Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 454 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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, I rise in support of House Resolution 454, which provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act; H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act; and H.R. 218, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act.

Mr. Speaker, our domestic energy industry has suffered greatly over the last 8 years under outdated regulations and burdensome bureaucratic red tape that have prohibited growth and innovation. Today's rule allows for consideration of two very important bills that will provide clear and transparent policies for our pipeline permitting processes, making them more efficient and effective so that we can fully realize the North American energy boom; create American jobs; grow our economy; and strengthen our relations with our largest energy trading partners, Canada and Mexico.

The first bill, H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, is sponsored by my colleague, Mr. Flores of Texas.

This bill reinforces the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's role as the lead agency for siting interstate natural gas pipelines by directing it to identify and invite all agencies considering an aspect of an application to establish a schedule for concurrent reviews, and to impose deadlines for final decisions.

Recent advancements in energy exploration have allowed companies to tap into previously inaccessible natural gas reserves, leading to a dramatic increase in domestic production. The increased supply has lowered energy costs and increased demand for natural gas.

As a result, current U.S. pipelines are now operating near capacity, making new pipelines necessary to deliver gas to consumers across the Nation, especially to those in the Northeast and Midwest, where demand for energy is high, but where they lack the infrastructure to deliver domestic natural gas. Additionally, due to its abundance and affordability, many manufacturers are beginning to rely on natural gas as a primary fuel.

Unfortunately, the permitting process for new pipelines is arduous and unnecessarily burdensome. Currently, when siting a pipeline project, multiple permits are required, including permits under the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act, for example. According to the Government Accountability Office, the average processing time from pre-filing to certification for interstate natural gas pipelines has been 558 days. We cannot afford to wait that long, Mr. Speaker.

It is critical that we expand and modernize our Nation's pipeline infrastructure to ensure the access to affordable energy and affordable prices for consumers across the country. In order to do this, we simply must promote timely and efficient reviews as well as coordination among Federal, State, and local regulators. This bill accomplishes these goals, and I support its passage.

The rule we are discussing today also provides for consideration of H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin). This bill creates a uniform and transparent process to authorize the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of international transfers of oil, natural gas, and electricity imports and exports.

The bill directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review cross-border oil and natural gas pipelines and the Department of Energy to review cross-border electric transmission facilities, requiring the relevant official to issue a certificate of crossing, unless it is found not to be in the public interest.

Recent advances in technology, Mr. Speaker, have dramatically increased our ability to harness our vast natural resources, but the current ad hoc permitting process has inhibited energy producers from exporting American-made energy to our international trading partners and has significantly delayed recent proposals, such as the Keystone XL pipeline.

The value of energy traded between the United States and its North American neighbors exceeded $140 billion in 2015, with $100 billion in U.S. energy imports, and over $40 billion in exports. We simply cannot afford to gamble our energy security and competitiveness on an inefficient permitting process.

Today's rule, Mr. Speaker, also allows for consideration of H.R. 218, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). This bill authorizes an equal value land exchange to facilitate the construction of an 11-mile road linking the remote city of King Cove and the city of Cold Bay, which has a modern airport. The State of Alaska will transfer approximately 43,000 acres to the Department of the Interior to add to the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in return for 206 acres of Federal lands to build the road.

This road is critical, Mr. Speaker, because harsh winter conditions make transporting individuals in the remote King Cove community of nearly 1,000 people dangerous and sometimes fatal: gale-force winds ground planes and prevent sea travel; evacuations can take days; and the hovercraft terminal and medical facility that Congress temporarily provided funds for, in lieu of land for the road, ceased operation in 2010.

The King Cove community has been denied proper hospital care and access to essential emergency services since they began fighting for this road 40 years ago, and that, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable.

Ensuring these folks have ground transportation options for accessing the regional hub at Cold Bay, especially during harsh winters, is vital to the safety of this community in emergency situations.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage support for the rule for these important bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), my friend and colleague, and the sponsor of H.R. 218.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I share my colleague's dedication to job creation, and what we know is that the kind of job creation we need in this Nation can only come with access to reliable, affordable sources of energy. Our fossil fuels in this country are a national treasure, and these bills that are being considered under this rule today are bills that would help to streamline the regulatory process.

