Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013

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.

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.

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

We are told that the Pompeo bill seeks to speed up the approval of interstate natural gas pipelines. In fact, it would have the opposite effect, delaying and disrupting a pipeline approval process that is working. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has concluded that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pipeline permitting is predictable and consistent and gets pipelines built. The pipeline companies testified that the process is ``generally very good'' and that the ``sector enjoys a favorable legal and regulatory framework for the approval of new infrastructure.'' In short, this is a government program that works well.

H.R. 1900 would disrupt this functioning permitting process by arbitrarily limiting the time that FERC and other agencies have to review pipeline applications. When faced with these time limits, one of two things

will happen. Agencies can conduct inadequate environmental reviews and rush to approve permits that do not comply with our Nation's health, safety, and environmental laws. This would be a terrible outcome because the public won't be protected and pipeline permits will be legally vulnerable. Alternatively, the agencies can deny the permits when the time limits prevent them from completing legally mandated pipeline reviews, and this would be a bad result as well because needed pipeline capacity would not get constructed.

The career director at the Office of Energy Projects at FERC testified that he didn't believe that this bill would result in faster permitting. He explained that the bill would actually result in slower permitting if agencies had no choice but to deny applications because of the arbitrary deadlines established by this bill.

With this bill, we will get rushed decisions and more project denials. No one benefits from that, not even, or especially not, the pipeline companies.

But the problem with this bill doesn't end there. The Pompeo bill automatically grants environmental permits for a pipeline project if an agency does not make a decision on a permit within 90 days of the issuance of FERC's environmental analysis. This provision would sacrifice public health and environmental protections in favor of an arbitrary deadline. And no one can explain how this provision can actually be implemented.

These permits are detailed documents that include emission limits, technology or operating requirements, and conditions to ensure the environment is protected. Agencies need to figure out all of these details and then actually draft the permits. Complex permits might not even be written, but somehow they would be required to magically take effect.

In an effort to cobble together a solution to the mystery of how incomplete permits could be automatically issued, the bill transforms FERC into a ``superpermitting'' agency. If an agency misses the 90-day deadline, the bill apparently requires FERC to write and issue the permit itself.

Under this approach, FERC will be issuing BLM rights-of-way through Federal lands. FERC will be figuring out water discharge limits. FERC will be determining which technologies should be employed to reduce air pollution emissions. FERC will be issuing permits to protect wetlands and even bald eagles. These are jobs that FERC doesn't have the expertise or resources to carry out. They are ordinarily conducted by other agencies. But in this bill, because of the deadline, FERC will be required to take on those responsibilities.

There are going to be real environmental and safety impacts if permits automatically go into effect without the responsible agencies completing the necessary analysis. The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA raised concerns that automatic permitting could lead to permits that are inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, and this could result in harmful water or air pollution.

This unworkable bill won't speed up pipeline permitting, but it will have adverse health, safety, and environmental impacts, and it will undermine the public's acceptance of interstate natural gas pipelines going through their communities. That is why it is opposed by the Pipeline Safety Trust and the public interest environmental groups, and that is why the administration has announced that it would veto this bill if it ever made it to the President's desk.

This is a bad bill. The consequences have not been thought through, and I urge all Members to oppose the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I do that in order to respond to the concerns that have been raised about natural gas prices in the Northeast. This is a real issue. New England is using more natural gas to generate electricity and more natural gas for heating homes than in the past. On the coldest winter days, when natural gas is needed for both heating and electricity, there is more demand than can be met by the existing pipeline capacity, and that, of course, can result in price spikes.

This bill does nothing to solve that problem. The problem in New England isn't caused by pipeline applications taking too long to get approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The problem is that the pipeline companies aren't even submitting the applications because they haven't figured out who will pay for these new pipelines. The pipeline companies haven't been satisfied that there is a sufficient year-round demand to justify and finance these pipelines.

That is an issue that FERC is actively looking at and has been holding stakeholder conferences about. But this has nothing do with Mr. Pompeo's bill. Cutting corners on the permitting process isn't going to help get additional pipeline capacity built for the Northeast. I don't think we ought to be blaming government for every problem. The reality is that FERC and the government didn't create this problem. It is a problem of the economics of it all, and the faster we understand that, the faster we can try to find real solutions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to myself.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I understand that proponents of this bill want a one-size-fits-all Washington, D.C., solution to the timeframes required for pipeline reviews. The problem is that there isn't some magic number of days that works for all pipelines in all circumstances.

