Defending Israel's QME Act of 2017

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act. My Republican colleagues argue that we need more bills like H.R. 2883 to extract and transport more oil and gas as quickly as possible. But building a modern energy infrastructure for the 21st century requires a lot more than drilling wells, laying more pipelines, filling more railcars with crude oil, and putting more tanker trucks on our highways.

A modern, American, 21st century energy infrastructure plan must address the threat of climate change. This is the biggest energy challenge that we face as a country. We cannot have a meaningful conversation about America's energy infrastructure without also having a conversation about the changing climate and the huge costs heaped on hardworking American families and businesses because of the change in climate.

I am proud to represent the State of Florida, but here is what my neighbors are experiencing now: higher AC bills, more extreme weather events, heat waves, higher cost for flood insurance and property insurance, and property taxes that are having to go now to repair our water and wastewater infrastructure on the coast.

We have a rapidly diminishing window to act to reduce our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impacts of climate change are irreversible. The energy infrastructure decisions that we make today will have a real impact on whether we can mitigate climate change in the future. We need to understand this risk before we lock in infrastructure that will produce carbon pollution for decades to come.

This bill's supporters don't like to be reminded of the daunting challenges of the changing climate. That is reflected in our discussion today, and, frankly, it is reflected in the glaring inaction of this Republican Congress to address climate change.

If enacted into law, H.R. 2883 would move us backwards in our fight for the clean energy economy and the jobs of the future. H.R. 2883 would rubber-stamp permits for pipelines to carry oil, natural gas, even tar sands crude into the United States.

Tar sands crude is the dirtiest fuel on the planet from a climate perspective, and this bill creates a permitting process for cross- border pipelines that make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Federal Government to say no to any of these projects.

This bill asserts that every cross-border energy project is always in the public interest. It is up to a project's opponent to try to prove otherwise. The bill even allows the oil industry to make major modifications to its pipelines without getting any approval at all. That means, if a company wants to increase its pipeline capacity or reverse an existing pipeline to carry more oil, natural gas, or tar sands crude into the United States, the company can do just that, no questions asked.

Building new pipelines or expanding existing ones could have a profound environmental impact, but the bill allows for no meaningful environmental review for a cross-border pipeline. The bill says the Federal Government can only examine the cross-border segment of the project.

Who thought that up? That is very creative.

It is almost hard to believe that this is what the bill does, but it is true. For a pipeline spanning hundreds of miles, the environmental review will focus on only that tiny part that crosses the U.S. border. That is irresponsible. That would eliminate the possibility of any meaningful examination of the carbon pollution impacts of these pipelines.

We should be examining the carbon impact of every pipeline before we approve it. Many are very important. But to do so without important environmental reviews in this day and age is frightening.

The future will belong to the country that builds an energy infrastructure to support a cleaner, lower carbon economy, and it is our responsibility to lead the country in the clean energy future with all of the jobs, consumer savings, and economic growth that would be provided.

This bill also provides more proof of what is plain: In this Republican-led Congress, it is, unfortunately, likely to go down in history as having failed to meet one of its greatest responsibilities of this time--the challenge of the changing climate. Our children and grandchildren will be poorer for it, and they will ask us, and especially my Republican colleagues: Why didn't you act when you had the chance?

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, lest anyone be left with the impression that there is a problem with cross-border pipeline approvals, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, from a December 2016 report, says that over the last 5 years, natural gas pipeline capacity between the U.S. and Mexico has grown substantially and is projected to double through 2018.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

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

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters from a number of environmental and other organizations in opposition to the bill.

They write, in part: ``On behalf of the undersigned organizations and our millions of members and supporters across the country, we write today to express our strong opposition to H.R. 2883, the `Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act.' This bill represents a fourth irresponsible attempt to pass the previously titled `North American Energy Infrastructure Act' in as many years. For the reasons below, we are opposed to the passage of this legislation and its attempt to ram through permits for new cross-border oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission lines without meaningful environmental review or public participation.''

June 26, 2017.

