Safer Pipelines Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2910.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, introduced by my colleague and friend from Texas (Mr. Flores).

I want to congratulate him for his work on this very important piece of legislation that, in fact, will streamline the permit process for the building of energy infrastructure, which will strengthen our economy, create the jobs that we want, and, in fact, increase our energy security. Very important.

This bill is going to address the critical need to expand and modernize the Nation's natural gas pipeline infrastructure by promoting a more timely and efficient review.

Mr. Chairman, by establishing FERC as the lead agency, this bill is going to bring greater certainty, accountability, and transparency to the siting process for interstate natural gas pipelines. Unfortunately, many important projects have been delayed unnecessarily while waiting for permits from participating agencies, and when siting a pipeline project, multiple permits are always required, permits under the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act.

So FERC often coordinates with a variety of Federal, State, and local governments and Indian Tribes to balance a wide range of issues, including the potential impacts on environmental and wildlife resources, land use, and, of course, property rights.

This bill is going to improve the permitting process by strengthening the lead agency role of FERC in further defining the process for participating in Federal and State agencies, and the intent of these provisions is to involve stakeholders sooner so that they can be involved in the setting of the schedule and identify issues of concern earlier in the process.

Further, the legislation requires that agencies conduct their respective reviews concurrently and in conjunction with the project- related review conducted by FERC in compliance with NEPA--in compliance with NEPA.

To be clear, we are not skipping steps, we are just saying that one part of the process shouldn't hold up the entire project if progress can be made on other required permits.

So this bill is going to encourage more timely and efficient reviews, a more robust and reliable energy pipeline system, more affordable energy prices for every American.

Mr. Chair, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas, who has brought this bill before us through the committee process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, there is a reason why the parliamentarians ruled that the amendments on eminent domain are not applicable here: because they are not germane. Eminent domain is not part of this bill. In fact, the underlying natural gas act requires that eminent domain proceedings, ``shall conform as nearly as may be with the practice and procedure in similar action or proceedings in the courts of the State where the property is situated.''

This doesn't change that, and that is why those eminent domain amendments were not made in order.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I include in the Record three letters in support. The National Electrical

Contractors Association has a letter of support. The National Taxpayers Union has a letter of support, as well as the National Association of Manufacturers.

National Electrical

Contractors Association,

Bethesda, MD, July 18, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the National Electrical

Contractors Association (NECA), I am writing in strong

support of H.R. 2883, Promoting Cross-Border Energy

Infrastructure Act which would establish a more uniform and

transparent approval process for the construction,

connection, operation, or maintenance of oil or natural gas

pipelines or electric transmission facilities for the import

or export of oil, natural gas, or electricity. NECA also

supports H.R. 2910, Promoting Interagency Coordination for

Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, which would help address

the need to modernize the nation's natural gas pipeline

infrastructure by promoting more timely and efficient reviews

by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). NECA

believes these critical pieces of legislation will facilitate

construction projects along the United States' borders and

encourage energy independence.

NECA is the nationally recognized voice of the $130 billion

electrical construction industry that brings power, light,

and communication technology to buildings and communities

across the U.S. NECA's national office and its 119 local

chapters are dedicated to enhancing the industry through

continuing education, labor relations, safety codes,

standards development, and government relations. NECA is

committed to advocating for a comprehensive energy policy

that addresses all available opportunities for energy

exploration and independence.

By establishing a more concrete process for the approval of

construction projects to import oil, natural gas, and

electricity, this legislation would create more jobs in the

construction industry while working towards America's energy

independence. Construction along the U.S. border to import

oil, natural gas, and electricity will greatly enhance our

nation's energy security and promote energy independence. It

is clear Congress plays a critical role in streamlining the

approval process and enacting policies that support approval

and construction of energy infrastructure projects. The

benefits of these projects are clear: job creation, energy

security, energy independence, and economic growth; such

construction is in the national interest. NECA strongly

endorses H.R. 2883 and H.R. 2910 and believes that these

bills will deliver many benefits to our nation.