There are 10-mile pipelines far from population centers that cross no rivers, and there are pipelines hundreds of miles long that cross multiple rivers and run through backyards. These are very different projects. It should come as no surprise that they take different amounts of time to review.

When reviewing a project, FERC doesn't just have to do an environmental review. It also has to conduct an engineering review. FERC must evaluate, approve, and in many cases alter a pipeline's route to address environmental, engineering, and community concerns. FERC must determine a pipeline's tariffs and rates. These are steps that take time.

For longer and more complex pipelines, these steps take longer, and they should. FERC decides 92 percent of all pipeline applications within 12 months. Let me repeat that: 92 percent of all the applications are approved within 12 months.

The fact that 8 percent of the projects take longer isn't a problem. It reflects the reality that a small number of projects are more complex and impact more people. If you have constituents in the paths of these proposed pipelines, you should want the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other agencies to protect your constituents by completing the necessary

reviews. Your constituents don't want a one-size-fits-all Washington solution for all problems that are not the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a very important member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I know of no union supporting this bill, nor do I think the Northeast ratepayers said in their letter where they expressed their concern about the supplies where there is a very cold spell, that they want this bill either.

I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a distinguished subcommittee ranking member on one of the energy subcommittees.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, we are not arguing whether we should have an infrastructure of pipelines to take natural gas from one place to another. That is not the issue. And that is a false premise that, for some reason, that may be an area of disagreement. It is not.

The area of disagreement is whether, in letting a pipeline be built, we are going to shortchange the ability of the agencies to review the pipeline. And if we do that, there may not be time to look at BLM issues or safe water issues or clean air issues because FERC will be told, if you don't do your job within a certain period of time, this permit is going to be approved, and these other agencies aren't going to have time to do any review.

Well, FERC doesn't have the ability to do other agencies' jobs; and those other agencies ought to be able to do their job, and FERC should do its job in a timely manner. But ``a timely manner'' doesn't mean a certain amount of time and no more--not another month, not another 2 months, not another 3 months.

I want to close by sharing some of the comments made by others. The White House said they will veto this bill. The President and his administration are against it. They say the bill provides for the automatic approval of natural gas pipeline permits if applications are not decided within ``rigid, unworkable time frames.'' The administration also notes that the bill could cause confusion and increase litigation risk, and further, the bill ``may actually delay projects or lead to more project denials, undermining the intent of the legislation.''

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let's say they needed a couple more months but that 12-month period is right there. Well, they will either have to approve it without those extra few months of review or deny it, which could mean longer periods of time before the pipeline is approved. It is counter to what the proponents say that they expect.

The Pipeline Safety Trust and other public interest organizations said about this bill: ``H.R. 1900 will needlessly put at risk the well- being of the people and environment where natural gas pipelines are built while making it easier for pipeline companies to use Federal eminent domain authority to take private land without a thorough review.''

This is going to allow eminent domain authority by a private company to take away people's land. Is that something that Members of Congress want to vote for, your constituents' land could be seized by a private company when there had not been a thorough review that would allow this kind of power over private property? That shouldn't be the result of a rushed, incomplete process. We wouldn't want a rushed, incomplete process of taking away liberty. We shouldn't allow a rushed, incomplete process to take away private property.

The Pipeline Safety Trust also explains that ``rushed or incomplete reviews resulting in automatic approvals pose a threat to public safety and the environment,'' and they characterize the bill's transformation of FERC into a ``superpermitting'' agency that issues other agencies' permits as ``bizarre.'' And they are right that it ``effectively places control over key environment and public health statutes in the hands of an agency primarily tasked with regulating the economics of natural gas and electricity.'' They don't have the expertise, they don't have the personnel, they don't have the budget, and now we are giving them that kind of a job.

