H.Res. 454

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 Speaker, our domestic energy industry has suffered greatly over the last 8 years under outdated regulations and burdensome bureaucratic red tape that have prohibited growth and innovation.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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2910.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

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

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

National Electrical

Contractors Association,

Bethesda, MD, July 18, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the National Electrical

Contractors Association (NECA), I am writing in strong

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

Infrastructure Act which would establish a more uniform and

transparent approval process for the construction,

connection, operation, or maintenance of oil or natural gas

pipelines or electric transmission facilities for the import

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

supports H.R. 2910, Promoting Interagency Coordination for

Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, which would help address

the need to modernize the nation's natural gas pipeline

infrastructure by promoting more timely and efficient reviews

by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). NECA

believes these critical pieces of legislation will facilitate

construction projects along the United States' borders and

encourage energy independence.

NECA is the nationally recognized voice of the $130 billion

electrical construction industry that brings power, light,

and communication technology to buildings and communities

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

chapters are dedicated to enhancing the industry through

continuing education, labor relations, safety codes,

standards development, and government relations. NECA is

committed to advocating for a comprehensive energy policy

that addresses all available opportunities for energy

exploration and independence.

By establishing a more concrete process for the approval of

construction projects to import oil, natural gas, and

electricity, this legislation would create more jobs in the

construction industry while working towards America's energy

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

oil, natural gas, and electricity will greatly enhance our

nation's energy security and promote energy independence. It

is clear Congress plays a critical role in streamlining the

approval process and enacting policies that support approval

and construction of energy infrastructure projects. The

benefits of these projects are clear: job creation, energy

security, energy independence, and economic growth; such

construction is in the national interest. NECA strongly

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

bills will deliver many benefits to our nation.

Sincerely,

Marco A. Giamberardino, MPA,

Executive Director, Government Affairs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee for doing a historic reauthorization of this historic Department that came in the backdrop of the most heinous and singular terrorist act in terms of the beginning part of the 21st century to come together with this important statement about securing the homeland.

This year will mark the 15th year of the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland security is defined as ``the national effort to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards where American interests, aspirations, and ways of life can thrive . . . .''

This is what I hope this bill will do.

I want to take special note of two of the subagencies in this bill in particular, taking note of the killing of Gerardo Hernandez, the first TSA officer in the line of duty to be killed, in Los Angeles, and the machete attack on Carol Richel at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport. We owe a great deal of appreciation and thanks to the Transportation Security Administration and the TSOs. I personally thank them for the work that they do to be front line in securing America.

I also want to express my appreciation for the Secret Service, who, of course, through challenges, have continued to work to protect America's most important leadership, the President in particular. I thank them for their service.

I also want to make mention of the fact that I was very appreciative of the number of amendments that I was able to get in. The Jackson Lee amendments included mandates that the Department of Homeland Security add a new provision to the duties of the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which directs that the Department recognize as part of their mission to preserve individual liberty, fairness, and equality under the law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, my second amendment deals with the multiyear acquisition strategy, keeps pace with changes in technology. This amendment makes sure that the agency's purchases are most up-to-date.

My third amendment deals with the fusion centers and will develop, keep up-to-date, and make available information on Federal resources intended to support fusion centers across America.

My fourth amendment would add to the list of DHS components, including the chief medical officer, to allow them to enter into MOUs so that they can be most helpful across the country.

My other amendment deals with preparedness, ensuring that the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium includes a special directive regarding preparedness in urban areas.

Finally, let me say that we have oversight over ICE and the immigration services. I think it is important to note that ICE has to be responsible, not seeking to raid and deport individuals who have been in this country, who are paying their taxes, and who have options to be able to stay in this country. I hope this reauthorization recognizes that we need comprehensive immigration reform and that ICE is important, but it must restrain its reckless way of deporting individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in speak in strong support of H.R. 2825, the Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2017, which is the first authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security since its creation.

I thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson for working diligently to bring before the House of Representatives the authorization legislation.

As a Senior member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and former Chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security, now known as the Transportation and Protective Security Subcommittee, as well as the former Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I am very much aware of the importance of the work performed by the men and women who protect us from terrorism.

Homeland Security is defined as: ``the national effort to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards where American interests, aspirations, and ways of life can thrive to the national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce the vulnerability of the U.S. to terrorism, and minimize the damage from attacks that do occur.''

This year will mark the 15th year the Department of Homeland Security has been in existence and we owe the men and women who serve on the front line of defending our people of the United States against terrorist acts at home.

DHS's mission is to secure the nation from the many threats we face.

DHS is securing our nation through the dedication and hard work of the more than 229,000 employees to serve the nation in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector.

The Department of Homeland Security has many challenges--the greatest of which is overcoming serious morale problems.

This authorization will accomplish a great deal, but the underlying central problem for the Department of Homeland Security is morale.

The employees of the Department of Homeland Security are on the front lines of our nation's defense against terrorism.

