving? None. Absolutely none. With a budget of $306 million--because of sequestration--and with a $15 million reduction in spending, 5 percent of FERC's budget is impacted. This is a bill seeking a solution to a problem that does not exist, and it is dangerous to have legislation that deems approval when the agency which has jurisdiction has not completed its investigation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, sequestration is not only impacting the whole of the work of FERC's; but, in actuality, sequestration is undermining the economy of the United States of America.

In my State alone, we have lost 153,000 jobs. The United States has lost 1 million jobs. It is so devastating that I offer to submit a letter for the Record from the Republican cardinals, dated November 18, 2013, calling upon the Budget Committee to rid us of the disastrous sequestration.

It indicates that we have a severe problem in sequestration. This legislation to expedite the approval of needed gas pipelines is, again, an initiative looking for a solution. Since fiscal year 2009, FERC has completed action on 92 percent of their pipeline applications. Mr. Chairman, there is no problem. There is no backlog. The idea that sequestration's impact is overstated is not true. According to an analysis conducted by Regional Economic Models and Third Way, the damage to the economy caused by sequestration is substantial.

I would also like to offer a personal story that deals with the impact far-reaching. It is the fact that pediatricians today are seeing babies who are malnourished. Because of these horrible cuts and the cuts in SNAP, mothers are putting water in the formula. It may be a far reach; but because we are under these horrible caps of sequestration, it is impacting the far reaches of government. Even babies are suffering and are malnourished because of sequestration.

So, if this bill passes today, my desire is--if it even goes anywhere, if it finds a problem that it is trying to solve--that it should not be implemented at all; but if it is implemented, it certainly should not burden an agency that has proven to do its work timely 92 percent of the time. It should not burden that agency by insisting that it goes into implementation right away. It should not be in until we have moved forward and have gotten rid of sequestration.

In conclusion, there are enormous amounts of human toll impact through social safety net and health education: 600,000 women and children thrown off WIC; 807,000 fewer hospitals for Native Americans; the national security impact of the U.S.'s ``let's prepare for WMD incidents.''

So I ask my colleagues not to support the underlying bill, but to support the Jackson Lee amendment--no action until sequestration is gone.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple, straightforward, and practical. It simply postpones the effective date of the bill until the end of sequestration.

Although I share many of the concerns of my colleagues and the administration regarding the wisdom of this legislation, my amendment does not effect any change in the bill's regulatory scheme.

Because of sequestration the legislation would achieve the opposite effect intended by proponents.

In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more.

My amendment avoids this outcome by conditioning the effective date of this bill upon the termination of sequestration.

Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in recognizing how detrimental sequestration has been to our fiscal policy and to the economy.

Earlier this week, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, joined by the 12 subcommittee chairs, wrote a letter to the budget conferees in which they call upon the budget conference to reach an agreement as soon as possible because, among other things: ``the current sequester and the upcoming `Second Sequester' in January would result in more indiscriminate across the board reductions that could have negative consequences on critically important federal programs''.

The appropriators go on to state that: ``The American people deserve a detailed budget blueprint that makes rational and intelligent choices on funding by their elected representatives, not by a meat ax.''

Rather, my amendment merely delays the date upon which the bill can be implemented until such time as the Federal Government is no longer operating under a budget dictated by the ``meat ax,'' instead of a balanced plan of needful investment and deficit reduction.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 2, paragraph (4) of the bill, a permit or license for a natural gas pipeline project is ``deemed'' approved if the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or other federal agencies do not issue the requested permit or license within 90-120 days.

The likely impact of this bill if passed is to put FERC in the position of having to work faster to issue decisions with fewer experienced employees and a reduction in resources.

This is because FERC, like virtually every federal agency, is operating under the onerous and draconian provisions of the disastrous sequestration which has caused so much misery and disruption across the Nation and to our economy.

FERC, for example, with a budget of $306 million faces a $15 million reduction in spending authority this fiscal year according to OMB. That sum amounts to 5% of FERC's budget.

So if H.R. 1900 were to become law the most likely outcome is that FERC and other agencies would be required to make decisions based on incomplete information, or information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time.

Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with Chairman Rogers and the subcommittee chairs.

Sequestration is bad fiscal policy. It results in unwanted and unintended legislative consequences. It is bad for the economy. It is unfair to the American people.

I urge support of the Jackson Lee Amendment because it will prevent the bill before us from yielding unwanted and unintended results.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Chairman, Budget Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Chris Van Hollen,

Ranking Member, Budget Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patty Murray,

Chairwoman, Budget Committee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jeff Sessions,

Ranking Member, Budget Committee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Ryan, Chairwoman Murray, Ranking Member

Sessions, and Ranking Member Van Hollen: We call on the

Budget conference to reach an agreement on the FY 2014 and

2015 spending caps as soon as possible to allow the

appropriations process to move forward to completion by the

January 15 expiration of the current short-term Continuing

Resolution. We urge you to redouble your efforts toward that

end and report common, topline levels for both the House and

Senate before the Thanksgiving recess, or by December 2 at

the latest.

If a timely agreement is not reached, the likely

alternatives could have extremely damaging repercussions.

First, the failure to reach a budget deal to allow

Appropriations to assemble funding for FY 2014 will reopen

the specter of another government shutdown. Second, it will

reopen the probability of governance by continuing

resolution, based on prior year outdated spending needs and

priorities, dismissing in one fell swoop all of the work done

by the Congress to enact appropriations bills for FY 2014

that reflect the will of Congress and the people we

represent. Third, the current sequester and the upcoming

``Second Sequester'' in January would result in more

indiscriminate across the board reductions that could have

negative consequences on critically important federal

programs, especially our national defense.

In addition, failure to agree on a common spending cap for

FY 2015 will guarantee another year of confusion.

The American people deserve a detailed budget blueprint

that makes rational and intelligent choices on funding by

their elected representatives, not by a meat ax. We urge you

to come together and decide on a common discretionary

spending topline for both FY 2014 and FY 2015 as quickly as

possible to empower our Committee, and the Congress as a

whole, to make the responsible spending decisions that we

have been elected to make.

Sincerely,

Harold Rogers, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations;

Jack Kingston, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health

and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies;

Tom Latham, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation,

and Housing and Urban Development, and Related

Agencies; Kay Granger, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies; John

Abney Culberson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military

Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies;

John R. Carter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland

Security; Tom Cole, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Legislative Branch; Frank R. Wolf, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related

Agencies; Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Defense; Robert B. Aderholt, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies; Michael K.