Re Please Oppose H.R. 2883, the ``Promoting Cross-Border

Energy Infrastructure Act''.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned

organizations and our millions of members and supporters

across the country, we write today to express our strong

opposition to H.R. 2883, the ``Promoting Cross-Border Energy

Infrastructure Act.'' This bill represents a fourth

irresponsible attempt to pass the previously titled ``North

American Energy Infrastructure Act'' in as many years. For

the reasons below, we are opposed to the passage of this

legislation and its attempt to ram through permits for new

cross-border oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission

lines without meaningful environmental review or public

participation.

Our reasons for opposing H.R. 2883 are as follows:

It is unnecessary and eliminates longstanding procedure.

Executive Order 13337 established a longstanding process that

has been used by both Republican and Democratic

administrations for decades to ensure that energy

transmission projects crossing our international borders from

Canada and Mexico are in the national interest.

It eliminates critical environmental and economic analysis.

H.R. 2883 eliminates the current requirement that proposed

oil and natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines

that cross the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada obtain a

presidential permit, after an environmental review and

determination that the project is in the national interest.

It irresponsibly narrows the scope of environmental review.

HR 2883 replaces existing processes with one that limits

environmental review to a narrow portion of the project,

exempts certain types of projects from any permit

requirement, and shifts the burden of proof to make it

difficult to not approve a project.

It undermines the National Environmental Policy Act. The

bill effectively exempts cross-border projects from

meaningful environmental review under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by dramatically narrowing the

focus of that review. Under the bill, the permit requirement

and NEPA review apply only to the cross-border segment of the

project. Trans-boundary pipelines and transmission lines are

multi-billion dollar infrastructure investments that stretch

hundreds of miles, last for decades, and pose environmental

risks well beyond their border crossings. However, contrary

to NEPA, the bill precludes review of the project's full

impacts, such as oil spills and the consequences for

landowners, public safety, drinking water, climate change,

and wildlife.

It eliminates the need to justify projects as in the

national interest. The bill eliminates the requirement that

to issue a permit, the federal permitting agency must find

the project to be in the national interest. Instead, the bill

requires an agency to approve the project, unless it finds

that the narrow segment that crosses the border ``is not in

the public interest of the United States.'' By shifting the

burden of proof to require a showing that the project is

contrary to the public interest and sharply narrowing the

focus of that inquiry, this provision makes it extremely

difficult for an agency to ever deny a permit, and it largely

eliminates the ability to approve a permit subject to

protective conditions.

Large, complicated, risky projects like oil and gas

pipelines and electric transmission facilities are precisely

the types of activities that ought to be well-planned and

reviewed before they are built. Failure to do so not only

results in threats to public safety, but can also harm our

economy and environment.

Instead of improving responsible siting, construction, and

operation of oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission

facilities, this bill goes in the opposite direction by

forcing these projects through no matter what the costs may

be. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose this bill.

Sincerely,

350.org; Bold Alliance; Clean Water Action; Defenders of

Wildlife; Greenpeace USA; Indigenous Environmental

Network; League of Conservation Voters; Natural

Resources Defense Council; Oil Change International;

Power Shift Network; Seeding Sovereignty; Sierra Club.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2883 eliminates the current requirement that proposed oil and natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines that cross the U.S. border obtain a Presidential permit. That only happens after an environmental review and a determination that the project is in the national interest. I know this might be tempting to some of my colleagues, but I encourage you to have a closer look at what this bill really does.

The bill replaces this process with a new process that limits environmental review to a narrow portion of the project, just the portion that crosses the border. It exempts certain types of projects from any permit requirement and shifts the burden of proof to make it difficult to disapprove a project.

The bill also allows a project that is rejected under current law to reapply under the new, weaker process and exempts all modifications to existing cross-border projects from any requirement for Federal review or approval.

In essence, it grants a get-out-of-jail-free card, or, actually, I guess it is more akin to whatever you roll, you get to pass go, and you get to collect your $200. That is not okay for some international oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, and electric transmission lines. These are major infrastructure projects, and we have got to maintain the ability to have a meaningful review; otherwise, we are going to suffer significant incidents, accidents, fatalities, and more.