I recall the shooting incident at LAX that killed Gerardo Hernandez, who became the first TSA officer killed in the line of duty; and the machete attack at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport that resulted in injuries to Senior Transportation Security Officer Carol Richel.

Their sacrifice and heroism reminds me of what we saw on September 11, 2001.

I will never forget that day, which made the creation of the Department of Homeland Security necessary.

September 11, 2017 will mark the 16th Anniversary of the attacks that killed 2,977 men, women and children.

On September 11, 2001, I stood on the East Front steps of the Capitol along with 150 Members of the House of Representatives and sang ``God Bless America.''

I will forever recall the Members of this House who stood with each other not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans.

I want to thank and commend the work of our first responders across the nation for their efforts to protect and serve their communities and our nation.

Our duty as Members of Congress is to support the Department of Homeland Security in meeting its core mission of keeping Americans safe.

I am in support of H.R. 2825 for the following three reasons:

Terrorists have evolved their means and methods for perpetrating acts of terror that were not envisioned at the time the agency was created;

The role of the Internet as a tool for terrorists to recruit and train people around the world who may be drawn to their messages of hate must be calculated into the work to defend the nation; and

The Department of Homeland Security has evolved since its initial authorization bill became law on November 25, 2002, and this bill is a necessary step to make sure the agency can benefit from that experience.

I appreciate and thank the Committee on Homeland Security Members for the inclusion of my bill, the ``Federal Information Resource to Strengthen Ties with State and Local Law Enforcement Act of 2017'' also known as the ``FIRST State and Local Law Enforcement Act'' in the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute for H.R. 2824, the Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, the FIRST State and Local Law Enforcement Act, supports transparency and oversight of the work of the DHS Office of State and Local Law Enforcement by requiring that an annual report of its activities be provided to Congress.

This office is the primary coordinator, liaison, and advocate for state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies.

This office was created based on recommendations from the 9/11 Commission and serves as the primary liaison between DHS and non- Federal law enforcement agencies across the country.

The office also leads the coordination of DHS' policies related to state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement's role in preventing, preparing for, protecting against, and responding to natural disasters, acts of terrorism and other man-made disasters.

Because this DHS office plays a significant role in the required outreach to state and local law enforcement entities it is important that the Committee be kept apprised of its work.

The ``FIRST State and Local Law Enforcement Act'' will include data about the coordination and information with State and locals, establishing and reporting performance and metrics feedback received from State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies about the Office.

I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee for also including Several Jackson Lee amendments in the final bill:

The First Jackson Lee Amendment adds to the list of the Bill's mandates for the Department of Homeland Security, which the Secretary of DHS shall implement as part of the overall mission of the agency.

This Jackson Lee Amendment adds a new provision to the duties of the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which directs that the Department recognizes as part of its mission to preserve individual liberty, fairness, and equality under the law;''.

The Second Jackson Lee Amendment adds an assurance that the DHS Multiyear Acquisition Strategy keeps ``pace with changes in technology that could impact deliverables.'' This amendment makes sure that the agency's purchases are the most up to date technology available.

The Third Jackson Lee Amendment would amend the Department of Homeland Security Fusion Center Partnership Initiative section of the bill to make sure that the Department will ``develop, keep up to date, and make available information on federal resources intended to support fusion center access to agency data.''

The unique and well established relationship between the National Network of Fusion Centers and the Department of Homeland Security is codified in this authorization bill, and important transparency measure.

This amendment creates an ongoing mission by the Homeland Security Fusion Center Partnership Initiative to support local and state fusion participation.

The Fourth Jackson Lee Amendment adds to the list of DHS components which can enter into Memorandums of Understanding to include the Chief Medical Officer.

A memorandum of understanding or MOU is a formal agreement between Department of Homeland Security components and two or more parties regarding a matter of mutual benefit or interest where each party will provide to the other something of consequence.

In the case of this Jackson Lee amendment, the Office of Chief Medical Officer will be able to enter into MOUs, which are not legally binding agreements, for the purpose of carrying out its mission.

The fifth Jackson Lee Amendment assures that the Department of Homeland Security's National Domestic Preparedness Consortium includes a special directive regarding preparedness training for urban areas.

The Amendment establishes that ``to the extent practicable,'' the Department of Homeland Security will ``provide training in settings that simulate real response environments, such as urban areas.''

Urban preparedness planning will include drills, and my amendment allows each urban area to determine the settings and scenarios that will best approximate the challenges that may need to be overcome.

Few of us will forget the impact of Hurricane Katrina or what we saw following Hurricane Sandy.

None of us will forget the attack on New York City or the months of difficult excavation and recovery at the site of the attacks.

Urban centers come with a host of challenges that require adjustments in how preparedness drills are conducted to ensure that lessons learned can be applied to real world conditions.

I thank the Committee for adoption of these legislative improvements, which added them to the bill being debated by the House of Representatives.

I ask that the members of the House to support H.R. 2825, the ``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2017.''