Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1900) to provide for the timely consideration of all licenses, permits, and approvals required under Federal law with respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline projects, and for other purposes.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 420 provides for the consideration of a critical piece of legislation that was passed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce designed to address the costly and unnecessary delays which many businesses experience when trying to get a final determination to be made by the Federal Government in relation to a pending pipeline.

A member of the committee, Mr. Pompeo from Kansas, the bill's author, has drafted a meaningful piece of legislation, taking into account the various competing interests involved in the permitting process and has found a fair and just balance for ensuring that our critical infrastructure moves forward.

The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill. Five of the six amendments submitted to the Rules Committee were made in order, all Democratic amendments. The sixth was neither germane nor did it meet the CutGo rules of the House. Finally, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit on the bill, allowing for yet another opportunity to amend the legislation.

H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, is the product of hours of work with stakeholders that Mr. Pompeo has put in to improve the legislation. The bill streamlines our Nation's pipeline permitting processes in an effort to allow for greater capacity and promote safe infrastructure. Specifically, the bill directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve or deny a permit application for a new natural gas pipeline within 12 months.

Natural gas is one of the clearest examples of how this country can move itself toward a more sustainable energy-independent future while at the same time allowing and encouraging our economy to grow. My own district in north Texas sits 8,000 feet above the Barnett shale, a natural gas formation that industry has been using to produce gas for decades. Indeed, due to the technological advances and strong market, the area that I represent felt few of the effects of the recession until at least a year after the recession was initiated due to the booming economy that resulted from the development of the resources under our feet.

Obviously, with increased production and demand, as we have seen with the natural gas industry, comes an increased need for infrastructure. I welcome any legislation which would streamline the permitting process and allow companies to spend less time with Washington bureaucrats and more time creating jobs, producing products that consumers want and are eager to buy.

Indeed, with the increase in supply that hydraulic fracturing has created with natural gas, the pace at which the Federal Government has approved increased infrastructure, namely pipelines, to transport this commodity has not kept up.

Pipelines provide the safest, fastest, and cleanest mode of transportation for natural gas, as we in the Energy and Commerce Committee have heard from witnesses again and again. Making certain that our country has the number of pipelines necessary for transporting the gas we need to heat our homes and run our cars is a critical step toward energy independence.

Moreover, Members of this body who annually support more robust funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, commonly referred to as LIHEAP, should be joining with Republicans today in supporting an increase in pipeline infrastructure in our country, as the natural gas being produced in Western States could more efficiently be transported to the Northeastern States, reducing home heating costs and lessening the need for government assistance for many families.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important bill. It will create opportunity to put thousands of workers to work, creating the infrastructure that this country has needed for some time due to the energy boom in natural gas. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

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

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is it in order to refer to Members of the other body by name?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it was a little over a year ago that the American people went to the polls, and in their wisdom, they elected a divided government. They knew what divided government looked like. They had seen it for the 2 years prior.

The President came to town in 2009 and promised a lot of sweeping changes, and he delivered on those sweeping changes during the first 2 years of his administration. He had a health care bill passed. The health care bill passed without a single Republican vote. You talk about a partisan vote--the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a partisan vote. Unfortunately, we are seeing now, as we have convulsed the country with these changes that are occurring within the insurance system, we are seeing the changes that are going to occur to our providers, our doctors, our hospitals, our nurses in the months ahead. This is a serious situation, and it requires serious action to be taken.

I won't apologize for any action that has been taken by the majority in this House to try to rein in the excesses of the administration and the previous Democrat-controlled Congress when they took over one-sixth of the Nation's economy in a partisan fashion without a single Republican vote.

The sequester was passed in August of 2011. It was passed at the request of the President. The gentleman has talked about shutdowns and defaults of the government. Do you remember that the sequester was a compromise

proposed by the President and the Office of Management and Budget at the White House in order to prevent defaulting on our debt? It was a very difficult vote for many of us in this House.

What has the sequester delivered? The sequester delivered what no one had been able to deliver in the 4 years previously, and that is a Federal budget deficit that is below $1 trillion. It doesn't sound like a big ask that the American people had: We want you to stop spending so much money. The sequester delivered on that promise.

I find it strange now for the gentleman from Massachusetts to impugn the integrity of people who voted in favor of that sequester when the President and the minority leader of the House of Representatives now want to take credit for the fact that the deficit was cut in half over the last 4 years.