Sincerely,

Marco A. Giamberardino, MPA,

Executive Director, Government Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire if the gentlewoman has any further speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers at this point, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, this streamlines the process. There are still no shortcuts that are here. We require that the agencies work concurrently with each other. At the end of the day, we know that pipelines are literally the safest way to transport whatever it is, oil, gas, to the consumers, and at a lower cost. It is safer and, obviously, helps the most vulnerable with lower costs.

We have literally millions of miles of pipelines. And I would note that we passed major, major bipartisan legislation in several Congresses--it was bipartisan, it was overwhelmingly bipartisan--that President Obama signed into law increasing the safety standards and fines for any new pipelines that are built. Those laws, obviously, stay on the books.

Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. I look forward to the debate on a couple of the amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just note that all current reviews that we do now for pipeline siting, they all remain in place. None of it goes away. Those same reviews take place.

The gentlewoman's amendment, in our view, is unnecessary because nothing in this legislation would limit environmental protections or affect laws that govern the multiple use of our public lands.

Pipelines, we know, as I said earlier, are the safest, most efficient way to transport energy supplies. The overwhelming majority of Americans strongly support modernizing our infrastructure, including pipelines, to ensure stable, affordable supplies. And I would note, we have millions of miles of pipelines across the country.

So what is the alternative if you don't have a pipeline?

Well, it is going to be more expensive and, frankly, the accident record is not perfect either. It includes rail or truck, often at a higher cost, which then is passed along to those consumers, impacting the most vulnerable the most.

Infrastructure modernization and job growth go hand in hand with environmental and natural resource protection. Investing in our infrastructure is a smart investment for energy security, job growth, manufacturing, and creating the jobs that we want.

Maintaining and expanding these economywide benefits is dependent on a transparent and a predictable regulatory approval of infrastructure projects. That is what the underlying bill does.

This amendment, however, we would view as a step backward. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I again remind my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out by saying that we are prepared to accept the amendment. I know that all of us here take pipeline safety very seriously, and certainly since my chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee, we put safety at the forefront of our efforts to modernize our pipeline infrastructure. We passed two major bills that President Obama signed, and I think there may have been maybe a single Member that opposed that legislation over the years, but we care a lot about that.

In the last Congress, we passed the PIPES Act and the FAST Act. Again, major bipartisan initiatives that Mr. Pallone and I worked out that got to President Obama's desk. Each of these two bills took important steps to update our laws to protect against emerging physical attacks as well as cyber attacks, threats to the grid, in our energy delivery systems, including pipelines.

We know that multiple Federal and State agencies have a role to play and an opportunity to lead with that expertise. While the Department of Energy is the lead sector-specific agency for cybersecurity and for the energy sector, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, is responsible for administrating minimum pipeline safety standards, and the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, does monitor threats to our transportation sector. I think that is where the gentleman from Massachusetts is coming from with this amendment.

The amendment, I have got to say, appears to be consistent with current law, while a rigid consultation requirement could end up resulting in delays if the TSA is not able to consult in a timely manner, but, again, the language is ``consult.'' I would hope that that would happen.

The amendment also appears to address pipeline facilities, but it is not clear whether it includes LNG as an example. Given the overlapping nature of Federal and State jurisdiction over pipeline safety, we want to make sure that we are doing it right and that we have got all the tools in the toolbox to make sure that that happens and we don't wonder what would have happened without this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. We are ready to work with him, but certainly, at this point, ready to accept the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding, I believe, that a GAO report has been requested by some of our friends on both sides of the aisle, and we welcome the completion of that report and are anxious to see the result.

Mr. Chairman, again, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, FERC is the lead agency for siting interstate natural gas pipelines. We all know that. But there are a number of other Federal and State agencies that also have to issue associated permits for large-scale projects.

