[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 113 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5509-H5536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                NORTH AMERICAN-MADE ENERGY SECURITY ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 370 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1938.

                              {time}  1403


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1938) to direct the President to expedite the consideration and 
approval of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL oil 
pipeline, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Emerson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 20 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 15 minutes. The gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) each will control 10 minutes. The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 1938, the North 
American-Made Energy Security Act, and give a long overdue green light 
to the Keystone XL pipeline project. The Keystone XL expansion project 
would allow up to 1.29 million barrels per day to flow into refineries 
in the Midwest and gulf coast, a 700,000-barrel-per-day increase over 
existing capacity from Canada. More oil means lower prices, and more 
imports from a stable ally like Canada means less from unstable nations 
and potential adversaries.
  According to a study conducted for the Department of Energy, the 
Keystone project has the potential to significantly reduce oil imports 
from the Middle East. The good news only gets better when one looks at 
the job impacts of the Keystone project. Construction of the expanded 
pipeline system alone would create an estimated 20,000 jobs.
  Unfortunately, the Obama administration continues to delay this 
project, and there seems to be no end in sight. Let's just look at the 
timeline to date:
  In September 2008, TransCanada, the developer of this project, first 
submitted its application for a Presidential permit. The State 
Department didn't release its draft environmental impact statement 
until April 2010. After this first step, EPA rejected the draft 
statement and told the State Department they had to perform more work. 
After another year, the State Department issued a supplemental draft 
statement that addressed EPA's concerns. Even then, EPA seems to think 
the thousands and thousands of pages of objective and honest analysis 
performed by various Federal agencies is not enough.
  Because of the endless delays, H.R. 1938 is a simple bill that calls 
on the Obama administration to make a decision on this project by 
November 1, 2011. The administration has stated that they could have a 
decision by December 16, 2011, so we're only asking them to speed that 
up a few months, and we're not saying what the decision should be.
  At a time when the national average of a gallon of gas is $3.70 per 
gallon and unemployment is still above 9 percent, the Obama 
administration should be doing everything it can to approve projects 
expeditiously if they are creating jobs and reducing gasoline prices.
  H.R. 1938 is a bipartisan bill that cuts through the endless delays 
and creates a hard deadline for the administration to render a decision 
on Keystone. It's time to get moving on reducing energy prices, reduce 
unemployment, and pass this bill.
  I urge all Members to support this important bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1938. This legislation is unnecessary 
and it's harmful. It cuts short the State Department's ongoing review 
of the Keystone XL tar sands crude pipeline, it would deny the public 
an adequate opportunity to comment on whether the

[[Page H5510]]

pipeline should be built, and it benefits a specific foreign company, 
TransCanada Corporation, at the expense of the American people.
  There are really two distinct questions here: Do you think the 
Keystone XL pipeline is a good idea? And does this legislation make any 
sense? I happen to think that the Keystone XL pipeline is a bad idea; 
but even if you support the pipeline, you should oppose this bill.
  The Keystone XL pipeline would carry a sludge made from Canadian tar 
sands through the middle of America. In doing so, it would raise gas 
prices, endanger water supplies, and increase carbon emissions; and 
that's why it should not be approved.