The only reason it was cut in half was because they raised it to unsustainable levels, and now the sequester has reined that back in. It is quite likely that the deficit at the end of fiscal year 2014 will in fact be lower if we don't do something to damage the trajectory that we are on.

I don't think the immigration bill passed by the Senate is here at the House. I think it has got an origination problem, and it is unconstitutional. If there is a bill at the desk, I will be happy to look at it, but I don't think that has occurred. The gentleman knows that.

This bill that we are considering today would lower the price of natural gas delivered to consumers in the State of Massachusetts. I have a table prepared by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The national average for natural gas is $9.19 per thousand cubic feet. In Massachusetts, it is $13.18.

So this is a bill today that could deliver product to the gentleman's constituents in Massachusetts at a much more reasonable price. This sounds to me like a bill that will help the economy. This sounds to me like a bill that may provide jobs for the American people.

The minority whip talked about the doc fix. Our committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, did pass, in a bipartisan fashion, the repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula. I think it is a good bill. I think it is a bill where we had participation from both sides of the dais and not a single dissenting vote when we voted on the bill in committee right before the August recess.

There is another body here in the Capitol Building. They are considering their own version of a similar bill in the appropriate Finance Committee over in the other body. I don't want to prejudge or preclude what they will or won't do. I am anxious for them to do something that would give us a negotiating point where we could consider moving forward with a final repeal of this problem, but in fact, the legislative branch consists of two bodies--this body and the body on the other side. Until the Finance Committee acts, there is little more that the Energy and Commerce Committee can do to push that bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of a critical bill to ensure our energy infrastructure needs are being met. Mr. Pompeo has done a good job. I applaud him and our committee for the thoughtful legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

[From the Energy & Commerce Committee, U.S. House of Representatives,

Nov. 19, 2013]

H.R. 1900 Needed To Deliver Affordable American Energy to Consumers

House to Vote This Week on Legislation to Speed Up Natural Gas Pipeline

Projects

This week the House of Representatives will consider H.R.

1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.

Authored by Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Mike

Pompeo (R-KS), the bill will help ensure consumers have

access to affordable and reliable energy by modernizing the

permitting process for interstate natural gas pipelines. It

is a critical part of the committee's efforts to build the

architecture of abundance, and will allow American families

and businesses across the country to enjoy the benefits of

the U.S. shale gas boom.

America is experiencing a surge in natural gas production

but right now we simply don't have the infrastructure to

accommodate this increased supply and deliver this low-cost

energy to consumers and manufacturers. And as gas gains a

greater market share of the nation's electricity portfolio,

many regions of the country do not have the pipeline capacity

to support this conversion, leaving consumers vulnerable to

price spikes. We saw this play out last January as areas of

the country, particularly along the East Coast, faced gas

shortages and high prices. According to a recent blog post by

the Energy Information Administration, ``The increased use of

natural gas for electricity generation has raised concerns

about fuel diversity, as the Northeast is also reliant on

natural gas for part of its heating needs and has limited

pipeline capacity to bring gas to market. The winter of 2012-

13 saw spikes in wholesale electricity prices in New England

and New York as demand for natural gas from both electric

generators and natural gas distribution companies taxed the

capacity to bring natural gas into these markets.''

The chart below highlights those states that suffered the

most last winter from high natural gas prices and the lack of

adequate infrastructure, with natural gas prices reaching up

to 68% higher than the national average:

Residential Natural Gas Prices for January 2013: National Average:

$9.19*

Alabama......................................................$14.44/57% Arizona......................................................$11.07/20% Connecticut..................................................$13.07/42% Delaware.....................................................$12.32/34% Florida......................................................$15.43/68% Georgia......................................................$12.92/41% Maine........................................................$15.33/67% Maryland.....................................................$10.73/17% Massachusetts................................................$13.18/43% New Hampshire................................................$11.99/30% New Jersey...................................................$10.81/18% New York.....................................................$11.42/24% North Carolina...............................................$11.07/20% Pennsylvania.................................................$10.48/14% Rhode Island.................................................$12.58/37% South Carolina...............................................$11.88/29% Vermont......................................................$14.73/60% Virginia.....................................................$11.10/21% Washington...................................................$10.47/14%

* Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet

Source: U.S. EIA

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.