Through the FERC prefile process, sponsors engage with landowners, local communities, and government agencies to educate stakeholders and collect the information about the best location for siting that pipeline.

The underlying bill, H.R. 2910, brings much-needed certainty and transparency to the process by encouraging the stakeholders to participate in good faith early in the process. Unfortunately, this amendment, the way that we read it, would create more uncertainty and create more opportunities for delays.

The overwhelming majority of Americans strongly support expanding the infrastructure. Creating the jobs, the pipelines, ensures stable and affordable supplies. Flexibility, affordable, and reliable energy is important for American families and businesses to thrive.

I would note, at this point we still don't have a quorum with FERC, and we want that to change. That will be an issue that goes through the confirmation process in the Senate, but consumers really only benefit from domestic energy if we can get it to them.

Investing in infrastructure is a smart investment, so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2910. The bill shortcuts the important review process for interstate natural gas pipeline projects, a process which already boasts one of the quickest review periods for any type of major energy project. The bill is unnecessary.

To my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee's point when he says that too many of these projects are being delayed: to the contrary. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission testified in front of our committee

that almost 90 percent of interstate natural gas pipeline projects are approved within 1 year. This is a dangerous bill because of what it does to short-circuit safety and environmental review processes.

Now, I want to say, at the outset, pipelines can be a safe and practical way to transport natural gas. Natural gas pipelines are part of a modern energy infrastructure system--I would say that almost all Democrats agree with that--but what this bill does is it shortcuts, it overrides safety, private property rights, environmental concerns.

This is a problem, because when you look at the long list of serious accidents involving natural gas pipelines, the fatalities, the accidents, the injuries, it is just inappropriate and very poor public policy to give those natural gas pipelines a pass.

Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy.

Mr. Chair, I think the point on eminent domain is the fact that this bill will trample on the rights of landowners, because my colleague is correct, current law gives natural gas pipeline companies access to Federal eminent domain authority, allowing these corporations to take private property to build their pipelines. But what the bill does, it would further narrow the already few opportunities that landowners and stakeholders have for review of safety and important environmental protections.

It also would allow surveying while circumventing local permitting and without property owner consent, and that is a very significant change, because it would allow Federal and State agencies to accept aerial survey data and provides that the agencies may grant conditional approvals based on that data, and that can be unwise and unsafe. So we wanted to highlight that as a very significant concern for those Members who are concerned about eminent domain and private property rights.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear: I heard the comments of my colleague from Tennessee, and the Democrats do support natural gas pipelines, a very important part of our energy infrastructure.

And, as a reminder, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves

almost 90 percent of all pipeline applications within 1 year. And if there is any holdup recently, it is because the Republican-led Senate has not confirmed an additional FERC appointee. That is holding up the process of approving more natural gas pipelines.

What we don't approve of, however, is a spill that attempts to short- circuit very important safety and environmental review processes and take private property rights away from landowners.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

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

Mr. Chairman, when we had a hearing earlier in the year in the Energy and Commerce Committee, I assumed there was a major backlog of unreviewed applications that spurred my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to draft this bill. But then we heard from experts from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about this, and they testified that nearly 90 percent of these major infrastructure projects are approved in less than a year.

Many companies working to have other interstate energy projects approved can only dream of a Federal review occurring in less than a year. So this is already a very efficient process.

I would say this bill is unnecessary, it is duplicative, and it is wasteful. And I know many in the Congress here are looking for ways to eliminate government waste and duplication.

The Congress has already taken action to streamline the Federal environmental permitting review process for major infrastructure projects. Sometimes our memories are short, but it was just last Congress where Congress adopted the major Transportation and Infrastructure bill, the FAST Act. It passed in a bipartisan manner and was signed into law.

The FAST Act authorized the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, or FPISC, to improve the timeliness, predictability, and transparency of Federal environmental review processes for these major infrastructure projects.