And the last quote I have is from the natural gas pipeline industry. Now, I realize the industry would always like the permitting to go faster, but the industry told us over and over that the existing process works well. In May, the CEO of Dominion Energy testified on behalf of the pipeline companies. He told the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, ``The interstate natural gas pipeline sector enjoys a favorable legal and regulatory framework for the approval of new infrastructure,'' and his conclusion was that ``the natural gas model works.''

Conservatives used to say, if it works, don't fix it, and yet they want to fix it with a lot of uncertain results, perhaps unintended consequences. Mr. Chairman, this bill would cause a lot of problems without speeding up the permitting process, which is currently getting thousands of miles of new pipeline built in a timely manner. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Waxman for yielding the time.

Colleagues, we are dealing with a bill here, H.R. 1900, that relates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

FERC is an independent agency that reviews electric transmission lines that go across States, interstate electric transmission lines. They also review interstate oil pipelines, and they also review the interstate natural gas pipelines. This is a very important subject.

Now, this bill relates only to the natural gas pipeline authority of FERC. The country right now is in a natural gas revolution. It has been remarkable. The United States is now a net exporter of petroleum. This has happened very quickly, and FERC has responded very well over time on the expansion of the natural gas market. That is why it is so confounding as to why we need this new bill that is going to short- circuit FERC's review power.

Right now, FERC grants over 90 percent of the interstate natural gas pipelines across the country. This bill really is an unnecessary piece of legislation in search of a problem. In committee, the bill was panned by the FERC professional staff. The administration strongly opposes it.

Instead of expediting expansion of natural gas pipelines across the country, it would disrupt FERC's natural gas permitting process which, right now, is already getting thousands of miles of pipelines permitted in a timely manner, like I said, over 90 percent of the applications.

Instead, the bill establishes arbitrary and inflexible deadlines for FERC and other agencies to issue permits; and there are several major problems with the bill, particularly short-circuiting the permitting process for the most complex projects.

The bill says we have a 12-month deadline, no matter what kind of project is proposed. FERC currently decides 90 percent of the permit applications within that 12-month period; and in July, the Pipeline Trade Association testified that FERC's existing permitting process is generally very good.

Second, in addition to this arbitrary 12-month deadline for all applications, it would rush environmental reviews for complex projects. The bill's rigid deadline applies to every pipeline project, regardless of complexity.

It doesn't make sense to apply the same 12-month deadline to, say, a 30-mile interstate pipeline that doesn't cross any rivers, doesn't have environmental concerns, doesn't go through population areas, and then apply the same 12-month deadline to the most complex, multi-state, interstate pipeline initiative that goes across environmentally- sensitive areas, maybe across rivers, through highly populated areas.

Third, the bill also will lead to unnecessary permit denial. What we heard from FERC is that, instead of speeding up the permitting process for natural gas pipelines, it is very likely that this bill will slow down permitting. If FERC can't finish its analysis by the required deadline, they may have no choice but to deny an application that otherwise could have been granted.

Now, before I came to Congress, I practiced environmental law, and what I learned during that time is for those complex projects there is a lot of give and take that needs to happen. You have to discuss mitigation. You have to discuss are there any alternatives.

Oftentimes, these business owners, it is in their interest to have a little more time to figure out the right path for a pipeline or a transmission line or something like that. You get input from local governments, local communities, neighborhood associations, environmental groups; and you wind up with a better project.

I thank the gentleman.

Another serious problem with the bill is that it transforms FERC into a super-permitting agency. Now that sounds pretty scary, but that is what it does.

It says that the bill provides for permits to automatically go into effect if an agency does not approve or deny them by the bill's arbitrary 90-day deadline. So FERC would be issuing Clean Air Act permits, Clean Water Act permits, even BLM right-of-way through Federal land permits.

These are functions that FERC does not have the expertise or resources to carry out. This is an unworkable provision that could result in permits being issued that are inconsistent with the Nation's environmental laws.

Finally, I know many people on both sides of the aisle are very concerned about eminent domain and when we give power to government to condemn lands. Well, here is a reminder for everyone. We should all remember that when FERC issues a certificate of public convenience and necessity, it gives a pipeline company the power of eminent domain. The power to take someone's property should not be conferred without FERC taking the time it needs for a thorough analysis and thoughtful decisionmaking.