We have been, Mr. Speaker, really facing a war on fossil fuels during the course of the last 8 years. We have seen these industries targeted, completely unfairly targeted, based on some notion that, by shutting down our fossil fuel industry, we are somehow going to be able to continue to have economic growth. We have seen the environmental officials of the previous administration even admit before this body that things like the Clean Power Plan would result, if fully implemented, in a negligible impact on the environment.

So, again, I think that it is important to recognize that it is at the center of the agenda that we are pushing forward, frankly, with historic progress in this Congress to begin to generate the kind of economic growth that we really need to get back on track.

We have been stagnant now for 8 years. We have seen overreach from the Federal Government. We have seen a situation in which companies, industry, individuals, and small businesses are strangled by regulatory red tape.

No one is suggesting that there shouldn't be oversight. No one is suggesting that there shouldn't be environmental review, but what we know is we have got to streamline it.

We cannot be in a position where bureaucrats--and, frankly, it is often unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.--impose absolutely unattainable restrictions, impose rules that our industry can't meet and prevent us from being able to have access to our own energy sources. Again, it is that reliable, affordable energy that will allow our economy to grow and bring back the jobs that the gentleman says, and to which I agree, are so important for this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).

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

I understand that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about energy. They don't want to talk about fossil fuels. They don't want to talk about how important these are to the economy.

I would propose, Mr. Speaker, maybe what we should do is turn out the lights in this Chamber. Maybe we ought to turn off the air conditioning, Mr. Speaker, and we could have the debate in the dark, which is where we would be, frankly, if we followed the energy policies in the approach of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

These bills are hugely important, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we are able to continue to get access to the energy that we need; and it is crucially important that we not skip over the burden that has been caused by the Federal Government, by the regulatory burden we have been feeling, and that we take action, as is our responsibility, to begin to help to roll back that overreach, to begin to help to provide some relief so that we can, in fact, get the jobs back that our colleagues say they desire so much and that we know we need.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

I am proud to be here, and I am proud of the agenda that we have taken up under the Republican leadership in this Congress. We are indeed doing the important work that the people sent us here to do.

So far, just a list of some of the things that we have done in the first few months of this Congress: We have taken the first step in our obligation to repeal and replace ObamaCare, a system that is absolutely failing, that is causing rising premiums. It is causing people to lose their insurance all across the Nation, a system that will collapse if we don't fix it. We, the House Republicans, have taken important steps in order to begin the repeal and replace process of ObamaCare.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have passed a bill to repeal and replace Dodd- Frank, legislation that was strangling our local community banks across the country. We have taken a step to begin to fix that and provide relief.

We have also dealt with important immigration issues and taken important action in terms of passing legislation to end human trafficking.

I am very proud, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, of the work that we have done to pass the National Defense Authorization Act to begin to rebuild our military and get the military the resources it needs so that it can defend us against a growing array of threats and a very complex array of enemies across the Nation.

We have also, Mr. Speaker, taken important steps using the congressional review action process to repeal regulations put in place over the last 8 years that have been damaging to our industry, to individuals, to small businesses all across the Nation.

We have been historically productive, and it may be that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't agree with the steps that we have taken, but it is simply not accurate to say we aren't focusing on what is important. We are focusing on those issues that matter most to the men and women across this Nation that will begin to make sure we can keep everybody safe, begin to make sure we can defend ourselves, begin the process of reforming our outdated and burdensome tax code, as well, Mr. Speaker, as ensuring we bring back the kind of economic growth we know we need and fixing our healthcare system.

These bills that we are debating today, the rule for these bills, are part of that process. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Flores, Mr. Mullin, and Mr. Young, for their hard work on this legislation.

In Wyoming, which is one of our Nation's largest energy-producing States, we know how important it is that we work to develop our domestic energy resources. We know the technology that has been available that has helped us do that, that has helped us begin to, for the first time ever, have energy independence that has really helped us begin to have the kind of economic growth we need.

We cannot depend just on that technology. We also have got to improve the permitting process, Mr. Speaker. Improving the pipeline permitting process by promoting the kind of timely review, supporting interagency coordination, and creating a new and streamlined system for safety that will help us to transport our energy exports and imports are all crucial steps in our ability to ensure affordable energy and economic growth.

The other bill that we are considering under this rule, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 218, will provide a desperately needed road, as you heard my colleague Mr. Young explain, to improve the safety and well-being of the residents of King Cove, Alaska, and save lives, Mr. Speaker.