Now, FPISC is already getting underway. It has set up this enhanced coordination and transparency by establishing a lead agency for the project, recommends performance schedules, and public project timetables. Many of the provisions in this bill, however, seem to be largely duplicative of the activities of FPISC and what they are already doing.

FPISC is already overseeing and coordinating permitting processes for 32 major infrastructure projects, including seven interstate natural gas pipelines--just to highlight that this is an unnecessary power grab that really is short-circuiting very important safety and environmental review processes.

There is no problem across this country right now with getting your natural gas pipeline approved unless there is a real problem in the details of the application.

Now, I used to practice environmental law in a previous lifetime, and what I learned is, when you provide for these short-circuited processes that keep the public out, that keep other stakeholders out, what you are going to do on the back end, you are going to cause more lawsuits, more delays, rather than just adhering to the proper process, answering questions as you go along, pressing ahead, altering the route when it needs to be rerouted.

So this is a very important issue. The details really matter here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker and some submissions for the Record.

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

I include in the Record some information on pipeline incidents from the U.S. Government, just to highlight the fact that it is vitally important that these pipelines undergo safety and environmental reviews. These are the pipeline incident reports from 1997-2016 for all States. I will just read a few of these statistics here.

In 2016, you had 16 fatalities from natural gas pipeline incidents, 83 injuries, total cost of property damage, over $300 million. In 2015, 10 fatalities, 49 injuries, over 328 incidents. There is a 3-year average from 2014-2016 of 312 incidents. The 5-year average across the country is 299 incidents; 10-year average, 286 incidents.

For fatalities, the 3-year average, 15 fatalities; the 5-year average, 13; the 10-year average, 13; the 20-year average, 16.

And for injuries, the 3-year average, 75 injuries; the 5-year average, 64 injuries; the 10-year average, 64 injuries; the 20-year average, 65 injuries. And the property damage report, just the 3-year average is about $315 million.

PHMSA Pipeline Incidents: Multi-Year Averages (19974-2016)

Incident Type: Significant, System Type: All, State: All.

Incident count:

3 Year Average, (2014-2016), 312; 5 Year Average, (2012-

2016), 299; 10 Year Average, (2007-2016), 286; 20 Year

Average, (1997-2016), 284.

Fatalities:

3 Year Average, 15; 5 Year Average, 13; 10 Year Average,

13; 20 Year Average, 16.

Injuries:

3 Year Average, 75; 5 Year Average, 64; 10 Year Average,

64; 20 Year Average, 65.

Total cost:

3 Year Average, $315,138,727; 5 Year Average, $306,888,604;

10 Year Average, $475,607,772; 20 Year Average, $389,601,666.

2017 Year-to-date:

Incidents, 118; Fatalities, 1; Injuries, 16; Total Cost,

$49,385,394.

Calendar year, Number, Fatalities, Injuries, Total cost

current year dollars:

1997, 267, 10, 77, $110,377,793; 1998, 295, 21, 81,

$174,516,797; 1999, 275, 22, 108, $178,313,209; 2000, 290,

38, 81, $257,659,464; 2001, 233, 7, 61, $79,086,596; 2002,

258, 12, 49, $124,067,949; 2003, 297, 12, 71, $163,459,897;

2004, 309, 23, 56, $314,362,210; 2005, 336, 16, 46,

$1,476,994,582; 2006, 257, 19, 34, $157,117,098; 2007, 265,

15, 46, $147,800,810; 2008, 278, 8, 54, $592,290,867; 2009,

275, 13, 62, $180,360,208; 2010, 264, 19, 103,

$1,854,123,037; 2011, 287, 12, 51, $447,059,777; 2012, 254,

10, 54, $233,813,285; 2013, 304, 8, 42, $355,213,552; 2014,

301, 19, 94, $305,253,746; 2015, 328, 10, 49, $338,297,940;

2016, 308, 16, 83, $301,864,494; Grand Total, 5,681, 310,

1,302, $7,792,033,312.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say that it is inappropriate to short-circuit the very important safety and environmental review processes for our interstate natural gas pipelines. This is a solution in search of a problem.