Simpson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water

Development, and Related Agencies; Ander Crenshaw,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial Services and

General Government; Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, Mr. Cantor, the majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

I think, as the majority leader knows probably as well as any of us, and maybe better than most of us, we have 4 legislative days left in November and 8 scheduled legislative days in December, assuming we do, in fact, get out on the 13th, which is the last day that we are scheduled to be in session this year.

Having said that, there are a number of pressing items to address. As the majority leader knows, the unemployment insurance protections for folks expire on December 31--actually, I think it is December 28. The SGR provisions expire on December 31. If we do not do something with respect to them, there will be a substantial decrease in the reimbursement to doctors serving Medicare patients.

I know that the majority leader has, and we have, people who are willing to work together to address these issues. Knowing that there is usually uncertainty at the end of a session, I would ask the gentleman if he can give Members a sense of scheduling for the coming month, that is December, and I yield to my friend.

I thank the majority leader for that information, and I am pleased that he added to the WRRDA, farm bill, NDAA, and the patent reform issues the budget conference. My view is, as the majority leader probably knows, the most important thing we can do for our economy is to get our country on a fiscally sustainable long-term path.

Can the majority leader gives us some information on the status of the budget conference? Certainly, from a public perception, it appears that not much progress has been made, which is worrisome in light of the fact that the target date for the reporting on the conference is the 13th--or, should I say, the legislative directive is to report by the 13th. As Mr. Ryan has pointed out, perhaps unfortunately so, there are no consequences of that not occurring. I had urged, myself, as the majority leader may know, that they report out by Friday of next week, the 22nd of next week, or Thursday of next week, so that we could have the conference report on the week we come back in December after Thanksgiving.

Could the gentleman give us any idea where he thinks the proceedings of the conference committee on the budget stand?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

He mentions the sequester. Of course, almost everybody who has spoken about the sequester, including myself, the majority leader, and Mr. Ryan, has indicated the sequester is not the way to reduce spending. It is a meat-ax approach which is having very adverse consequences to our national security structure. I think almost every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has made that point. Certainly, General Dempsey has made that point. But also, on the domestic discretionary side, the sequester doesn't work, and the proof of that, of course, is that we haven't considered any of those bills on the floor; and the one that we considered, we pulled, the Transportation-HUD bill.

So I am hopeful, and I know Mr. Rogers is, as is Senator Mikulski, the chairs of the Appropriations Committee, have both indicated that they hope to get a number early on, and that is why the 22nd was a preferable date, if we could have reached that, so that they would have a number to which they could mark bills. Obviously, if there is not an agreement on the 302(a), as the gentleman knows, it is very difficult, then, to try to bring those bills together in a conference because they are so far apart.

I am hopeful that the majority leader will use his good offices to urge resolution on the budget conference differences and report out as soon as possible so we can get to that process.

The gentleman I am sure shares my view that the shutting down of government is extraordinarily disruptive, both to the general public and to those who work for the Federal Government, so that it would be incumbent upon us, I think, to try to get out of this gridlock on the budget process that we have been in. I would urge him to exercise whatever, because he has substantial influence to try to get us to a resolution of this issue, and I will tell him I will do the same.

Another issue which you did not mention, Mr. Leader, is immigration. As you know, this issue passed very handily through the United States Senate on a vote of 68-32, and I am very hopeful that we could move this legislation. I think the Senate bill or a variation of the Senate bill would pass. We have introduced an alternative for which we have Republican cosponsorship, H.R. 15, which is a comprehensive immigration bill which incorporates the security provision that was adopted unanimously in this House by the Republican-led Homeland Security Committee. We believe it has bipartisan components to it, and the balance of the bill has bipartisan support in the United States Senate. The gentleman knows, you passed a number of bills out of your committees, and they were passed, of course, with partisan votes. We do not believe these bills are bills that we would support, but we are wondering whether any of them are going to be brought to the floor.

H.R. 2278, which is the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, which allows the State and local authorities to enforce Federal immigration laws, as you know, we think that is bad policy, but it did come out of the Republican-headed committee in the Judiciary Committee. I am wondering if that might be brought to the floor.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, Madam Speaker, and I wish that they had been demonstrated on the farm bill and on the Homeland Security appropriation bill, both of which were reported out of committee on a bipartisan basis but were made very partisan on the floor of this House. I thought that was unfortunate, but that is what happened.

I would like to repeat my question. The gentleman said he wanted to deal with the immigration bill in a very thoughtful, considered way and that he did not support the Senate immigration bill. I was not surprised with that response. The Speaker has also made that very clear; he does not support it. And, very frankly, the majority of Republicans have made it clear they do not support the comprehensive immigration reform bill.

However, Mr. Leader, what I asked you was are you going to bring H.R. 2278 which passed out of the Judiciary Committee, presumably in a thoughtful, considered, discrete way, that is dealing with individual subjects, which is the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, which allows States and local authorities to enforce Federal immigration laws--my question to you, Mr. Leader, are you going to bring that bill to the floor, or any of the other four bills, which I will mention as well, to the floor, because presumably you believe those were considered in a thoughtful way, were reported out of your committee, were reported out with all of your Republican members, I believe, voting for it, at least 20 of them voting for it. My question to you is: Are you going to bring that bill to the floor?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the leader.

I said I wanted to mention the other bills because we understand, A, you would like to talk about health care without focusing on anything else. I get that. We have a disagreement. We will see whether the American people believe that making sure that affordable, quality health care is available to all Americans is something they are for or whether they are against. We will see on that. That issue was joined in the last election. The last election didn't have much effect in this body in terms of the issues that were contended in that election.

But let me ask you about H.R. 2131, which is the Supplying Knowledge Based Immigrants and Lifting Levels of STEM Visas Act.

As the gentleman knows, there are a lot of people very interested in this issue. This would eliminate the diversity visa program, transfer 55,000 green cards available under that program to a new STEM program that employers can use to hire foreign workers with advanced STEM degrees--master's degrees, Ph.D.s, et cetera--from universities. It was being marked up and, I understand, passed out 20-14. Again, that was with an overwhelming Republican vote, if not unanimous vote. Again, the gentleman indicates we want to consider the immigration issue in a thoughtful, discreet, and, as the Speaker has said, bill by bill way.