                              {time}  1410

  Keystone XL is a highly controversial project. The State Department 
received over 200,000 comments on the supplemental draft environmental 
impact statement. Once it is built, we will live with the pipeline and 
its impacts for 50 years or more. This is a decision we need to get 
right. Unfortunately, this bill's approach does not get it right. 
Instead, it says whatever the risks and costs, just get it done.
  H.R. 1938 takes the extraordinary step of interfering in an ongoing 
decisionmaking process by the Secretary of State. The Secretary is in 
the midst of determining whether granting the permit requested by 
TransCanada would be in the national interest. The process for making 
these permit decisions was established by Executive orders issued by 
President Johnson and President George W. Bush. The State Department 
says that it plans to issue the final environmental impact statement in 
mid-August and the final decision by the end of the year. That's when 
the applicants say they need a decision.
  This bill overrides the Executive orders and other Federal law, it 
short-circuits the decisionmaking process, and it requires the 
President to make a decision within 30 days of the final environmental 
impact statement. This effectively eliminates the opportunity for 
public comment on the national interest determination, and it cuts the 
time for consulting with other agencies by two-thirds. That doesn't 
make sense, especially when you consider the potential risk.
  My greatest concern is that Keystone XL will make us more reliant on 
the dirtiest source of fuel currently available. On a life-cycle basis, 
tar sands emit far more carbon pollution than conventional oil--almost 
40 percent more by some estimates. That's because it takes huge amounts 
of energy to take something the consistency of tar, which they mine, 
and turn it into synthetic oil. We should be reducing our oil 
dependence and using cleaner fuels, but Keystone is a big step in the 
wrong direction.
  There are many other concerns, including safety. Today is the 1-year 
anniversary of the Kalamazoo River oil pipeline spill, and 30 miles of 
the river are still closed. A few weeks ago, there was a massive oil 
pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River. And TransCanada, Keystone 
XL's owner and operator, has had 12 spills on the first Keystone 
pipeline in its first year of operation. Keystone One was even shut 
down by the Department of Transportation as ``hazardous to life, 
property, and the environment.'' The risks from spills are exacerbated 
with Keystone XL because it is rooted through the Ogallala aquifer, 
which spans eight States and provides drinking water for 2 million 
people.
  With all of these risks, the benefits are unclear. A study 
commissioned by DOE found that we will have excess pipeline capacity 
from Canada for the next decade or more, even without Keystone XL. And 
Keystone XL will likely raise, not lower, gas prices. In its permit 
application, TransCanada told the Canadian Government that by raising 
prices for crude oil in the Midwest, Keystone XL will increase revenue 
for Canadian producers by $2 billion to $4 billion a year.
  But even if you believe we should build Keystone XL, you should 
oppose this legislation.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  If you think the project has merit, let it be approved on the merits, 
not rushed to judgment without public comment. Cutting the public out 
of the process and ramming this through will only increase opposition 
to this project.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1938.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. UPTON. Today, national unemployment rests at 9.2 percent, but 
it's even higher in my State of Michigan at 10.5 percent. Gasoline 
costs $3.80 a gallon or more in many areas, up a dollar from last year. 
Political unrest halfway around the world disrupts the flow of oil to 
markets, causing prices to rise. Most leaders in this situation would 
be searching for a project that would create jobs, help bring down gas 
prices and, yes, provide a stable and secure source of oil to replace 
imports from dangerous parts of the world. Our President is being 
handed such a project on a silver platter, and he's dangerously close 
to letting it slip through his fingers.
  Our northern ally, Canada, has discovered an oil resource comparable 
to the size of Saudi Arabia, and they want to send the oil here to the 
United States. Five major labor unions have thrown their support behind 
the pipeline because it's going to create more than 100,000 jobs. Yet 
this administration has allowed the permit application to languish for 
nearly 3 years, even saying that they were inclined to support it 
almost a year ago in October.
  This pipeline, the Keystone XL, if approved, would dramatically 
improve our energy security. According to DOE, the pipeline would 
essentially eliminate our Middle East oil imports. It would provide for 
a massive influx of stable oil into the market, something desperately 
needed as threatened supplies in North Africa send prices into orbit.
  This country needs the President to make a decision on Keystone XL's 
permit. The uncertainty has gone on too long, and if we don't act, 
these energy supplies will go someplace else. That's why we have this 
legislation, H.R. 1938. This bipartisan bill doesn't tell the President 
how to decide, it just requires him to make a decision. I commend my 
colleagues, Representatives Terry and Ross, for finding a commonsense 
and, yes, bipartisan solution.
  If we don't build this pipeline, Canada will find another buyer. The 
Chinese have expressed significant interest in Alberta's oil sands. Are 
we going to stand by and watch China receive imports from our ally 
while we're forced to rely on imports from unstable countries? I sure 
hope not.
  While I believe construction of this pipeline is necessary and 
important, I know it has to be done safely. Last year, 20,000 barrels 
of oil did spill through a creek that runs through my district. I have 
made pipeline safety a priority in our committee, and just this week 
we're going to be moving forward on effective pipeline safety 
legislation to protect the environment and, yes, our communities.
  This legislation will ensure that crucial energy supplies, like the 
oil received from Canada, is transported safely throughout the country. 
We need a ``yes'' vote on this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise to speak against this hazardous piece of 
legislation.
  H.R. 1938 directs the President to allow Canadian oil companies to 
build a dangerous pipeline through American lands and waters. And H.R. 
1938 would expedite the pipeline's permitting process despite a long 
list of unaddressed concerns from numerous communities. The 
environmental impacts of this pipeline--which would extend over 1,600 
miles through six States--have not been thoroughly considered. And we 
know that this project has the potential to significantly impact the 
environment.
  We have already seen what damage can be done. There have been 12 
spills along TransCanada's Keystone pipeline in its first 12 months of 
operation. And the Keystone XL pipeline will deliver some of the most 
destructive oil on the planet. Tar sands oil contain higher