So let me close my remarks and my portion of the debate here today. I have enjoyed this debate, but I want to highlight again that the Congress is really missing an opportunity to address one of the most significant challenges that we face, and that is the challenge of climate change.

What is particularly troubling about this bill, as well, is it keeps the public in the dark. Think about it. If you live near a major international pipeline project, shouldn't you have the right to participate and understand what such project will allow in your backyard?

The bill would allow large and long-lived cross-border energy projects to be approved with no understanding or consideration of their environmental impact or to be exempted from any permitting requirement at all. The bill assumes that these projects are always in the public interest regardless of the merits. It is an unjustifiable giveaway. It elevates corporate profits over the public interest, and it is wrong.

The public, including communities and landowners directly affected by the projects, would have little or no information and no opportunity to object or request mitigating action except to the extent provided under limited State laws.

For all of these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge the Members of this body to oppose this misguided bill so that the Congress can turn its attention to the most daunting challenge of our time: climate change, our clean energy future, and the clean energy economy and all of the jobs it entails.

Mr. Chair, again, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding me the time.

I rise today in support of H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act.

The Presidential permitting process dates back through many administrations, beginning with the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. The executive branch has taken the necessary steps to ensure our cross- border infrastructure with Canada and Mexico was constructed.

These past administrations, and even the current administration, were

forced to issue executive orders because Congress failed to act. Congress has the duty to regulate the commerce of the United States, and cross-border energy infrastructure projects fall well within that space.

Opponents of this bill argue the executive permitting process has worked well in the past. It is true that in the past the process has been proven effective. Unfortunately, cross-border decisions have now fallen victim to election year-cycle politics.

We cannot build infrastructure in this country or on the continent based on who sits in the White House, whether they be Democrat or Republican. It is Congress' responsibility to create regulatory rules by which infrastructure is constructed.

This bill will create a regulatory process at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Department of State, and the Department of Energy to permit cross-border infrastructure. It is not different than building roads, bridges, or railways. The Department of Transportation coordinates with the Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure projects are completed and the environment is protected. We will do the same thing for pipes and wires. We need to build electric transmission lines and pipelines to move resources from where they are to where they are needed.

The bill complies with the National Environmental Policy Act and requires a full environmental review of any cross-border facility including analysis of climate change impacts. More so, the entire length of the pipeline or electric transmission line will be reviewed for environmental impacts not just for the cross-border pipeline.

While there is some confusion on this issue, opponents of the bill talk about how we will gut the NEPA process--the National Environmental Policy Act. This is simply not the case. My colleague from Texas (Mr. Veasey) will offer a bipartisan amendment to the bill clarifying that the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act review shall not be limited in any way by this act.

The bill is about the future and how to meet energy demands for the 21st century. We should embrace the changes taking place in North America and harmonize our policies with those of our neighbors both to the north with Canada and to the south with Mexico, and this bill, if it becomes law, will do that.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Mullin for partnering together.

Like he said, Texas and Oklahoma have a lot of things in common. We both are energy States. But believe me, the Red River does divide us on football.

Mr. Chair, there seems to be some confusion here that this bill takes away National Environmental Policy Act enforcement. That is just not true. In fact, during a committee hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we produced a Congressional Research Service report that said that nothing in this bill will take away the responsibility for the NEPA process, the National Environmental Policy Act.

To make sure that every inch of those pipelines will be studied for environmental issues is not our intention. Our intention is just to move product. We will go through all the efforts.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a report from the Congressional Research Service that we got in committee.