Is there any expectation that the gentleman has that that bill will be brought to the floor before we adjourn for the year?

I yield to my friend.

I think the majority leader knows, and I know, he has 218 votes on his side of the floor. As a matter of fact, he has substantially more than that.

If the last bill was so good, bring it to the floor and pass it. That is what the Speaker says you want to do, you want to pass bills item by item. What is happening is you are passing bills out of committee and they languish there, just as the farm bill, to which the gentleman referred in the early part of our discussion, languished in the last Congress and was not reported to the floor.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that point.

He passed a Homeland Security bill that he knew the Senate wasn't for. He passed appropriation bills that he knew the Senate wasn't for. He passed, Madam Speaker, the farm bill amendments that he knew were not going to be supported in the Senate.

Madam Speaker, we think immigration is a critically important subject. We believe immigration is, in fact, broken. We have an alternative. He doesn't like our alternative. I understand that. We understand that on this side. Perhaps the American people will also understand. They don't like our alternative.

It passed with 68 votes in the United States Senate. He now says people have changed their mind. Maybe that is the case, but it passed with 68 votes in the United States Senate. They don't like it. Madam Speaker, I understand that. I get it.

They don't like the health care bill. By the way, Madam Speaker, I am starting to get that message. I am pretty thick and it takes some time, but on 46 votes to repeal or to undermine, I get it. You don't like that bill. You think it is a bad bill. We have a disagreement on that, Mr. Leader.

However, apparently we don't have a disagreement on the fact that the immigration system in America is broken. What I am asking you--you have passed out of committee the Agricultural Guest Worker Program. It creates a new Temporary Agricultural Worker Program. That also passed on a partisan vote. None of these votes were bipartisan. There was no effort to work with the Democrats on the committee to bring a bipartisan bill, unlike Mr. Lucas or Mr. Carter, who brought bipartisan bills to the floor and saw them turned into partisan pieces of legislation with the help, frankly, of the majority party.

I am asking you regarding the Agricultural Guest Worker Act, are we going to bring that to the floor? Again, a discreet, thoughtful, I am sure on your side of the aisle, addressing of a broken program, but if we don't bring it to the floor, we don't consider it, we can never get to conference, which is what the gentleman says he wants to do.

I yield to my friend.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations.

I must say I am somewhat amused, Madam Speaker, because there are few people in America who believe it is our party that is my way or the highway. There are few people in America who didn't see 198 Democrats vote to keep their government working. It is not my way or the highway. We didn't get what we wanted. We didn't want that number that was passed. 198 Democrats, without exception, voted to keep this government open; 198 Democrats voted to pay the bills of the United States of America. It wasn't a question of my way or the highway. It wasn't a question of repeal or I will vote to shut down the government. 147 Republicans, Madam Speaker, voted to keep the government shut down because they didn't get their way. 147 Republicans, including in both instances, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, voted to not pay the bills of the United States of America. And they voted against the majority leader's advice and against the Speaker's advice. That is a problem. I agree that that is a problem.

No matter how much, Madam Speaker, the majority leader says it is the President and the United States Senate that are undermining, in fact, the United States Senate has been passing time and after time after time bipartisan bills and has sent them to the House, where they have languished or been opposed, and finally, they were supported. That was true in the Violence Against Women Act. It was true on a bill that the majority leader and I were for, Madam Speaker, and that is for giving Sandy relief. He couldn't get more than 25 percent of his party to support that.

All I am saying is that, if immigration is a problem and we all say it is, and you think it needs to be dealt with in a discrete way, and you have passed bills out, why don't you bring them to the floor? H.R. 1772, the Legal Workforce Act, makes E-Verify immigration status programs for prospective employees mandatory. Again, I presume that this is one of Mr. Goodlatte's thoughtful, considered steps to fix a broken immigration system.

All I am asking is--now for the fourth time--will you bring one or more of these bills to the floor? We may not be for them, but at least they put, as the gentleman keeps saying, a bill before the House so the House can work its will. Frankly, if they are defeated, then it would be incumbent upon us to move in a different direction, but if they are just sitting there without consideration by the House, without the ability of the House to work its will, then it continues to cause inaction on a subject that all of us have expressed needs action.

If the gentleman wants to respond to that, I will yield. If not, I will go on to another subject. I am going to go on to another subject.

Rather than go on to another subject, let me urge the gentleman, again, because when the gentleman says, ``Let the House work its will,'' that is a wonderful phrase. Hopefully, it resonates with the American people. But the House is not allowed to work its will. Ultimately, of those bills I have just referenced, we did work our will, and we worked our will, frankly, with mostly a majority of Democrats and a minority of Republicans joining together to pass critically important legislation for this country. We couldn't get the majority of your party to vote for many of those bills.

I would ask the gentleman that if he really wants the House to work its will, and he believes that H.R. 15, the comprehensive immigration bill, is a bad bill, bring it to the floor and see if the House thinks it is a bad bill, see if the House believes that it is a bill that is not worthy to be considered and passed as a fixing of a broken immigration system.

I urge my friend to bring that bill to the floor. He has the power to bring that bill to the floor. I urge him to do so.

I yield to my friend.

In closing, Madam Speaker, let me simply observe that this is somewhat ironic because the gentleman has repeatedly said he doesn't like the Senate bill.

I hear that. He then says, we need to consider a more thoughtful way of doing this. I get that.

I have then pointed out that the committee, which is headed by Mr. Goodlatte, Republican leader of the Judiciary Committee, has passed a number of bills, presumably, in that quest for a more thoughtful consideration to fix a broken system.

The gentleman has not said he is going to bring any of those bills to the floor, so he knows what he is against, Madam Speaker. He knows what his party is against, Madam Speaker, but he cannot tell us what he is going to do to fix a broken system because, apparently, the four bills that I have asked about are not being brought to the floor, are not part of the solution of which the gentleman speaks, and that is regrettable.

Let me say, in closing, Madam Speaker, I hope we can work in a bipartisan fashion. It didn't occur after the election, where the very issue was whether or not we ought to extend affordable health care to millions of people, some 30 to 40 to 50 million people who did not have health care security.