So for all of those reasons, I urge opposition to the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, under H.R. 1900, if an agency cannot complete its review of a gas pipeline permit application by the bill's arbitrary 90-day or, in some cases, 120-day deadline, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is required to automatically issue the permit.

This permitting provision broadly applies to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and rights-of-way through Federal lands.

It simply goes too far, is completely unreasonable, and it runs counter to the author's intent. The intent of the author is to speed the approval of interstate natural gas pipelines. Instead, what this provision will do, if my amendment is not adopted, is create greater delays and, I believe, greater likelihood of litigation that will delay our important natural gas infrastructure in this country.

So my amendment is straightforward. It simply strikes this provision that requires FERC to automatically issue other agencies' permits.

You heard Mr. Waxman say--and I said the same thing--that what this bill does is turns FERC, whose jurisdiction is limited to reviewing interstate electric transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, and oil pipelines, into a superpermitting agency. It goes and grabs EPA's jurisdiction and authority, the Interior Department's, the Army Corps of Engineers', and other agencies', and settles into FERC this superpermitting authority that really is completely unreasonable.

Right now, these permits are typically detailed documents that include safety requirements, emission limits, technology and operator requirements, and conditions to ensure that communities are protected and the water, wetlands, and other environmental resources are considered, especially when you have a complex interstate natural gas pipeline coming through your communities.

Agencies need the ability and time to analyze all of these details and then draft appropriate permit conditions to protect our communities back home, protect the health and safety, protect landowner rights, and propose cleanup requirements in case there is an accident.

Under H.R. 1900, FERC acts as a superpermitting agency. If an agency cannot meet the strict deadlines, FERC apparently will write and issue the permit itself. This is a recipe for natural gas pipeline delays, and that is why so many are fearful of the consequences of this bill. After all, FERC now already grants 90 percent of the natural gas interstate pipeline applications that come before it.

So it makes no sense to have FERC issuing permits for other agencies. FERC doesn't have the expertise to grant land management rights-of-way through Federal land or to set water pollution discharge limits. That is not a workable solution. It is a recipe for greater litigation and delay.

Besides litigation, delays, and other complications, there are going to be real environmental and safety impacts if permits automatically go into effect without the responsible agencies completing the necessary analysis. It could result in permits being issued that are inconsistent with the requirements of the Nation's environmental laws. That is why the Pipeline Safety Trust and numerous environmental organizations strongly oppose the bill.

The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA also express concern that automatic permitting could lead to permits that do not meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. This could result in harmful water pollution and air pollution.

So in addition to delays, lawsuits, and environmental harm, automatically issuing permits without an agency confirming the legal requirements is going to undermine the public's acceptance of interstate natural gas pipelines going through our communities. That is the last thing you want to happen.

We are undergoing a national gas revolution in this country that, generally, is very positive. So why would you try to pass this bill that would lead to greater litigation delays, uncertainty, and that the industry itself says may not be necessary?

Agencies should act expeditiously on pipeline applications, but they also need time to conduct the necessary environmental and safety reviews. In some cases, it will take longer than a 90- or 120-day environmental review. Some of these pipelines are very complex and they go over hundreds of miles through environmentally, sensitive areas. People need time and the businesses need time to work through the conditions.

So we should not sacrifice these protections when the pipeline permitting process is already working well, nor should we take critical health, safety, and environmental functions away from the agencies.

My amendment doesn't fix all the problems, but it eliminates an unworkable provision. If you do not want to complicate the interstate natural gas pipeline process that the industry says is generally very good, then I urge you to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.

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

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, we have had a number of hearings over the last year, and we are all quite excited about the additional production of natural gas and oil in America. As many people know, we now are the number one producer of natural gas in the world and the number one producer of oil in the world. This has come about because of the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector and development of these properties on private lands, primarily in Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and Texas.

So we are all excited about the opportunity for energy independence in America and certainly hopeful to reach a point where we are less dependent on oil and other products coming from the Middle East.

I want to thank Mike Pompeo, a member from Kansas, for authoring this important legislation. Although we have become the number one producer and we have an abundance of natural gas today, we still have one key problem. To put it simply, we don't have the necessary pipeline infrastructure to move natural gas from where it is produced to where it is needed most.