Therefore, I urge adoption of both the rule and the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Chairman, I simply associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Nadler. I think he explained the history of this law very, very well.

It is a very basic principle. People who work on these cruise ships should be compensated and taken care of if they are injured. There is no reason that the cruise line industry cannot afford to do this.

To discriminate against people who happen to be from different countries who are working on these ships makes no sense whatsoever. Our laws apply to whoever is working on the ships and should continue to do so. This is simply an effort to deny workers' rights from a cruise line industry that can more than afford to take care of the people who work there.

These are not easy jobs. I confess, I have only taken one cruise in my life, but the people who work there work very long hours, very hard, in very difficult conditions. If they are injured or sick, they should be taken care of. As Mr. Nadler said, the best way to do that is under the current common practice, which is the cruise line does take care of them and makes sure they get the healthcare they need until they are able to work. But if that is not done, the right to sue in court to protect your rights as a worker should not be taken away.

I do not believe that we have a problem in this country that workers are being too highly compensated and have too many rights. We don't need to take away the few that they have.

I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't have any speakers either, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill. I want to begin by thanking the chairman and all of the members of the committee. As has been noted many times, this is the most bipartisan committee in Congress; and I think, once again, even in difficult circumstances, we have proved that this year. That is, in large part, due to the leadership of Chairman Thornberry. I thank him for that.

I also thank our staff, which does an unbelievable job. There are hundreds, if not thousands of amendments, that come at them. They manage that. You see the very few that actually come through either in committee or on the floor. They work through literally thousands of ideas and do an amazing job, so I really want to thank our staff for their great work.

In particular, I want to thank Vickie Plunkett. This will be her last markup. She is retiring. She has done a fabulous job for our staff. She basically exemplifies everything I just said about how great our staff is, how they work in a bipartisan manner and do a great job to serve our country. So, I thank Vickie for her incredible service to our committee and to the country.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill that we should support because, make no mistake about it, what the chairman and many others have said is true: we face a complex threat environment. The U.S. national security is at risk.

I take Mr. Nolan from Minnesota's point that spending a lot of money on wars that we didn't need to engage in does cost us at home, and that point is valid, but so is the point that we face threats we must confront.

North Korea is testing intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is no doubt that their goal is to develop a nuclear missile, capable of striking the U.S.

Being from the West Coast--and they always say that it could hit Seattle. I don't know why they don't talk about any other city on the West Coast. It could hit a lot of different places. We need to be worried about that. We need to be prepared to stop that.

Russia continues to undermine not just our elections, but democracy itself, across Europe, and even down in the Middle East and Africa. We need to be prepared to confront that.

We face a terrorist threat. 9/11 killed 3,000 people in this country because we weren't ready to prevent it. The groups that supported that attack have not gone away; they have metastasized.

Now, I will completely agree with some of my friends on the left, who think that the terrorism threat is often overblown. I think it is often also a mistake to demonize the Muslim religion. And even though I know some people don't do that, they simply want to confront groups like al- Qaida and ISIS, Steve Bannon, who works right next to the White House, has said that Islam is a totalitarian ideology of subjugation, it is not a religion. He thinks all Muslims are a threat.

To the extent that we adopt a national security policy that views the world that way, we make the problem worse. That is what ISIS wants; that is what al-Qaida wants. They want a clash of civilizations. We should not want that. They have killed more Muslims than any other religion on Earth. Muslims have the biggest stake in this. We must work with them, not against them, to confront that terrorist threat that ISIS and al-Qaida and others present.

On the broader budget issue, as I mentioned a couple of times, the first 6 months of this year, we had a number

of folks in the Pentagon come over and spell out all kinds of nightmare scenarios about every bad thing that could conceivably happen--some of ones that I mentioned, and hundreds of others that I haven't. And I understand that. That is their job. Their job is to worry about what could come at us.

But, past a certain point, that isn't helpful. We need a plan, we need a strategy to confront this, and we need to make choices. That is the one thing that I am still concerned about with this bill. It really doesn't make choices. It continues to spend money in a variety of different places, without a recognition of finite resources and choices that need to be made about how to confront the threats that are most dangerous to us--how to spend that money in the best way possible. That is something that I think we need to work on going forward.