They continue to be scared. They continue to be presented with a message that this is a failed program, frankly, before it even starts.

Now, it has started. In terms of access, it doesn't start, as the gentleman knows, until January 1. But for some people, for some people it has started. For some parents with children with a preexisting condition, who could not get insurance, it is working.

For young people who couldn't find a job but needed insurance and were less than 26 years of age, they could stay on their parents' policy. It was working.

For seniors who were confronted with a doughnut hole that put them deeply in debt for prescription drugs they needed for lifesaving and life quality, it is working.

It is working for those people who did not go bankrupt and won't go bankrupt in the future because there are not the limits that can be imposed upon them when they get really sick.

So, yes, we will have a debate on that, but it ought not to simply divert us from all of the other issues that we need to deal with.

The budget--we need to get this country on a fiscally sustainable path. I know the leader agrees on that.

We need to fix a broken immigration system. I know the leader believes that as well. We need to invest in growing our country, to get rid of the sequester because the sequester is going to hurt our country. And, frankly, I think the leader agrees on that. We may not agree on how to do it, but I think he agrees on the objective.

So, Madam Speaker, on all of those, we ought to be giving our best efforts, not in a partisan way, but in a bipartisan way, as Americans, not as Democrats and Republicans.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Whitfield and Chairman Upton for helping me work this bill through our committee. It is great to have it on the floor today. We now have a bipartisan piece of legislation aimed at making simple, commonsense reforms to the natural gas pipeline permitting process.

Rather than eliminating environmental regulations and permits, H.R. 1900 takes a very reasonable approach by requiring agencies involved in the permitting of natural gas pipelines, simply requesting that they finish their work in a timely manner.

The legislation builds off reforms made in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which placed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the lead agency for interstate natural gas pipelines.

As we have heard this morning, natural gas is becoming a dominant force in the electricity generation and manufacturing sectors. It is critical that pipeline construction can take place through a modernized permitting process, and that is what this bill aims to do.

The current interstate natural gas pipeline permitting process, established in 2005, is already in need of updating because of the enormous shale gas boom. H.R. 1900 makes changes to the interstate natural gas pipeline permitting process by simply putting in place statutory deadlines for each of the permitting agencies to complete their work. This is pretty reasonable. We are simply asking agencies to do what the law requires them to do. They can say ``yes'' to a permit, they can deny the permit, but they can't sit on it. They have to do their homework. They have to get the job done.

FERC is already the lead agency for coordinating environmental review of interstate natural gas pipelines, and as FERC testified in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year, the deadlines imposed by H.R. 1900 are reasonable. In fact, FERC asked for a couple of changes in the legislation, and in each case we made those changes at their request.

If, after H.R. 1900 were to become law, an agency doesn't complete its work, the permit would automatically be approved by statute. I have heard others say this is unprecedented, but that is simply not the case. There are numbers of examples all throughout the Federal code where statutory approvals of environmental permits are deemed approved in the absence of the agency saying to the contrary.

I can't imagine anyone saying that this legislation is radical or unprecedented. More importantly, I can't see that they could claim that it is unnecessary. To my left you can see the impact of the absence of natural gas infrastructure all across the country. Frankly, in Kansas, we are in pretty good shape, but on the east coast, here in the Northeast where I am standing today, and on the west coast, you see enormously high natural gas costs: 24 percent above the national average in New York; 20 percent above the national average in Arizona; 67 percent above the national average in Maine; and 68 percent above the national average for the cost of natural gas in the State of Florida. We are seeing these prices rise because we don't have infrastructure development adequate to meet the needs of manufacturers and consumers in these places.

The New York Times, that bastion of conservatism, wrote the following, saying that FERC was ``concerned about increasing reliance on natural gas-fuel generators at times when there is an increasingly tight availability of pipeline capacity to deliver natural gas from the south and the west to New England.''

The Boston Globe, writing about pipeline projects in New England, said that the projects come ``as New England struggles to address growing demand for natural gas and supply constraints created by tight pipeline capacity. Those constraints have led to shortages and price spikes during the peak demand periods, such as extended winter cold snaps, helping to drive the region's already high energy costs even higher.''

The New York Times and the Boston Globe recognize the need for H.R. 1900.

This is not a manufactured crisis or bill in search of a problem. This is a real issue with real consequences for jobs in America and for average working families all across our country. The bill will give certainty to natural gas pipeline developers that invest in projects which could transport affordable energy to consumers all across the Nation.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1900 and address a very real issue impacting consumers and manufacturers all across the country.

Mr. Chairman, a couple of points are worth noting to make sure that everybody understands exactly what we are up against.

There has been some suggestion that this is unnecessary, and maybe in the eyes of some in Washington, some political officials, it is unnecessary; but the people who this matters to--consumers, manufacturers all across the country--know that this is a necessary piece of legislation. The National Association of Manufacturers has said that this is something that would be important to creating manufacturing jobs for families all across the country. The Chamber of Commerce has similarly made this comment.

It was earlier stated that some folks were unaware of union support for this legislation. I want to make sure that everyone is fully aware that the Laborers' International Union of North America, the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, and the operating engineers have all been supportive of H.R. 1900 and the importance of energy infrastructure expanding all across our country.

Finally, there has been this idea that FERC approves 90 percent of the permits. It has been repeated time and time again. It is just factually incomplete. It is like, if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it. Technically perhaps true in the most narrow sense, but in reality, it is not the case that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves 90 percent of all permits or that they are all approved. FERC is but one of many, many agencies that has the authority to approve and deny permits. So this 90 percent number that continues to be thrown around is just false. We don't have 90 percent of all folks seeking to build pipelines being able to build those pipelines in a timely fashion. They are being delayed.

There is real demand for this. There is demand from the New England Ratepayers Association. There is demand in States like Florida, where the natural gas rates are 60 percent higher than the national average. This is a real need. This is a real challenge.

And if we do this, if we get H.R. 1900 passed, all we are simply saying is do your job. Finish the process. If you decide that the permit shouldn't be built, any of these agencies can deny that permit being built. That seems fine. We are not denying any agency the capacity to deny a permit. But do the work. Tell these folks that, No, you are not going to get it, and then allow the process to move forward.

These unions, these associations, these real hardworking families need natural gas at an affordable price to be delivered to them, and H.R. 1900 will help achieve that objective.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the EPA already asserts that it has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions--and methane is defined as a greenhouse gas.