We know that FERC approves these gas pipeline applications at about 90 percent. The only reason a little delay has fallen off recently is because the Senate has not approved the new FERC appointee over a matter of 5 months. If they would do that, I think they could get back on track as well.

The ones that are not approved are undergoing very significant review. Even in the case for the major projects now, we have a new system, a coordinated effort through the FPISC, the new council that is overseeing interstate natural gas pipeline, so it is duplicative as well.

It is inappropriate for a process that already grants eminent domain rights through pipeline companies to go through private property now to short-circuit the environmental and safety reviews. That is just really going too far for corporations and their profits, where landowners and other stakeholders have to have the ability to weigh in. Otherwise, you are going to cause more lawsuits and more delays at the very end of the process and, I think, do exactly the opposite of what the author of the legislation intends to do.

So at this point, based upon all of the evidence that has been presented, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Don't elevate corporate profits over the interests of the public.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to co-lead this amendment with my colleagues, Ms. Tsongas and Mr. McGovern.

FERC, as it is currently structured, is not adequately protecting our most valued public lands designed for recreation and conservation, and this bill will only make this particular mismanagement worse. We are witnessing this firsthand in my Virginia.

At stake is one of our Nation's treasured landscapes, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the A.T., and the surrounding national parkland and national forestlands. The A.T. was congressionally dedicated as a national scenic trail nearly 50 years ago, and it is one of the most significant land features in the Eastern United States. It is famous around the world.

Its cultural heritage, its recreational options, its natural resources all serve crucial roles in the lives and communities of the Appalachian region, but it is at risk.

The proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline route impacts 19 prominent views over nearly 100 miles of the Appalachian Trail. Tinker Cliffs, the Dragon's Tooth, even the totally iconic McAfee Knob all will be corrupted by this pipeline.

I am not anti-pipeline. I am not anti-energy. I am an avid Appalachian Trail hiker. I have crossed almost all of the 60 pipeline crossings that exist on the trail. But the Mountain Valley's proposal route doesn't take the least impactful route. It doesn't cross the trail. It runs alongside it for almost 100 miles.

You will be able to see the impact day after day after day. It doesn't sound like the developers thought about minimizing their impact on this important cultural icon.

It has also become clear that the proposed route would require an amendment to the Jefferson National Forest management plan, which was carefully constructed and well balanced.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect one of America's most treasured natural places.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor to come after this bipartisan discussion between Mr. Lynch and Mr. Upton. I hope a precedent has been set, Mr. Chairman.

I offered this amendment to improve the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's public comment period and transparency process.

This amendment would require FERC to issue a supplemental environmental impact statement if there is critical new information relevant to a pipeline proposal, and to require mitigation plans for adverse impacts if not already provided.

The case of the Mountain Valley Pipeline demonstrated how the current FERC process has failed us and why this amendment is necessary.

I recently wrote a letter to FERC on this very issue, asking that they initiate a supplemental environmental impact statement before moving forward with the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.

Quite simply, the process was flawed.

In response to a September 2016 draft environmental impact statement, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, had to present more information and an updated route for the pipeline proposal to FERC. Originally, Mr. Chairman, they offered 1,000 pages of updates for public comment, but then their updates extended beyond the public comment period, which ended in December 2016, and included thousands of additional pages of crucially important information--20,000 pages of crucially important information. Think about how long it would take to read 20,000 pages.

What is most egregious is that, because this document dump came after the public comment period had ended, affected stakeholders weren't able to offer their comments for FERC consideration. They had already closed the public comment period, but the pipeline company was still submitting thousands of pages.

Even more ridiculous, the developers have continued to add more documents, even after FERC issued the final environmental impact statement. So apparently it wasn't final in the eyes of the developers.