[[Page H5511]]

concentrations of toxic chemicals, like sulfur, nickel, nitrogen, and 
lead, than conventional oil. And a barrel of tar sands oil emits up to 
three times more climate-disrupting gases than conventional oil.
  Building this pipeline would be the greenhouse equivalent of adding 
roughly 6.5 million passenger vehicles to a highway or constructing 12 
new coal-fired power plants. Major concerns arise about the negative 
impacts of the pipeline on public health and the environment.
  At a time when we must find ways to end our dependence on fossil 
fuels, it is simply not in the national interest to deepen our reliance 
on one of the most dirtiest forms of oil on the planet. I believe that 
conducting the appropriate analysis under NEPA, which cannot be done 
properly if it's rushed, will make this abundantly clear.
  We need to be moving forward by supporting clean, renewable energy in 
this country. And while the President is calling for a reduction in oil 
imports, this bill calls for an increase.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 
1938.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry), the author of the bill.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, this bill is simple, but the ramifications 
may be significant. Let me set the record straight: I want to get off 
OPEC oil. Receiving as much as 700,000 barrels of oil from our northern 
neighbor, Canada, makes us more energy secure, more energy independent.
  The application for this pipeline, an efficient way to move oil from 
one part to another part, the most efficient and safest, was filed 
almost 3 years ago. We are just a month shy of its 3-year anniversary; 
whereas, it is usually around 18 months to 24 months to have something 
like this approved.
  Now, this bill sets a hard date of November 1, 2011, for the 
President to make a determination of national interest on this 
pipeline. Let me repeat: All we're asking is that the President make 
his decision by November 1. Enough time has passed.
  Now, what we would see if this project moves forward: It will be a 
$13 billion construction project, privately funded; it will create at 
least 20,000 direct high-paying labor construction jobs; it will 
generate $6.5 billion in new personal income for U.S. workers and their 
families; it will spur more than $20 billion in new spending for the 
U.S. economy; it will stimulate more than $585 million in new State and 
local taxes; it will deliver $5.2 billion in property taxes during the 
estimated operating life span of this pipeline.
  Now, we have heard from two speakers already about the environmental 
impacts. I come from Nebraska. I want to make sure that this pipeline 
is safe as it passes through an environmentally sensitive area called 
the Sand Hills and over the Ogallala Aquifer. There have been draft 
environmental impact statements. There have been supplements, and it 
has been shown that it can be done safely. This is the single-most 
studied pipeline in the history of the United States.
  I believe it's in our national security interest. It's about the 
jobs, economy, and energy security.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman, the 
ranking member of Energy and Commerce, for yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 1938. I represent a district at the 
end of this proposed pipeline in southeast Texas. I have five 
refineries in my district, and this will give them an alternative for 
crude oil to keep those refineries running.
  North American oil sands are a vital source of energy for the U.S., 
and with skyrocketing fuel prices, I believe it's imperative for the 
U.S. to diversify our energy sources by exploring alternatives such as 
the oil sands in Canada.
  As the largest single exporter of oil to the U.S. and a stable energy 
partner, Canada has helped to reduce our dependence on energy supplies 
from unfriendly nations, and this partnership should continue and be 
encouraged.