The EPA's New Source Performance Standards capture GHG emissions above a certain threshold. Permits are already required for facilities whose emissions are anticipated to be above that threshold. The EPA's permitting process should be the forum for this decisionmaking.

FERC's primary role, rather, should be as an economic regulator--the same way that it is today, and the same way it would be after H.R. 1900 would become law. It would want to defer environmental matters like this to the appropriate agency, which would be the EPA.

The amendment is structured such that the determination would have to be made before the NEPA analysis would begin. In other words, when the FERC ``complete'' application is filed and FERC is put into the role of determining methane ``best practices'' rather than EPA. This puts the cart before the horse. Such decisions on methane emissions should be made as part of the EPA permitting process.

Regarding methane emissions in general, the industry has every incentive to control methane leaks. Escaping methane is escaping product--something they do not want to happen. That means losses for their businesses.

This amendment would add unnecessary requirements to a problem that is already being addressed. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Tonko amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment from the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Chairman, there has been reference that Ms. Castor presented relating to what the industry wants that says this will actually mess it up. It will make pipeline permitting take longer.

Let me read for you what was written in a letter to me on November 14 of this year from that industry association. This is a letter from INGAA, signed by Mr. Santa, the president and CEO, who said:

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 attempted to coordinate the

permitting of new natural gas pipelines by designating FERC

as the lead agency under NEPA and granting FERC the authority

to set deadlines for permitting agencies to act on pipeline

actions. EPAct

2005, however, did not confer upon FERC the authority to

enforce such deadlines. As a result, permitting agencies

routinely ignore them.

It is critical that pipeline expansion keep pace with

demand in such regions as New England. A clear, timely review

of permits associated with proposed pipeline projects is

critical to meeting these goals.

The industry is full-throatedly in support of making sure

that H.R. 1900 becomes law, and this amendment would prevent

the key provisions of that from happening.

We know we are seeing skyrocketing prices. The worst residential price increases in the country are in the gentlewoman's home State of Florida, where natural gas is now $15.43 an mcf--68 percent above the natural average in the home State of the gentlelady who has offered this amendment.

Part of this enormous price increase in Florida and in other States is a direct result of insufficient pipeline capacity to keep up with production and demand inside the State of Florida--and that is great. I am glad there is demand in Florida. We now just simply need to get them affordable energy so they can continue to grow jobs for Florida families.

In July of this year, the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on H.R. 1900, where multiple stakeholders testified, including NextEra Energy, a Florida-based energy company which, in addition to being the largest wind company in North America, is also one of the Nation's largest purchasers and consumers of natural gas power for electric power generation.

Regarding the possibility that an agency might ultimately choose to deny an application because of H.R. 1900, something that this amendment is offered to make sure doesn't happen, ostensibly, NextEra stated the following in its testimony:

In infrastructure development, a timely ``no'' is much

preferable to an interminable ``maybe.''

That is, we have folks who just simply need certainty. They need answers.

The gentlewoman from Florida talked about increased litigation. I am thrilled to see folks on the other side of the aisle finally worried about the plaintiffs' bar and excessive delays that the plaintiffs' bar throws into the regulatory process. I promise my cooperation full- throatedly to work across the aisle to make sure that H.R. 1900 doesn't add a single job in the plaintiffs' bar anywhere in the United States of America.

Finally, Ms. Castor's amendment was offered because they are concerned about the idea that a permit would be deemed approved after a certain time, claiming in some cases that this has been unprecedented. Yet in the Clean Water Act, within 45 days of receipt of an application, under 33 U.S.C. 129, if no ruling has been issued, a permit ``shall be deemed approved.''

Under TSCA, section 5, again, a company seeking an application must submit a notice of commencement to EPA within 30 days, after which the chemical is considered an existing chemical. That is, the request is deemed approved.

This is not unprecedented.

The idea that this provision is extreme or unprecedented is simply not supported by the facts, and the precedent for applications being approved if a governing agency fails to act is very common in our Federal law.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Castor amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which would strike the entire piece of legislation and replace it with a GAO study.

The GAO back in February of this year issued a report detailing what they called the ``complex'' natural gas pipeline permitting process. This amendment would simply ask the GAO to duplicate many of those same findings that were done in a report issued less than a year ago, and there is simply no need for that.

I understand the gentleman from Michigan thinks this legislation is unnecessary, but I respectfully disagree. I

will give one example of where the claims regarding the approval timelines for natural gas permit pipelines have been dubious.

It has been erroneously repeated by opponents of this legislation that FERC testified in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee that 90 percent of the permits are being done on time. This is simply not the case. This is not what FERC stated in their testimony. It stated that 90 percent of the certificates are being completed within 12 months. There is an awful lot of difference between a certificate and a permit.

FERC is in control of only the certificate process, but they are at the mercy of other agencies with respect to the permit approval process. This is the main reason for the need for this legislation, because FERC has absolutely no enforcement authority over the other agencies to process permits on schedule. This brings accountability to other agencies.

Even though 90 percent of certificates are being processed by FERC in the 12-month period, it doesn't tell the full story. It would be talking about the bills that the House of Representatives passed and talking only about our naming of post offices and not talking about the substantive legislation, the important things, we do here in the House of Representatives.

I would also remind the gentleman from Michigan that the need for this legislation is so great that it garners support not just from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, but also the major electricity trade associations across the country: Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the American Public Power Association, as well as the New England Ratepayers Association, whose members are experiencing skyrocketing natural gas prices.

This amendment would gut the bill and ignore the core problem of stubbornly high natural gas prices in certain regions across the Nation. It dismisses the need for an improved permitting process for natural gas pipeline infrastructure completely.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's agreement, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just reiterate there is enormous importance to this legislation. While I appreciate that the gentleman from Michigan offered his amendment in a friendly tone, it guts the legislation in its entirety.

I also want to offer that H.R. 1900 is offered in a friendly manner. It is offered friendly to places like Michigan, New York, Florida, and Arizona, places that are paying unnecessarily high prices for natural gas in their parts of the country.

With that, I would urge rejection of this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, while we share every one of our colleagues' concerns about pipeline safety, nothing in this legislation does anything to impact the safety of pipelines all across the country. Indeed, putting in new pipelines, increasing capacity for natural gas pipelines, will actually allow the retirement of older pipelines which might present even more risk.