We also have the budget problem that I described. And I won't give the same full speech that I gave before, but I will simplify it and say that there is a consensus in Congress and in the country that we need to balance the budget without raising taxes and without cutting any programs that people might like. That doesn't work. It simply is not possible. It doesn't add up.

That is why we don't have a budget resolution. Any budget resolution that the Republican Congress could put on the floor will fail to meet some of the promises that they, and others, have made. We have got to be honest about that, because this bill, again, is $72 billion over the budget caps. It is actually $91 billion over the budget caps, if you add in--well, sorry, $81 billion over the budget caps, if you add in the money that we took from OCO to put into the base.

So, if we do not raise the budget caps, this goes away and leaves us, once again, in the land of uncertainty for the Department of Defense. We have to make choices on the budget going forward so that we don't leave the Defense Department in the lurch, not knowing how much money that they are going to have. So, we still don't have a budget resolution in front of us.

And, lastly, I do want to point out that the rest of the budget does matter. The chairman and I have had a little bit of an argument about this: we are the Armed Services Committee, we should pay attention to that; you know, don't sacrifice our troops for the sake of domestic--he always says political priorities. That is the one word in his argument that I find not really appropriate.

There is nothing political about it. It is a policy choice. It is basically deciding what domestic priorities are important.

And, make no mistake about it, the discretionary budget is a zero-sum game. I mentioned yesterday the President's budget: a $54 billion plus- up for defense, and $54 billion cut from nondefense discretionary. So don't tell me that one thing doesn't have anything to do with the other.

But even the so-called budget resolution, the budget agreement that the House Republicans have come up with, but have not yet dared to put to a vote, has a $72 billion plus-up for defense, and a $5 billion cut for domestic spending. So, again, the two are absolutely connected.

What are we talking about with domestic spending? I won't go through all of it. I will just mention a couple of things.

Yesterday, I mentioned our infrastructure. Bridges are collapsing all across the country. I saw a big story yesterday about how the Memorial Bridge is about to fall down. We have incredible infrastructure needs that lead to the strength of our country that are connected, just like national defense is to the strength of this Nation.

But another example, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center--it is close to my district, it is in Seattle--is doing incredible research right now, that figured out how to not use chemotherapy but actually go in, take out the white blood cells that aren't working, get them to work, and send them back in to successfully fight cancer. This has worked for blood cancers. They just started studies on lung cancer. But, basically, we could cure cancer, without going through the hell of chemo. The President's budget would cut Fred Hutchinson's funding by over two-thirds.

I don't think curing cancer is a political agenda. That is a very real need that has an incredible impact on the lives of Americans, just like national security. It is like making sure that North Korea doesn't hit us with a nuclear weapon, making sure that terrorist groups don't attack us. Curing cancer, stopping bridges from collapsing, these are priorities.

Because we are not making budget choices, these are priorities that get pushed aside. And if you plus-up defense and take it from nondefense discretionary, then you are having that very real impact.

Now, I am not going to say it has to be dollar for dollar. I think it probably should be, but we can negotiate around that. But to simply gut the nondefense discretionary budget to plus-up defense does not make this country safer.

We heard yesterday, hey, in a time of war, you make domestic sacrifices. And we have all read about World War II, all the domestic sacrifices that were made at that time. I get that.

But you know what else you do in a time of war? Well, you don't cut taxes. You raise them. Prior to 2001, we had never gone to war without raising taxes or issuing war bonds or, basically, asking for more money. But that, of course, we cannot do.

Again, I will say I care enough about the national security of this country, I would raise taxes to pay for it instead of simply adding to the deficit or stopping the ability of somebody like the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center from finding a cure for cancer. That is the choice that I would make. These choices are not being made in this budget resolution, and I think that places us at risk.

Lastly, the nondefense discretionary budget is the State Department, it is USAID, it is the Department of Homeland Security. If you are going to have a national security strategy, it can't just be the military. And you know who will tell you that more often than anybody? The military. They don't want to bear the entire burden.

General Secretary Mattis had the best quote on this. If you are going to cut diplomacy, if you are going to cut development, you better give me four more divisions because that is how many more wars I am going to have to fight.

So to say we are going to add all this money to defense, and defense is so important, and if you are against it because of other priorities, then you just don't care about the troops, is incredibly disingenuous because all of these other things matter to the national security of this country. And all we are getting out of the majority right now is an effort to plus-up defense at the expense of everything else.