[From the Congressional Research Service, May 2, 2017]

Memorandum

To: The Honorable Gene Green; Attention: Justin Ackley

From: Linda Luther, Analyst in Environmental Policy, ext. 7-

6852

Subject: Scope of NEPA Review Required for Federal Agency

Approvals

This memorandum responds to your request asking CRS to

clarify the scope of an environmental review prepared by

federal agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). More specifically, you asked CRS to identify the

scope of environmental impacts that a federal agency would be

likely to evaluate before making a final decision on a

request to approve certain energy infrastructure projects

that would cross a United States border, such as the issuance

of a ``certificate of crossing'' that would be required in

the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act

(discussion draft released April 25, 2017). This memorandum

identifies the range of environmental impacts that federal

agencies currently evaluate when demonstrating compliance

with NEPA. It also discusses current agency practices, for

similar projects, that generally involve the evaluation of

the environmental impacts of any new facilities constructed

in the United States (i.e., impacts that may occur as a

result of approving a cross-border energy infrastructure

project). Information in this memorandum may be used or may

have been used in other CRS products.

Before a federal agency can make a final decision on a

proposed federal action, NEPA requires that agency to

identify the proposal's effects on the ``quality of the human

environment.'' The scope and level of review required under

NEPA depends on whether those effects will be

``significant.'' To make that determination, each agency must

identify and evaluate the proposal's--

Direct effects--impacts caused by the project and occurring

at the same time and place, including impacts directly

associated with the construction and operation of the

facilities;.

Indirect effects--impacts that are later in time or farther

removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable; and

Cumulative effects--impacts on the environment that result

from the incremental impacts of the action when added to

other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future

actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal)

or person undertakes that other action.

If an agency is authorized to approve a cross-border

facility (e.g., issue a certificate of crossing for certain

energy infrastructure projects as in the proposed bill), that

agency's decision must be informed by appropriate

environmental review required under NEPA. As federal agencies

currently implement NEPA, the requirement to identify and

consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts has meant

that the agency evaluates the effects of siting, building and

operating the entire structure in the United States (not just

the cross-border segment they are authorized to approve).

That is, if a federal agency is authorized to approve a

cross-border project, that agency's existing NEPA practices

would likely continue to involve analysis of impacts

associated with the approval of the facility that physically

crosses the border, as well as any new facilities constructed

in the United States.

I hope this information is useful to you. Please feel free

to contact me if you have additional questions.

Mr. Chair, the other issue, though, is we are going to do belts and suspenders. That is an old saying I heard. We already had a belt, but now we are going to deal with an amendment from Congressman Veasey. We will make sure it is belts and suspenders and that the National Environmental Policy Act is applied to these pipelines, because that is not our intent.

So we not only have the Congressional Research Service saying it is, we are going to put language into this bill, and I understand it will be accepted by our side, to make sure that is there.

What we need to do is make sure that our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico--right now, Mexico needs the natural gas that we are producing in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and New Mexico; but 20 years from now, our wells may be dry for natural gas, and

we will need that natural gas that Mexico will be producing when they work in northern Mexico.

So that is why we need to structuralize this, if we are really going to have a North American energy market for electric transmission like they do up in the New England States or electric transmissions even along the border in Texas. I know they do the same thing in southern California. We need to have some certainty with our closest neighbors.

We have a free trade agreement with these two countries. It is already decided it is in our national interest. Why would we set aside energy as something different? That is why this bill is so important.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote for this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. In the United States today, there is 150 million acres of protected land set aside in the National Wildlife Refuge System for protected designation for America's fish, wildlife, and plants.

Conservation efforts like the National Wildlife Refuge System build up America's great conservation legacy that began with Teddy Roosevelt. Ensuring that future generations of Americans have access to these great traditions must be our priority as a body going forward.

In this 150 million acres of National Wildlife Refuge System land, though, there currently stretches 1,339 miles of pipeline already. Protecting our natural resources and building much-needed infrastructure are not mutually exclusive goals.

These pipelines are already there. They are not destroying the lands or their ecosystem or prohibiting the American people from enjoying access to this public land. Companies must pay the government for use of the land for pipelines. That money, in turn, goes into acquiring more land for conservation efforts and recreational use.

The Department of Transportation's review of safety accidents conducted under President Obama's administration showed that in addition to providing a substantial cost advantage, pipelines result in fewer spillage incidents and personal injuries than either road or rail.