We all know the tragic incident that happened in San Bruno, California. This body has taken action to rectify that. There were pipeline safety bills passed with all of the Members of the House, and it passed in the Senate as well, to make sure that every pipeline built is done so in a way that is safe and responsible and with plenty of time for community input.

The motion to recommit suggests that H.R. 1900 would eliminate that time. It does nothing of that nature. In every case, for a complex pipeline, there will be nearly 2 years' time for communities and interest groups who have concerns about the pipeline going into their territory, their region, to make their voices heard and to make their concerns registered in the public place.

I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and pass the underlying legislation, H.R. 1900.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes are expected.

Madam Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today.

In addition, the House will consider three bills to increase domestic energy production, create American middle class jobs, and lower the cost of energy for our families. These bills are H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act, sponsored by Representative Bill Flores; H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, authored by Representative Doug Lamborn; and H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, sponsored by Mike Pompeo.

Together, these bills represent our continuing commitment to energy independence and putting more money in the pockets of working middle class families.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I would say to the gentleman we certainly have three conference reports we are looking at hopefully completing with the Senate. One is the WRRDA conference report that we voted on in the House this week to go to conference. The other is the farm bill conference report, as well as the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act.

I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, those are certainly the conference reports we would like to see resolved so we can have a vote in the House. The gentleman correctly points out that the sustainable growth rate program and its formula expires at the end of the year. Certainly, our committees are at work trying to see a way forward, as well as trying to seek out the proper budgetary pay-fors necessary for the plan that has been put forward by Energy and Commerce, as well as the Committee on Ways and Means. I know there have been some bicameral discussions on that as well. I am hopeful we can resolve that, but certainly knowing full well we have to act prior to the end of the year.

I would also point out to the gentleman that there is considerable work being done on the issue of patent reform, and we hope that comes to the floor prior to the end of the year. And obviously, the larger item having to do with the Budget Committee conference, headed up by Chairman Paul Ryan and in the other body Senator Patty Murray, and we look forward to a resolution there. That is certainly the intention, Madam Speaker.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and would say the gentleman is correct. Certainly, the sooner, the better, as far as I am concerned. I am concerned as well about any resolution on the Budget Committee conference. I know the gentleman has spoken to both Chairman Ryan as well as the other body's chairman. In speaking to Chairman Ryan, he tells me that there has been a lot of discussion, not only public discussion in meetings, but certainly his meeting with the chairman from the Senate, in trying to find a way forward.

The gentleman knows that the issue that is central to these discussions is not unlike the issue that has been under discussion for some time here, and that is how do we go about seeking reform of some of the mandatory programs and trying to reach resolution there in exchange for a commensurate relief on the across-the-board budget cuts that are currently in place.

I don't know, Madam Speaker, whether they are going to meet the deadline next week or not that the gentleman says will be preferable. I know that our chairman is very mindful that

the quicker, the better, so we can get on about our work here in the House.

As the gentleman knows, we have had the discussion before about the majority's position on the Senate bill. We don't support the Senate bill. The Speaker I think spoke out on that this week. Our Members don't support the Senate bill. We have said all along Chairman Goodlatte and his committee are going about a much more deliberative process, a step-by-step approach in trying to address the problems with a broken immigration system. I do think, and I will tell the gentleman that there is consensus on our side of the aisle as well as his, that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Certainly there are differences on how to go about doing that.

We remain committed, as does the chairman, in trying to move in a step-by-step manner to address the various issues involved with immigration reform, but not to do it the way the Senate did because, as we have seen, many of those who actually voted for the Senate bill in the other body now say they regret that vote or they perhaps would do some differently. I guess it is up to the House to try to address it much more deliberatively and try to fix the problems that exist so we don't see them happen again.

I would say to the gentleman, the House will continue its work; and, as the gentleman knows, the news of this week, unfortunately, has been many, many Americans very unhappy with the work product coming out of this town as far as health care is concerned. I would posit to the gentleman that a bill like ObamaCare or a bill like the Senate immigration bill produces the kind of impact and effect that we are seeing this week and last week and the prior. We don't want to commit that same kind of mistake. We want to be smarter about it.

As the gentleman knows, our committees are hard at work in trying to identify how we can help people with their health care right now since they are facing the very real prospects of not having the health care insurance plans that they like, contrary to the promises that were made when that comprehensive bill was passed a couple of years ago in the same way the Senate bill, the immigration bill, was passed, with not a lot of focus on the detail.

We intend to try and focus on the details of immigration reform, try to come together, see if we can actually have some positive reception on the gentleman's side of the aisle both in this House and the one across the way as well as the White House to actually work together finally to produce a bipartisan outcome that will be satisfactory because none of these partisan bills have ended up working. As you see, ObamaCare, case in point. That is why we have the train wreck that is upon us. It was a strictly partisan bill that came out of the Congress, House and Senate, and look what has happened.

So I say to the gentleman, we do care about the immigration issue and want to go about reform in a smart way.

I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, it is under consideration as to the timing when we bring that bill to the floor.

I would again reiterate that Chairman Goodlatte is trying to take a holistic approach to the immigration reform issue--the bill that the gentleman mentioned is obviously one of the pieces in trying to figure this out--and do so in a way that we can effect a positive result, not just result for result's sake. And I again direct the gentleman's attention, Madam Speaker, to what is going on with ObamaCare right now and how many millions of Americans are extremely disappointed in their government and certainly in the representations that were made by the

White House and President insofar as that law is concerned. I don't think that we ought to be engaging in those kinds of commitments when you can't deliver.

So again, we want to be working together. We want to be deliberative about this process, and hopefully we can move forward in a way that is expeditious and thoughtful.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman if he recalls that in the not too distant past, it was his side that opposed that bill when it was brought to the floor.

My response will be the same. We want to bring bills together. We can work in a cooperative fashion to effect a result. Unfortunately, as the minority opposed stapling green cards to diplomas on that bill that was brought in the past, we are trying to figure out a way where we can bring something forward and actually get it across the finish line with the other body.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the purpose is not just to make sure that a vote occurs and then nothing happens. The purpose is to pass bills and then allow for the bicameral effort to get a result. That is the frustration.

If the gentleman would also note, on the farm bill, we actually have a conference committee ongoing now. So the reason we employed the process we did was to get in a position that we could actually get a result and not just say we did something and fail to deliver for the people.