  The pipeline owner, TransCanada, has agreed to comply with 57 
additional special conditions developed by the Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration for the Keystone XL project.
  The supplemental environmental impact statement on the project has 
gone so far as to state that the incorporation of these conditions will 
result in a project that has a larger degree of safety over any other 
typically constructed domestic oil pipeline under the current code or 
law, and a larger degree of safety along the entire length of the 
pipeline similar to what we have in high consequence areas.
  Additionally, an independent study showed that the $7 billion 
Keystone XL pipeline is expected to directly create 20,000 high-wage 
manufacturing and construction jobs in the U.S. So not only will this 
project help our energy security, but it will help our recovering 
economy by creating thousands of jobs.
  I am constantly hearing from building trades in the Houston area 
about their support for this pipeline and the bill. And yet none of 
this even matters because the bill very fairly doesn't say what the 
administration's determination should be. Instead, it says expedite the 
decision. It has been too long once the environmental review is 
complete.
  I appreciate the Department of State's recent announcement that they 
are on track to make a final decision by December 31. Maybe that 
wouldn't have been announced last week if we hadn't had this bill 
moving in the House. But I do appreciate the effort. I support the bill 
and appreciate my colleagues' support.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for 
his leadership on this important issue.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1938, the North 
American-Made Energy Security Act. This bill is a bona fide jobs bill 
and will have a positive economic impact on our entire country.
  The Keystone XL pipeline will stretch from our neighbor and ally 
Canada through Montana, the intersection of North Dakota and South 
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, all of the way down to my home 
State of Texas, ultimately transporting nearly 1.3 million barrels of 
oil per day--1.3 million barrels per day--and creating hundreds of 
thousands of jobs on its journey to the gulf.
  The Keystone XL pipeline has the potential to create up to 624,000 
jobs over the next 15 years, including 50,000 in the Lone Star State, 
with its economic impact valued in the billions. Madam Chair, 170,000 
companies alone in Texas would serve as suppliers. These are real jobs 
for real Americans.
  This is real energy security for America. The Department of Energy 
has determined that this pipeline could ``essentially eliminate'' our 
dependence on Middle Eastern oil sources.
  The Obama administration has dragged its feet for over 2 years, 
insisting on delaying the project with more environmental studies and 
regulatory hurdles. If we don't break through this regulatory wall, 
China is more than happy to take our place.
  The studies have been done, Madam Chair. It is time to approve the 
permit. H.R. 1938 will ensure that the administration does just that.
  The Keystone XL pipeline will strengthen America's economy and reduce 
our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. OLSON. In conclusion, the Keystone XL pipeline will strengthen 
America's economy, reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and 
produce hundreds of thousands of jobs right here in America. It's a 
win/win/win.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very important energy security 
bill that creates, jobs, jobs, jobs right here in America.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chair, this bill is a charade. It 
purports to increase oil production in America, yet it would direct 
construction of a pipeline designed to export oil. There is already one 
Keystone pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta into America. That 
pipeline terminates in Oklahoma