As coal-fired power plants continue to shut down, the demand for natural gas, a lower emission alternative, is going to keep going up. Whether the gas is produced in Canada, Alaska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, or the Gulf of Mexico, it will be used all over the country, and we need to ensure that a regulatory framework is in place that allows us to get this supply to where it is needed.

The amendment is a backhanded way to prevent any pipelines or electrical transmission infrastructure from being built.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Veasey, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chair, again, this is Congressman Veasey's idea, and I am doing it for him because he couldn't be here.

Our intent when crafting the bill was never to reduce or limit the National Environmental Policy Act applicability when considering whether to approve a cross-border project.

Before a Federal agency can make a final determination on a proposed Federal action, the National Environmental Policy Act requires that the agency identify the proposal's effects on the quality of human environment and whether these effects will be significant.

To make this determination, Federal agencies identify and evaluate the direct and indirect cumulation of effects of the proposal. Direct effects are the impacts caused by the project occurring at the same time and place. Indirect effects are the impacts that are later in time or further removed but still reasonably foreseeable. And cumulative effects are impacts on the environment that result with incremental

impacts on the action, regardless of what person or agency undertakes that action.

The Federal agencies currently implement NEPA. The requirement to identify all three of these impacts has required the analysis of impacts to include not just the cross-border section of the project, but any new facility or structure constructed within the United States.

Our office had the bill analyzed by the experts at the Congressional Research Office, who confirmed that the underlying bill did not in any way limit the scope of future National Environmental Policy Act reviews under it. Under our language, they will continue to involve reviews of the entire project, not just that part that crosses the border section.

With that said, I have heard concerns from Members who are worried that the bill will limit the NEPA in some way. I am happy to support this bipartisan amendment with my colleague, Mr. Veasey, which unequivocally states that nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall affect the scope of any review required to be conducted by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

I support this good faith amendment--and like I said earlier, it is belts and suspenders, but sometimes we need them to pass legislation-- and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we are here talking about how to take politics out of our infrastructure. As we just heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), this is a bipartisan bill. We hear a lot of stuff about it damaging the environment; it doesn't. We are talking about crossing a border and taking a situation that was held up for 8 years with the Keystone pipeline and making sure it has the transparent and consistent approach on how we regulate these permits.

The United States is a powerhouse around the world. We want to keep it that way. We want our country to compete freely in the global market and continue to positively benefit our economy. My bill, H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act, supports the construction of energy infrastructure across our North America borders.

Simply put, this bill takes the politics out of energy infrastructure projects. The construction of these border-crossing facilities should be done effectively and efficiently without getting caught up in our Nation's politics. These facilities are used for importing and exporting oil, natural gas, and electricity that enhance the trade of our energy products that benefit our economy.

This bipartisan piece of legislation allows a transparent and efficient process to be followed the same way every time and for every project. Most importantly, it provides regulatory certainty to those charged with carrying out these projects. I want to thank this House for allowing such bills to come forth and the opportunity to allow this bill to be heard.

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

Mr. Chairman, as you have heard, two of my colleagues from Texas have just come out, obviously, in support of this bill. There is not a lot that Texas and Oklahoma agree on, especially this time of the year when we enter football season. Other than that, we agree that Oklahoma is better at football than Texas.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the International Union of Operating Engineers, a letter from Edison Electric Institute, a letter from the IOSA, and a letter from the Plains All American Pipeline all in support of this bill.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Affiliated

with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of

Industrial Organizations,

July 18, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The International

Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) supports H.R. 2883, the

Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act, legislation that

provides clear congressional authority to the process of

evaluating transnational pipeline projects. Further, the IUOE

endorses H.R. 2910, a bill Promoting Inter-Agency

Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act.

We respectfully request that you support both of these

pieces of legislation when they come to the floor of the

House of Representatives this week.

The International Union of Operating Engineers represents

400,000 working men and women in the United States and

Canada, thousands of whom build and maintain the nation's

energy infrastructure. We are one of four unions that are

signatory to the National Pipeline Agreement. Operating

Engineers perform millions of hours of work on pipeline

projects around the United States every year; millions of

additional hours were performed on pipeline work by IUOE

members in Canada.