I would say to the gentleman again, these bills that he is bringing up all fit into a larger puzzle. We need some indication from the White House and from the majority in the Senate that they will actually work with us. Given the track record that this administration has amassed since 2009, there is not a lot of indication they are willing to work together.

Again, I would point to the prospects of that being what is key, because this week is demonstrative of what happens when you just move without bringing everyone together. The effects of this health care law are going to be lasting on people. They are scared to go to the exchanges. They are worried they are not going to have insurance. This is the impact and result of passing laws by just one body and expecting the other body to just go along. We can't do that now because we are two separate bodies, and we need the White House and the Senate to cooperate with the majority in the House.

Madam Speaker, I will say to the gentleman again, the track record of this administration and the majority in the Senate has indicated an unwillingness to sit down and talk. They have not done so. Certainly, the White House has not done so on the immigration issue, did not do so on the health care issue. Again, it doesn't help the American people for this insistence on ``my way or the highway'' kind of mode of operation.

We have gotten the message now. If it is going to be my way or the highway, we will try to do whatever we can to help people, as we did today on the floor with a bipartisan vote. The gentleman continues to say that we don't like the health care bill. That is true. I think the American people have spoken out pretty loud and clearly over the last 10 days or so, as indicated by the White House and the President's move yesterday. Obviously, the law is not working.

We don't want to get into another situation like that. We want to make sure we work together comprehensively because there are step-by- step actions that need to be taken, but we need results. We need the White House to sit down and talk to us. We don't need any more speeches, and we don't need any more press conferences by the President. We need some actual talk.

On the immigration issue, they have just not come forward. They have said ``my way or the highway.'' I say to the gentleman that is not how you work in a bipartisan process.

The gentleman complains about partisan action on the floor. Well, there is an inherent partisanship when you have a majority versus a minority, and the will of the House is reflected in the votes here. The Senate is controlled by

the gentleman's party, and so is the White House. So to get any kind of result, such as the farm bill, we are going to need a bipartisan result. He is correct on that. It doesn't mean that if we pass something in the House it automatically has to be something the Senate will support.

Again, I would say to the gentleman, let's all try to work together. I think our side has indicated a willingness to do that. Obviously, we want to go and get these conference reports out, but we have not seen a willingness on the part of the gentleman's party, this President, to say we can work together to effect positive immigration reform--not just my way or the highway.

Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that we don't want a repeat of what is going on now with ObamaCare. That bill constructed as it is by the Senate is a last-minute effort to get it across the finish line. I think there is a lot that could be done a lot better in that bill. The gentleman, I believe, knows that, as well. If he doesn't share my opinion, then we can agree to disagree on that.

I would just say again, let's be mindful, Madam Speaker, of what happens when you put together a bill like ObamaCare. There are real consequences for millions of Americans right now, and they are scared that they are not even going to have health care insurance that they have today come January 1. There are plenty of reasons for that: the mishaps with the Web sites, the call centers, the stolen identities. All the things that don't seem to be working right now are scaring people out of even considering in a rational way what is going on. How could they? There are no answers being given. I would say to the gentleman it is largely due to the unfortunate architecture of that bill, some of which can be blamed on the process by which it was put together. We don't want to the make that mistake again.

I would say to the gentleman that I look forward to working with him in a deliberate and thoughtful approach. We are not bringing up the Senate bill. We are not going to do that. I have said that to the gentleman. Hopefully, we can work in a much more positive way.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that this Republican-controlled House of Representatives is incapable of doing anything that matters in people's lives. When the history is written on the 113th Congress, especially as it pertains to the House of Representatives, they have accomplished nothing. They have made a lot of noise. They shut the government down. They whine about the health care bill every chance they get, but they have accomplished absolutely nothing.

And it is frustrating because our country is facing great challenges. Our economic growth is slower than it should be, thanks to the Republican shutdown of government, and their willingness to play politics with the debt ceiling has had a negative impact on our economy. Job growth is too slow, and we should be working together to invest in education and in job training and in infrastructure projects to help put people back to work. We ought to have a long-term highway bill. I think every Governor in the country, Republican and Democrat, would agree with me on that statement. Yet this House of Representatives just seems incapable of accomplishing anything to help rebuild our infrastructure.

The sequester that my Republican friends embraced has taken a terrible toll on our science and research programs. Talk to the people at NIH. Potentially lifesaving research into diseases like cancer and Parkinson's disease have been crippled, yet there is no urgency over on the side of my friends on the other side of the aisle to try to do anything about it. They just sit there and twiddle their thumbs and life goes on; meanwhile, we are losing our competitive edge in medical research and in science.

The Senate has passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill. The Republican leadership claims that we simply don't have the time to take it up. That is nonsense. We had time to take up this horrible bill that my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King) authored that would allow for the mass deportation of young, undocumented immigrants, the so-called DREAMers who were brought here as children by their parents. They have time to demagogue these issues, but to actually fix our broken immigration system, they claim we don't have any time.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record today's Washington Post editorial, ``John Boehner Must Act on Immigration Now.''

And just so my colleagues understand this, when my friends on the other side of the aisle say they don't have time, the Republicans will take 4 out of 5 days off for the rest of the year. That is how hard they are working on behalf of the American people. Four out of 5 days remaining from now until the end of the year they are going to take off. That is not doing your job, Mr. Speaker. That is not doing your job.

Instead of dealing with these important issues, we have this bill before us now that has come to the floor, H.R. 1900. The bill before is rather curious. Rather than solving a problem that actually exists, it is a solution in search of a problem, and it is just another partisan messaging bill that is going nowhere in the Senate. The White House has already said they would veto it.

H.R. 1900 would require FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to approve or deny an application for a natural gas pipeline within 12 months of its filing date. FERC already

decides 92 percent of permit applications within 12 months, and the GAO has concluded that its pipeline permitting process is predictable and consistent and gets pipelines built. The small percentage of applications that have taken more than a year involve complex proposals that deserve a more thoughtful review.

Instead of speeding up the permitting process, this bill will lead to unnecessary permit denials and increased litigation that will ultimately slow the process down. If FERC cannot properly review permits within the rigid 12-month deadline, they may be forced to deny applications that would otherwise end up being approved.