[[Page H5512]]

and supplies America with oil derived from tar sands.
  If the Republicans wanted to bring a bill to the floor that would 
increase domestic access to this oil, then it would support it. In 
fact, Mr. Markey and I introduced an amendment to ensure that oil from 
the Keystone pipeline would benefit American consumers, and it wasn't 
allowed on the floor. The Republican leadership wouldn't even let this 
amendment come for debate. They claim this pipeline will deliver oil to 
America but have used a backdoor procedural trick to block debate on 
it.
  The amendment Mr. Markey and I introduced was the only germane 
amendment which was blocked by the Rules Committee. Why? Because it 
gives lie to the real intent of this bill: oil for export, not for 
domestic consumption. Our amendment met all of the parliamentary tests 
necessary to come to the floor and didn't increase spending. All it 
would have done was ensure that Keystone pipeline oil would flow to 
America rather than China, Cuba, or some other country. The fact that 
the Republicans blocked this simple amendment shows that the bill 
before us today isn't about energy security or gas prices but about oil 
company profits and exports.
  It isn't surprising that leadership would put Big Oil profits ahead 
of consumers. This is the same caucus that is driving our Nation toward 
default while they refuse to close tax loopholes for oil companies.

                              {time}  1430

  This is the same Republican caucus that gutted the Clean Air and 
Clean Water Act earlier this week with three dozen policy riders in the 
Interior and Environment appropriations act; the same Republicans that 
slashed funding for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, our 
cops on the beat to stop oil speculation; the same Republicans who 
opposed using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to burst the speculative 
bubble in prices, that marches in lockstep with big oil companies since 
they took over the House majority; and today they're attempting to pass 
legislation that would take gas from America and send it overseas. 
We're being given a false proposition in this legislation, and I urge 
my colleagues to oppose it.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute 
and ask if he will yield to me.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I must say that we've heard comments on the floor and in 
committee on this bill that it's going to allow us to become less 
dependent, maybe not even dependent at all, on Saudi Arabia; that we'll 
be able to be self-sufficient and have lower prices because of this 
pipeline. But the truth of the matter is that some economists believe 
that this oil pipeline will bring oil to Texas, and that oil will 
either be refined or shipped as crude oil to China. It doesn't help us 
to have any excess oil if it's going to be picked up and shipped to 
China.
  I think that we need to always have in mind that the United States of 
America uses 25 percent of the world's oil resources and we have 2 
percent of the source of those resources--the reserves--here in the 
United States. We are always going to be dependent on imported oil 
unless we start moving away from oil itself.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 4 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.
  I rise in support of this jobs bill, the Keystone bill, that actually 
opens up another 700,000 barrels a day coming into the United States 
from Canada. First of all, this oil will be going to United States 
refineries in Texas to refine oil for Americans. On top of that, it 
will create another 20,000 American jobs.
  If you look at what that means, first of all, China wants to get that 
oil from Canada. So if we don't agree to this, if the President, for 
whatever reason--because radicals don't want that oil coming in. They 
don't like oil at all. So I guess they're going to ride around on 