I would like to just illustrate how some States are being harmed. According to the Energy Information Administration, in January this year we saw several States with residential natural gas prices way above the national average. For example, New Hampshire was 30 percent above the national average; Massachusetts was 43 percent; Maine, 67 percent; and Florida, 68 percent. Unfortunately, those living in these and many other States can expect to see higher prices once again this winter, and this is precisely why we are bringing to the floor H.R. 1900.

H.R. 1900 simply would bring certainty in agency accountability to the natural gas pipeline permitting process. It would allow natural gas pipelines to be built in a safe, responsible, and timely manner. It would also make existing natural gas pipelines safer.

During the legislative hearing on H.R. 1900, we heard testimony from industry of a corrosive natural gas pipeline that could not be replaced in a timely manner because an agency missed the deadline to issue a permit by nearly a year. The American people demand better than this.

So as we hear discussion and consider amendments to H.R. 1900, I want to thank once again the members of the subcommittee, the staff, and Representative Pompeo for all the work on this important legislation.

I respectfully reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), the author of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I might just make one comment. As the gentlelady from Florida indicated, the Obama administration has indicated their opposition to this bill. But I will tell you, we have large groups, the National Rural Electric Co-Ops, supporting this bill; the Public Power Association is supporting this bill.

And the New England Ratepayers Association wrote a letter to us saying, currently, New England ratepayers suffer from the highest electricity rates of

any region in the country. A significant reason for this is the limited capacity of natural gas pipeline which the electricity generators throughout New England rely on.

So we are trying to respond to the needs of people, and we recognize that the economy has been weak, and there are not a lot of pipelines being built right now, although there is one in my home State of Kentucky.

But we want to set the framework so that when the time comes, these pipeline companies are able to move and move quickly with adequate protections.

At this time, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our distinguished whip.

Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time remains for both sides.

At this time, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

In my concluding remarks, I would simply say that this act is commonsense reform aimed at providing greater certainty for interstate natural gas pipeline projects at a time when we see great revitalization in the production of natural gas. We have an opportunity to export some natural gas, we have the opportunity to help lower electricity rates, and I would urge all the Members to support H.R. 1900.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to say to the gentlelady from California that all of us certainly have great sympathy and were shocked by the events in San Bruno. I know it was a horrific incident and that many people lost their lives and homes and that it certainly disrupted the community.

Mr. Chairman, in response to that accident, Congress reenacted a reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act in late 2011. That bill included provisions on requiring the verification of maximum allowable operating pressures for pipelines constructed before 1970 and an expansion of the current Pipeline Integrity Management Program to cover more miles of pipe and, therefore, require more inspections. The accident investigation in San Bruno determined that the natural gas pipeline

that failed had been installed in the mid-1950s, using incorrect materials and welding, incorrect even given the standards of the day. Fortunately, that legislation passed unanimously in the House and in the Senate.

I would also note that, under the Natural Gas Act, FERC, when reviewing a proposed natural gas pipeline, must find that it meets the public convenience and necessity, in other words, the public interest. The Commission does have mechanisms in place to listen to the concerns of landowners, of communities, and they balance that with the need for energy infrastructure that meets national needs for a broad number of citizens. The FERC process, under section VII of the Natural Gas Act, is open, fair, and it invites participation by local communities and landowners already, and that has been in place for 70 years.

So I think all of us understand where the gentlelady from California is coming from. We do genuinely believe that the existing process certainly considers local communities and the input from those communities. Because of that, I would respectfully ask that we not agree to the amendment of the gentlelady of California.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Since I am the only one who will be speaking, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady from Texas does have a reputation of being very innovative in her legislative strategy. While I would agree with her--and many of us would agree--that I am frustrated with the budget process and that many of us don't think the budget process works, she is, with this amendment, trying to bring to a conclusion sequestration.

I would simply say that we do not believe it is appropriate to, nor do we think that we are equipped to, debate the sequestration issue, which is a budget issue. Today, we are simply trying to expedite the building of additional natural gas pipelines to streamline the permitting process in order to help people throughout America have lower electricity rates and, perhaps, to increase our exports. So I would oppose her amendment.

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