North America's energy network is inextricably linked.

Eliminating legal and regulatory uncertainty regarding the

permitting of cross-border energy facilities will promote

investment and job creation in North America, and that is why

the IUOE supports H.R. 2883. Removing these regulatory

barriers will ultimately increase the interconnection of the

North American energy network and at the same time improve

reliability, security, and affordability.

Today, the process for permitting this energy

infrastructure lives only through Executive Order. North

America's energy future is simply too important to leave to

the ambiguity and imprecision of administrative fiat.

Granting clear legislative authority and delegating

responsibility to an agency experienced with the National

Environmental Policy Act and permitting processes, the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), rather than the

Department of State, will increase the competency and

capacity of the review of cross-border energy projects. It is

a clear improvement in the administration of major project

permitting.

Updating the American domestic permitting and regulatory

framework for natural-gas pipelines is also essential.

Several steps are necessary in this regard, and H.R. 2910 is

one of them. Domestic energy production provides good-paying

jobs for members of the IUOE and other construction

craftworkers and continues to employ thousands of our

members. Uncertainty and delay during environmental reviews,

however, hinder the growth of jobs related to the nation's

energy infrastructure. Congress should give FERC additional

tools to keep federal agencies accountable and maximize

coordination in the permitting process.

H.R. 2910 requires reporting and transparency in the review

of major projects. These requirements raise the bar for

regulators and provides the public with a better

understanding of the environmental impacts that are receiving

particular rigor and examination--or perhaps needlessly

delaying the overall project-review timeline. Democrats and

Republicans supported similar reporting and transparency in

the FAST Act. Enactment of H.R. 2910 is a necessary step to

help place the booming energy sector on a sound footing for

the future.

The International Union of Operating Engineers supports

both H.R. 2883 and H.R. 2910 and respectfully requests that

you support the legislation this week when it comes before

you.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

James T. Callahan,

General President.

Once again, I understand that there is opposition to the bill because of a fear. But the true fear is: Are we willing to hold up the infrastructure needs of this country for political gain? For the years that we had from the previous administration, that is exactly what happened. It was political.

What we are trying to do when we take it out of the State Department's hands and put it with FERC is put it with a bipartisan oversight agency that takes an approach to looking at the infrastructure needs that this country has and saying: Is this in the country's best interest?

They have been doing it, and they do it well.

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

Mr. Chairman, I actually have a couple of more speakers.

Mr. Chair, I was under the impression the other side had yielded back the balance of her time.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to allow the minority to reclaim the balance of her time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), my good friend.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this bill has absolutely no effect on any environmental law. The bill expressly provides that approval of a project under this act does not affect the application of any other Federal laws that are applicable to the construction, operation, or maintenance of a project. The Congressional Research Service has reviewed the legislation and has confirmed that fact.

My point is, other than the fact that they just want to oppose this because, maybe, people oppose fossil fuels as a whole, this makes sense. This is a bill that moves forward. As we stated earlier, it takes politics out of our permitting process. It brings structure and certainty to those that are providing our infrastructure needs.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, H.R. 2883 was designated the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the lead agency of the permitting cross-border oil pipelines.

FERC is an independent agency made up of a bipartisan commission that regulates interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. FERC also reviews proposals to build liquefied natural gas terminals, interstate natural gas pipelines, and cross-border natural gas facilities.

FERC has a proven track record of working with a wide array of stakeholders on complex pipeline projects to balance the public interest. It is clearly the best suited agency for the job of permitting cross-border oil pipelines.

As we learned from the Keystone XL experience during the Obama administration, the State Department lacks the ability to pull out politics from our Nation's infrastructure. There is nothing in this bill that would prevent the State Department from being consulted about an application, but FERC should take the lead on cross-border oil pipelines.

H.R. 2883 would provide the permitting process with much-needed consistency and transparency. The gentleman's amendment would double down on the failures of the past and reinject bipartisan politics into the process.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chair, H.R. 2883 strikes a right balance for wise management of our multiuse public lands and natural resources. The amendment would upset this careful balance.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, which would clarify the intent of the legislation not to affect the application of any or other Federal laws that are applicable to the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project.