bicycles, and that's going to get them where they need to be.
  We've got to live in reality. We've got a demand in this country for 
oil. It's either going to come from Middle Eastern countries, many of 
whom don't like us, or we can bring more of it in not only from 
America, where the United States has more reserves that they won't 
allow us to utilize, but here Canada is saying 700,000 barrels a day 
can come into America, where we can create those good jobs. What does 
that really mean? That means we don't have to buy 700,000 barrels a day 
from Middle Eastern countries.
  Let's talk about the trade gap. The biggest part of our trade gap is 
all the money that we send to these Middle Eastern countries and other 
countries because we don't produce enough of our own in America because 
of these radical policies. So you bring that 700,000 barrels a day from 
Canada, that's $25 billion a year that we're not sending to Middle 
Eastern countries who don't like us.
  If you want to talk about a trade gap, when we trade with Canada, 
think about this: When we trade with Canada, 90 cents on the dollar 
comes back to the United States of America. Canada is a great ally and 
a good friend of ours. It's a good trading relationship. We get 90 
percent of that money back. When we trade with Middle Eastern 
countries, buying their oil, which we do right now, less than half of 
that money comes back to the United States.
  So if you want to talk about this from dollars and cents, from jobs, 
from national security, all of that adds up to passing this bill to 
build this relationship, build this pipeline with Canada, who says they 
want to partner with us. Now, if we turn them down, they'll go to 
China. But they want this relationship. They want to increase our 
energy security and create those jobs.
  I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Let's connect the dots here. The Koch 
brothers, who financed the election of 2010, won. And they won big 
time. They own a facility up in Canada that will be the place where the 
tar sands oil will be converted into a form that can then be shipped to 
the gulf coast by this pipeline. All that money that they put in, 
millions and millions of dollars into the last election, is coming back 
as a return on the investment. And it's a big return, ladies and 
gentlemen.
  This pipeline is going to cost $13 billion. Who's paying for it? The 
Koch brothers? No, not the Koch brothers. The American people are on 
the hook for the $13 billion to build this pipeline for the Koch 
brothers and for their cohorts ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and all of the 
rest of the big boys whose tax credits and tax breaks they are 
protecting without hesitation.
  So they're getting it both ways, ladies and gentlemen. They're 
getting it on the front end, and they're getting it on the back end in 
terms of not having to pay any taxes.
  I think we need to look at during this debt ceiling debate what our 
priorities are as a Nation and what our values are. Are we simply there 
to do the bidding of Big Business and the oil companies, or are we here 
to do the business for the American people?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Today, I rise to speak on the importance of the Keystone XL pipeline, 
H.R. 1938. One of my goals here in Congress has been to help advance 
projects like this--projects that will help advance domestic sources of 
energy. I'm continuously awed at how much potential we have here at 
home--and our neighbors--and how relatively simple it would be to 
advance policies that would make us more energy independent. However, 
I'm continuously baffled at how difficult this administration has made 
it to wean ourselves off Middle East oil and to create more jobs here 
at home. In fact, this bill alone, in committee I learned that it will 
create 6,000 new jobs in Colorado