For me, the most troubling part of H.R. 1900 is that it may result in truncated or inadequate environmental analysis, which threatens the health and safety of communities these potentially hazardous pipelines run through. Just last week, a Chevron pipeline exploded in Milford, Texas, forcing the entire town to evacuate. Mr. Speaker, it isn't too much to ask the oil and gas industry to go through a process to make sure that these pipelines are safe.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on the underlying bill, and I urge my Republican colleagues to get back to work on solving real problems on behalf of the American people.

Enough of the press releases, enough of this polarizing rhetoric and these meaningless debates that we seem to be consumed with here in the House of Representatives. People want us to work on their behalf, to do things that will improve their lives, that will strengthen our country; and instead, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be cheering for our country to fail all the time and bringing this kind of stuff to the floor, which is going nowhere and is meaningless.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[The Washington Post, Nov. 19, 2013]

John Boehner Must Act on Immigration Now

(By Editorial Board)

Poor John Boehner. The beleaguered House speaker can't even

eat breakfast in peace. The other day, a pair of teenage

girls, activists for immigration reform, accosted him at

Pete's Diner, his early-morning hangout, to ask how he'd like

to be deported.

``How would you feel if you had to tell your kids at the

age of 10 that you were never coming home?'' 13-year-old

Carmen Lima, of California, asked Mr. Boehner. ``That

wouldn't be good,'' allowed the Speaker.

He got that right. The rest of his remarks on immigration

that day, not so much. Mr. Boehner, who pledged to press

ahead with immigration reform a year ago following Mitt

Romney's dismal performance with Latino voters, now says the

House will not negotiate with Democrats on the basis of the

sweeping reform bill passed by the Senate in June with

bipartisan support. Translation: Don't hold your breath for

immigration reform this year, and don't get your hopes high

for next year, either.

Mr. Boehner says he still wants to ``deal with''

immigration, but ``in a commonsense, step-by-step way.''

The trouble is, no one knows what those steps would be. The

only immigration bill on which Mr. Boehner has permitted a

vote by the full House would allow for the mass deportation

of young, undocumented immigrants brought to this country

illegally as children by their parents--the so-called

Dreamers.

Deporting hundreds of thousands of youngsters who grew up

and went to school in the United States does not seem an

especially promising way to resolve the broader issue of the

nation's broken immigration system. Neither does heaving

billions of dollars more at border security without tackling

the entire problem. Some partial reforms, such as opening the

visa spigot for high-tech engineers, scientists and

mathematicians, may make sense, but they don't get at the

fundamental problem.

As it happens, border security and high-tech visas are

addressed in the Senate bill, along with more fundamental

reform; that's why it's 1,300 pages long, a fact that Mr.

Boehner cited to dismiss its viability as the basis for

negotiations. In the wake of Obamacare's rollout troubles,

large-scale reforms are in poor repute, we understand. But

there are 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United

States. The country needs to deal with them in some way. When

it does so, it needs to set up a sensible system for future

immigration so we don't wind up in the same fix 10 or 20

years from now. That requires legislation of some complexity,

it's true, but members of Congress are elected to solve

complex problems.

President Obama said Tuesday that he is open to dealing

with immigration in a piecemeal fashion. But the House can't

dictate that only border security and deportation are on the

table. Mr. Boehner should let House Republicans vote on the

parts of immigration reform they consider priorities and take

that ``sensible step-by-step'' approach into negotiations

with the Senate. It is unserious, and unconstructive, to tell

the Senate what it can and cannot bring to the table in

negotiations with the House.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of our distinguished whip. It is frustrating to serve in the people's House and watch as this leadership purposely tries to avoid doing the people's business. It is frustrating when you go home and you talk to farmers, and they want to know where the farm bill is. It is frustrating when you talk to people about immigration, and they look at what happened in the United States Senate, where it passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support, and we can't even get anything scheduled here. We can't even get anything scheduled here.

It is frustrating when people are still reeling over the fact that the Republicans shut the government down, and they want to make sure we don't repeat it. Yet we have no budget resolution, no budget conference that has been put together to make sure that we are on a road where we don't have any more of these Ted Cruz-led shutdowns around here. So it is very frustrating.

I think the gentleman from Maryland said it very clearly--that the American people are frustrated. It is not just Democrats. It is Democrats and Republicans that are frustrated.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I yield to the gentleman from Texas for a parliamentary inquiry.

So we don't want another Ted Cruz-led shutdown here in the House of Representatives. I think the American people are fed up with that.

Then, as the distinguished minority whip pointed out, I mean, we are not even in session more than 6 full days from now until the end of the year, which is absolutely unconscionable.

You say to yourself, Well, maybe the Republicans are planning to do something in the future; maybe they have an agenda for the future. Then we read in Politico that last Thursday, a group of House Republicans filed into Majority Leader Eric Cantor's Capitol office suite and received a blank piece of paper labeled, ``Agenda 2014.'' This is their agenda for 2014. A Republican political aide put it more bluntly by saying, ``What we have done so far this year clearly hasn't worked.''

This is their agenda for next year. It might as well be the agenda for the rest of this year. It is nothing, nothing that is improving the quality of life for the people that we represent. Again, it fuels a cynicism all across the country that the majority party here doesn't seem to care about what happens to regular people, and that is very, very disconcerting.

I guess they could go back and say that their big accomplishment was that they complained about the Affordable Care Act. Over 40-something times, they brought bills to the floor to try to repeal it, never once offering an alternative to improve it, never once giving an alternative idea that would help address the fact that tens of millions of our citizens don't have health insurance. Millions do have health insurance, but it is really not health insurance because when they get sick, they realize they have been paying for a policy that provides them nothing. There is no alternative agenda to try to address those issues; it is just that they are against it. I guess it is easy to say ``no,'' but the bottom line is, I think the American people are looking for us to say ``yes'' to some things.

So, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up House Resolution 424, Ranking Member Slaughter's resolution prohibiting an adjournment of the House until we adopt a budget conference report.

What that means is that we should not adjourn until we do our job. That shouldn't be a radical idea. I would like to think there is bipartisan consensus that we ought to do our job, and that is what this would require.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the underlying bills which, to be honest with you, are a waste of our time. They are going nowhere in the Senate, and the President has already issued a veto threat on them.

With one last urging of my Republican colleagues to stay here and do your work, Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.