I say an effort because they haven't actually voted on it yet. It hasn't actually happened. And it is more likely than not that this bill--good, though, it is--and the great work that has been done on a number of different policy divisions that don't have anything to do with the money, the good work on acquisition reform to try to make sure we get more for the money that we spend, all of that is in jeopardy because this bill has at least $72 billion in it over the budget caps that is, more likely than not, not going to be there come October 1 or the end of this year.

So if we don't make the choices on the budget that reflect the priorities of the entire country, that actually reflect the budget numbers, then we are doing a disservice to the men and women who serve our country.

It is a good bill. It is going to be better once we figure out the budget issues and actually start making the choices that are necessary to make us stronger in every aspect of society.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I have supported it in the past. And as Mr. Emmer just mentioned, the House has supported it in the past in each of the last 2 years.

I admire the persistence of the gentleman from Massachusetts in pursuing this issue. I think it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to convince our colleagues across the Capitol or the Pentagon to do this. I know of no opposition to the amendment.

I think the House should continue to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 440, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, neither do I have other speakers on this en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I inform my friend from Washington I have no speakers on this en bloc package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the gentleman from Washington when he expresses his appreciation to the members of our committee. Each one of the 62 members of our committee has contributed to the bill that is here before us today and, as the Chair knows, we have had more amendments considered over the last 3 days than ever before for a National Defense Authorization bill. So Members of the whole body have contributed in many ways.

I also agree with the gentleman that our staff on both sides of the aisle, led by Jenness Simler and Paul Arcangeli, have done a terrific job in helping to manage this process and to shape and guide what has been historic levels of interest by Members on particular provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I think that you would find among our committee virtually, if not unanimous, agreement on two points. One is we live in an increasingly dangerous world. The second one is we have done deep damage to our military because of the budgets cuts, the continuing resolutions, the erratic nature of funding over the last few years.

Certainly, the members of our committee who go out and actually talk to the people who serve have heard, seen, witnessed firsthand airplanes that can't fly, ships that can't sail, training that has not gone on, movers--we are trying to save money for the military, so we are hiring cut-rate movers, and members of the military are experiencing incredible damage to their household goods as they are shuffled about from place to place involuntarily. Sometimes there are movers with criminal records who can't actually get on the military base they are supposed to be delivering to. I mean, just example after example of how these cuts have affected the men and women who serve.

And as Secretary Mattis says, the only reason we are doing so well around the world is because they have sucked it up and borne the burden. Deep damage that this bill starts to reverse.

I appreciate all the Members who support fixing our planes, getting the training, having ships that sail, better missile defense, all the things that are in this bill.

I am not going to engage in a detailed discussion about the budget. The gentleman and I discuss this frequently.

I would just say, Mr. Chairman, I believe the first obligation of the Federal Government is to defend the country. Article I, section 8 says that Congress has the power and the responsibility to raise and support armies, provide and maintain navies, provide the rules and regulations for the military forces of the United States. That is our job, and I think that is our first job.

So I agree that some of the cuts that have been proposed in other domestic programs, discretionary programs, are inappropriate, and we ought to evaluate each of them on their merits. And that continues to be my point when it comes to defense.

We evaluate our obligations to the country and to the men and women who serve, based on the merits of this argument. We don't tie it to other domestic programs. We do not say we are only going to increase defense to fix our planes if we can increase the EPA an equal amount. We don't tie it to other things.

The obligations to the men and women who risk their lives stand on their own, and that, at least in my view, is our first obligation.

Now, when we start talking about budgets, we get into all sorts of conversations about how mandatory spending is really where more than two-thirds of the budget is; how that is what has been growing; how defense is down to about 16 percent of the budget, and as it has been shrinking, the deficit has been going up. Obviously, defense is not the cause when it comes to deficits.

We can also, when we talk about tax, start talking about economic growth and this lackluster growth that the economy has suffered, at least over the last 8 years, and the need to get things going to help with the deficit.

Lots of issues to discuss, but the issue before us today is how we fulfill our responsibilities to the men and women who serve and to the country that is relying on us to protect them from missiles, to help protect them from terrorist attacks, to support the men and women who are actually performing those missions.

I think this bill advances that cause. A number of Members on both sides of the aisle have contributed to it. I think and hope it deserves the support of most all Members of the House, and I urge support for this en bloc package.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect and admiration for the gentlewoman from New York and her efforts to represent her district, her people, and try to make life better. It kind of relates to some of the conversations Mr. Smith and I were just having about tax policy, about industrial policy, about regulations, about how we have, in this country, become less competitive internationally than we should.