[[Page H5513]]

over the next 4 years--good-paying construction jobs, for example.
  I'm appalled at the regulatory burdens or, almost worse sometimes, 
the inaction on the part of our administration that has led us down the 
path of insecurity and dependence on many countries that have animosity 
towards us. Not only do we have the resources in our own backyard, but 
we have the ability to utilize friendly and willing neighbors like 
Canada to import oil into the United States.
  H.R. 1938, the Northern American-Made Energy Act, would direct the 
President to simply make a decision on the Keystone XL permit and 
hopefully move us in the direction of energy security. American jobs, 
American made.
  I urge passage of this bill.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair and Members of this House, climate change is 
real. We're experiencing its effects. According to The Washington Post, 
almost 2,000 high temperature records have been broken in towns and 
cities across America since the start of the month. Another 4,300 
records have been set for high overnight temperatures. I don't think 
that we should short-circuit consideration of a pipeline that increases 
our consumption of tar sands crude with up to 40 percent higher carbon 
pollution. That is not in our national interest.
  Even the National Farmers Union is urging opposition to this 
legislation. They say: ``NFU continues to have serious concern 
regarding the Keystone XL pipeline as currently proposed. We believe 
all necessary time should be taken for public review and analysis of 
options for the proposed project. Congress should not fix a hard 
deadline for this process to be completed.''
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I would remind everyone that in America 
today, we're using about 22 million barrels of oil a day and that we're 
producing about 7 million barrels of oil a day in this country. We need 
more efficiency--there is no question about that--to make better gas 
mileage.
  We also have to recognize that we have the responsibility to bring 
more product into the United States. To do so from Canada would be good 
for the American people. It would create, it has been said, 20,000 
construction jobs at a time when unemployment is at 9.2 percent. We 
also understand that, if that pipeline does not come to America, it's 
going to go to west Canada, and then that oil will be going to China. 
We have to remain competitive in the global marketplace if we're going 
to create jobs in America, and that's what this pipeline is about.
  I would remind everyone that we're not short-circuiting any studies. 
Comprehensive studies have been made, and environmental impact 
statements have been examined, so I would urge everyone to support this 
important legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I claim time in support of the bill on behalf of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1938, the North American-Made 
Energy Security Act.
  As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and as 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous 
Materials, I appreciate the hard work of my colleague from Nebraska 
(Mr. Terry) and of my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee 
to bring this bill forward, with whom our committees share 
jurisdiction.
  This important legislation directs the President to expedite the 
consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the 
Keystone XL oil pipeline. This important project has been delayed for 
far too long, and as my colleague from Nebraska pointed out, it is one 
month away from its 3-year anniversary from its introduction. The time 
has come for the President to finally move forward and make a decision. 
This legislation doesn't force the President to make a ``yes'' or 
``no'' decision, but it does require the President to issue a final 
order granting or denying the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL 
pipeline no later than November 1, 2011.
  This $7 billion, 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline would link Canada's 
tar sands region with refineries in the Midwest and Texas. The economic 
impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline are immense, with estimates of 
465,000 U.S. jobs stemming from the oil sands development by the year 
2035.
  All of my colleagues talk on the House floor about taking action to 
limit our dependence on oil from unstable areas of the world and from 
foreign governments hostile to the United States' interests. This is a 
project that will move us in that direction. Accomplishing that goal 
will also grow our economy in our partnering with our close friend and 
ally, Canada.
  The United States has the largest network of energy pipelines of any 
nation in the world, and the pipelines remain the energy lifelines that 
power nearly all of our daily activities. The hallmark of America's 
pipeline network continues to be that it delivers extraordinary volumes 
of product reliably, safely, efficiently, and economically. Since 1986, 
the volume of energy products transported through pipelines has 
increased by one-third; yet the number of reportable incidents has 
decreased by 28 percent. Both government and industry have taken 
numerous steps to improve pipeline safety over the last 10 years. 
Safety advocates, environmentalists and the pipeline industry all agree 
that the Federal pipeline safety program is working.
  Later this summer, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
will bring a bill to the floor to reauthorize the Federal pipeline 
safety program. We will work with our colleagues from the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, as we bring our bill to the floor, to ensure that 
safety remains our top priority. That piece of legislation will ensure 
that pipelines, like the Keystone XL pipeline, will continue to be the 
safest and most efficient way to move petroleum products and natural 
gas.
  I am concerned by what appears to be a bias by some in this body to 
nontraditional sources of energy. To end our reliance on oil from 
overseas, we must develop the resources we have available in North 
America. That includes the oil sands in Canada and the Marcellus shale 
natural gas in my home State of Pennsylvania. We must ensure that the 
development of these resources is done responsibly and in an 
environmentally safe manner, but we cannot hold them back and show 
prejudice just because they are unconventional. We simply can't have it 
both ways. We can't grow our economy and reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil without developing the resources that are available right 
here in our own backyard.
  So in closing, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1938, and I look 
forward to continuing to work on this important issue.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, as someone who has the privilege of representing an 
``American-made energy'' producing State, I understand the economic 
benefits of producing energy here at home, and I believe my record on 
this subject in this body is well-documented.
  I want to begin, of course, by complimenting the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for his leadership on this legislation, as well as 
Chairman Mica of my Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
Subcommittee Chairman Shuster, and Ranking Member Corrine Brown.
  I do rise today to express serious concerns regarding the process, or 
rather lack thereof, that was taken to bring this legislation to the 
House floor for consideration today.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has primary 
jurisdiction over pipeline construction and safety legislation. 
Following this longstanding precedent, on May 23, the Speaker 
designated the Committee on T&I as the committee of primary 
jurisdiction of the pending legislation. Yet instead of considering the 
legislation under regular order, as the committee has always done in 
the past, Chairman Mica chose to discharge the committee from 
consideration of the bill.