For many, FERC's recent decision to issue this final statement for the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline is patently alarming.

The appropriate course would be to issue a supplemental environmental impact statement and allow for public comment on those 20,000 pages.

Let's fix this woefully incompetent process.

Local communities affected most by proposed energy infrastructure projects naturally have concerns regarding the projects near them.

On my extensive visits to southwest Virginia last summer, there were two kinds of signs everywhere, Mr. Chairman. There were ``Make America Great Again, Donald Trump for President,'' and there were ``No Mountain Valley Pipeline.''

They deserve the opportunity to express their views fully and to participate in a robust public engagement process, especially for projects which will use eminent domain to seize their private land from homeowners and farmers.

If there are major changes offered after the public comment period is open, let's make sure the public has the ability to weigh in with their proposals.

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

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

I very much agree with the lead sponsor of the bill, Mr. Upton, that we don't want any more uncertainty, and we certainly don't want more delays.

In fact, this amendment was originally in a bipartisan bill sponsored by my Republican friend from Virginia, Morgan Griffith. I literally lifted it word for word.

What we want to do is make sure that all of the information is on the table at the beginning. It is just not fair to the people who are affected by a pipeline that an environmental impact statement is issued and they wouldn't have a chance to comment on it.

So let's make sure that the developers are putting all of the information out first. And if they put it out and the public comment period closes and then they give you the rest of the information, then, clearly, FERC has made the decision without all that, and the public has been cheated out of the ability to comment on what is going to happen to their land and to their homes. It is just not fair.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this good, bipartisan amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk

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

Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I would like to thank Chairman Upton and Ms. Castor, the ranking member from Florida, for their articulate debate this afternoon on this important issue.

I would also like to thank Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Slaughter, and all of the members of the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order.

This commonsense amendment will simply ensure that the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal agency with the primary jurisdiction over pipeline security on behalf of the American people, will retain a meaningful seat at the table when it comes to determinations made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, on whether to approve a pipeline construction permit.

In particular, this amendment provides that, in considering a pipeline permit application, FERC must simply consult with TSA administrators as to whether a pipeline developer is compliant with existing TSA guidelines and best practice recommendations governing pipeline security. That includes an examination of facility security, cybersecurity, and other critical measures that are designed to safeguard the American people against the threat of terrorists and cyber attacks perpetrated on the U.S. pipeline system.

While H.R. 2910 seeks to expedite the FERC review process for pipeline construction projects in the name of efficiency, we also know that recent terrorist and cyber attacks launched against pipeline facilities nationwide

have more than demonstrated that we cannot place expediency above national security and public safety.

In 2015, a domestic terrorist received a maximum 20-year sentence after pleading guilty to Federal charges relating to his use of a highly volatile explosive device to damage a natural pipeline in Texas. Four years earlier than that, a similar attack was perpetrated in Oklahoma by an individual armed with a homemade improvised explosive device.

In addition, the 2017 series on ``Pipelines in Peril,'' published by Energy and Environment News, reported that advanced cyber threats targeting U.S. pipelines have only increased and evolved over the past 5 years, following a so-called pipeline hacking spree undertaken by members of the Chinese military. The theft of sensitive data from at least 23 separate U.S. pipeline companies in 2011 and 2012 constitute the sort of cyber breach that the Congressional Research Service has described as allowing hackers the ability to ``disrupt pipeline service and cause spills, explosions, and fires all from remote locations.''

I would also like to express my concern regarding an issue that was the subject of an amendment of mine which was not ruled in order, and that is the issuance of pipeline construction permits by FERC in areas where a project site and its surrounding community is already experiencing preexisting unsafe levels of air pollutants.

In my own congressional district in Massachusetts, FERC recently approved a proposal for a natural gas compressor station in the beautiful town of Weymouth, Massachusetts, and as evidenced by the certificate of independent and quality testing conducted by Dr. Curt Nordgaard and other community stakeholders, the air quality in Weymouth is already at toxic levels of so-called criteria air pollutants such as benzene.