However, I must oppose this amendment because the bottom line is that it is not a matter of national security where the DOD buys its knives, forks, and spoons.

If Members needed further evidence of the wide range of issues which we deal with in the National Defense Authorization Act, this bill is a key example.

I think the gentlewoman accurately described the history. The Berry amendment was passed in 1940 to make sure that food and textiles were procured from the United States to support our military efforts.

In the 1970s, they put in a specialty metals provision, and attached to that was a comma that said ``including flatware.'' So then it turned out there wasn't anybody here at home that made flatware because of these international competitive issues, and DOD came to us more than a decade ago and said, ``Would you please get rid of that portion of the Berry amendment?'' and we did.

Now the question is: Are we going to start adding back specific sorts of items which DOD may buy and say you can only buy it from one place, whether or not it is critical to our country's national security?

Now, the gentlewoman mentioned that GSA is buying some spoons and knives and so forth from this manufacturer, and that is great. If we do, I hope that happens, and I hope more jobs come to her district. But to put into Federal law that the only place the Department of Defense can buy its knives and forks and spoons is from this one company, I think, starts to get us into micromanagement of industries and takes us away from the focus of this bill, which should be the troops, what is the best thing for them.

So with all my admiration for the gentlewoman, I oppose this amendment. We cannot go down the road of adding category after category after category of items to help our districts at the expense of our troops and the best use of dollars when it is not a matter of vital national security. I just don't think that the knives and forks we use qualify as vital national security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this is a procedural motion that, in my view, should be rejected.

We could spend all day and night arguing provisions that prohibit what is not in the bill. There is nothing in this bill that authorizes a border wall. The focus of the bill is the men and women who serve our Nation in the military and the national security of the United States. And that is what I want to take a moment to talk about.

I would suggest that all of us think back just to the events of the last 10 days. On July 4, North Korea launched what most observers believe is an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching parts of the United States. And we know they already have nuclear weapons.

On July 9, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi went into Mosul to celebrate the ousting of ISIS with U.S. advisers, U.S. airpower, and U.S. intelligence.

Also, this week, the Chinese navy conducted drills in the Mediterranean on their way to conduct joint exercises with the Russians in the Balkans.

This is just a taste of the world we live in, and there are provisions in this bill that address every one of these incidents, from more missile defense to getting more ships in the water faster and cheaper, to supporting our efforts against ISIS, al-Qaida, and terrorist groups.

But there is another event this week that I hope we all keep in mind. On Monday, July 10, a KC-130 crashed on its way across the country, resulting in the death of 15 marines and one sailor. We do not know what caused this crash, but the early evidence indicates that there was a catastrophic failure when it was cruising at altitude.

It will be fully investigated. But in the meantime, I think we always have to remember that, even on routine training missions, even on routine deployments, the men and women who serve are risking their lives for us. We owe them the best equipment, in the best shape, with the best training that our Nation can provide. Unfortunately, that is not what they have been getting.

This year, our committee has heard testimony that, under the budget caps, the Army is outranged, outgunned, and outdated. More than half the Navy aircraft cannot fly. More than half the planes in the Air Force qualify for an antique license in the State of Virginia. More than half the planes the Navy has can't fly. Unfortunately, accident rates are going up.

Sometimes I have heard the argument that: Well, we are not going to give them any more money until they can pass an audit or they can do this and that or the other thing.

But as everybody rushes out to get on their airplanes, just think about this: What if the board of directors of your airline decided that they are not going to spend any more money repairing planes until there is a bookkeeping problem solved in headquarters?

Yet that is exactly what we have been doing to our military. We have not been giving them the planes and other equipment in good repair.

Every year for 55 straight years, Congresses and Presidents of both parties have passed into law a National Defense Authorization Act. There is a lot of credit to go around, including the Members on both sides of this aisle who have contributed to this product. I am very grateful for what they have done. But what I am really grateful for are the men and women who serve and inspire us, the men and women who are counting on us.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say, whatever our differences on other issues, which we will have time to debate in another time and place, whatever our differences about what is in or not in this bill, we need to put those differences aside and continue to support the men and women who serve and defend us. Let's not let them down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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. 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.