Despite the talking points used by some of my friends, nothing in this bill would exempt a project from complying with applicable environmental laws or restrict the scope of environmental review.

The gentleman from Texas' amendment makes this abundantly clear. H.R. 2883 would lead to a more objective and timely decision, create jobs, strengthen our Nation's energy security, and support affordable and reliable energy for all Americans.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, this is just a procedural motion to deny the important benefits of this legislation to the American workers, businesses, and our collective energy security. It fits a pattern of delay and obstruction that we simply cannot support. I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and vote ``yes'' on final passage.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2883.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act.

This legislation continues the great tradition of bipartisan legislation coming out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Our focus has been and will continue to be building America's infrastructure, creating jobs, and strengthening our economy.

I want to congratulate my colleagues and sponsors of this bill, particularly Mr. Mullin and Mr. Gene Green, Republican and Democrat, for their work on this legislation.

H.R. 2883 would establish coordinated procedures to authorize the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of international border-crossing facilities for the import and export of oil and natural gas, and the transmission of electricity. That is what the bill does.

The legislation would replace the requirements established under executive order that persons obtain a Presidential permit before constructing an oil and gas pipeline or electric transmission facility that crosses the border between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

To date, Congress has not asserted its authority to establish proceedings for permitting cross-border energy infrastructure. In the absence of a statutorily directed process, agencies have made decisions regarding cross-border energy infrastructure within the context of their interpretation of a series of executive orders dating back to the 1950s.

Recent proposals, most notably the Keystone XL pipeline, have faced significant and unnecessary delays as a result of political interference in what should have been a straightforward review. There is bipartisan agreement that we should have a free flow of energy in North America.

This bill is going to level the playing field for energy infrastructure projects located at the international border. The legislation takes important steps to bring fairness to the process and provide certainty to countries whom we already have a free trade agreement with and businesses that want to create jobs in the U.S. It is going to strengthen our effort to improve and update NAFTA and enhance our trilateral trading relationships.

It is time Congress exercised its constitutional authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and replace the Presidential permit requirement with a more transparent, efficient, and effective review process.

Establishing the cross-border permitting process in law would lead to more objective and timely decisions, which, in turn, is going to create the jobs, strengthen our Nation's energy security, and support affordable and reliable energy for all Americans.

Again, I want to thank my colleagues for their efforts on this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, hardworking families across Arizona and across our country are sick and tired of Congress putting partisan politics ahead of creating jobs at home.

As I travel across rural Arizona and speak to workers, miners, farmers, and families, I am asked the same questions: ``When is Congress going to get serious about helping rural America?

``When are you guys going to work together and create good-paying jobs?

``When are we going to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and roads?

``When are we finally going to get reliable broadband?''

In my 7 months in Congress, I have seen firsthand the failure to address these problems in a truly bipartisan manner. American workers are counting on all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to focus on bringing back jobs to our country.

The underlying bill before us does not go far enough to ensure pipelines, which involve major investments and can span hundreds of miles across sensitive areas, are made with quality, reliable, American-made materials.

My commonsense amendment simply requires Federal agencies to certify that all of the iron and steel products used in any cross-border pipelines are produced in the United States before they can be approved.

Mr. Speaker, foreign steelmakers now supply half the oil and gas drilling and extraction pipes used in the United States, and it is only getting worse. The American Iron and Steel Institute estimates that imports of steel pipes for the oil and gas industry are up 237 percent in the first half of 2017 from a year earlier.

Earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order instructing the Secretary of Commerce to develop a plan that would require any company building a pipeline within U.S. borders to use American-made materials and equipment. My amendment mirrors the spirit of that executive order by applying the same rules to any proposed cross-border pipelines.

Mr. Speaker, we need to rebuild America. We need to rebuild America's infrastructure. We need to rebuild America's energy infrastructure, but we need to rebuild America by creating American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better message to send during President Trump's ``Made in America Week'' than by standing up for American workers and supporting this commonsense amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.