My amendment would have suspended the certificate issued by FERC for the Weymouth compressor station and other projects that the commission approves for construction and communities that have unsafe air quality levels.

In addition to my concerns around air quality, I have to highlight the public safety issues surrounding the route of a natural gas pipeline that FERC approved in West Roxbury, a local neighborhood in the heart of my district. The pipeline runs through a densely populated neighborhood. It runs right through an active blasting area in a quarry that is located next to a residential area, and I don't know how that happens if public safety and national security are considerations.

Whether a pipeline is blown up because of stupidity because FERC has located it in a blasting zone or it is because of a nefarious attempt of outside actors, the bottom line is that FERC should sit down and talk with TSA when they are looking at these siting decisions. The bottom line is, what this amendment will accomplish, it will require that to happen, that consultation to happen between TSA and FERC.

Mr. Chair, I ask Members to vote in support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, first of all, I thank the gentleman very much for accepting the amendment. I agree, there may be some other areas that are not particularly addressed, such as the LNG situation. Obviously, we want to increase the level of safety with respect to LNG as well, but I understand those questions can be answered during our debate with the Senate as well and in conference.

But the bottom line is I thank him for accepting the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a wonderful colleague and a Member who has really shown extraordinary leadership on this matter and other matters that appear before this Congress and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 2910 because it is a bill that offers a solution in search of a problem.

As FERC testified before the Energy Subcommittee just this past May, a whopping 88 percent of natural gas pipeline applications are currently processed within a year, and the number one reason for the delays in the approval process was due to applicants submitting incomplete paperwork.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 2910 does nothing to actually address the reason behind the delays, but instead will allow incomplete applications to be considered, will allow incomplete data from aerial surveys to be considered, and would minimize the input of States and agencies responsible for protecting the environment, sensitive lands, and other natural resources.

However, that said, one of the most egregious aspects of this bill is that it would actually make it easier for private pipeline companies to claim eminent domain and seize private property of hardworking American citizens.

Mr. Chair, as we have seen in the past and continue to witness today, the issue of constructing these major pipelines through aquifers, private property, cultural sites, and other sensitive lands is a topic that causes great public consternation and great public concern.

Congress should be taking into account the sensitive nature of this extremely divisive issue by listening to our own constituents, the American people, and giving them more of a voice in these very difficult decisions, rather than trying to limit their input.

Mr. Chair, to address this critical issue, both Ranking Member Pallone, as well as my colleague, Congresswoman Watson Coleman of New Jersey, and I offered amendments to deny private companies the right to claim eminent domain unless constructing a pipeline was found to be in the public interest, and not solely as a way for companies to turn a profit.

Mr. Chair, even though this amendment was brought up and voted down by my Republican colleagues in the Energy and Commerce Committee, it was ruled nongermane to today's discussion for some very odd, but also for some very obvious reason.

In other words, Mr. Chair, the majority party has determined that although they are pushing a bill that would make it easier for private companies to seize lands from private citizens for financial gain, Members of Congress are not allowed to take up an up-or-down vote on that issue on the floor here today.

This Congress is telling the American people: Hell, no, you won't have a voice in this. We are here operating solely in the interests of private companies for their private profit.

Mr. Chair, I can assure you that the American people will not agree with this decision to place the interests of private natural gas companies above the rights and interests of private landowners.

Congress should not make it easier for private companies to claim eminent domain and potentially negatively impact historical sites, reservoirs, farms, and other private properties while at the same time limiting the ability for States, Tribes, and local communities to provide input into the process.

Mr. Chair, why are we allowing these private companies to have eminent domain over the private property, over the land of American citizens, without any input from States on this particular matter?

Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I strongly oppose this bill, and I urge all my colleagues to oppose it as well.