[[Page H5514]]

  Now, I have served on the Committee on T&I for 34 years--my entire 
tenure in this body. I cannot think of one instance when this 
committee, acting as the committee of primary jurisdiction, has 
discharged its consideration of major legislation in this manner--not 
one single instance.
  The fact is, in the aftermath of several devastating pipeline 
incidents, there are some legitimate concerns about the potential 
safety, environmental and health impacts of transporting heavy crude 
oil by pipeline. I would have liked to have explored those concerns in 
an open and transparent manner had the committee considered this 
legislation. With that said, I am optimistic that this is an issue that 
we can delve into further as we work with Chairman Mica to craft a bill 
that reauthorizes the Nation's pipeline safety program. In the interim, 
I believe we need to move forward with a decision on a Presidential 
permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Current plans are 
for construction activities to begin in the first quarter of 2012 and 
commercial operation to commence in 2013.
  The fact is that this pipeline will create thousands of new jobs at a 
time when unemployment in the construction sector is double the 
national average. Construction was hard-hit by the recession, with the 
construction industry having lost nearly 2 million jobs since December 
2007. We need to put these people back to work.
  Unfortunately, last week, the House Republican leadership piled on 
the already devastated construction industry by shutting down major 
parts of the Federal Aviation Administration, which will jeopardize 
$2.5 billion in construction projects, 87,000 American construction 
jobs, furlough 3,600 FAA aviation engineers, safety analysts, and other 
career professionals in 35 States, and will cost $200 million per week 
in lost revenue.
  If the chairman can discharge consideration of this bill and fast 
track it to the House floor for a vote, I hope he will do the same with 
the legislation that Representative Costello and I introduced earlier 
today to end the Republican-led FAA shutdown in order to get aviation 
experts and construction crews back on the clock. While pink slips 
already went out to construction companies from coast to coast 
yesterday, Republicans seem to have reversed gears and now seem to want 
to support construction jobs--union jobs, in fact. I congratulate them 
on the latter.
  In September 2010, TransCanada announced that it had entered into a 
project and labor agreement for a significant portion of U.S. 
construction of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The agreement, made 
with five labor organizations--the Laborers' International Union of 
North America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United 
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and 
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, the International 
Union of Operating Engineers, and the U.S. Pipeline Contractors 
Association--will provide TransCanada with a capable, well-trained and 
ready workforce in the U.S. to construct the pipeline.

                              {time}  1450

  During construction, the project is expected to create over 13,000 
highways union jobs for American workers. Despite the procedural 
concerns that I've raised, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from West Virginia has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
1938. I thank my friend, Lee Terry from Nebraska, for taking the lead 
on this important issue.
  The Keystone XL pipeline is vital to ensure that the United States is 
able to meet its demand for oil. Canada is already the single largest 
source of oil imports for the United States.
  This pipeline is expected to bring between 830,000 to over 1 million 
more barrels of Canadian crude to American refineries each and every 
day, helping to reduce our dependency on oil from unfriendly nations.
  At a time when unemployment continues to hover near 10 percent, this 
project is expected to add close to 13,000 new American jobs. Until we 
are able to maximize our domestic sources of oil, we will have to rely 
upon imports. Canada is one of our strongest allies and is a stable 
democracy with a strong free market economy.
  Canada serves as an example of how we should be exploring and 
developing our own domestic resources. Again, I thank my friend from 
Nebraska for working so diligently on this issue. I urge my colleagues 
to support H.R. 1938.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida, the ranking member, Corrine Brown.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Madam Chair, let me just thank publicly the 
ranking member, Mr. Rahall, for his leadership.
  I am very upset that for the first time after 21 extensions, the FAA 
was shut down Friday night, jeopardizing $2.5 billion in construction 
projects, 87,000 American construction jobs, and furloughing at least 
3,600 FAA aviation engineers. This is really a sad time for the 
Committee on Transportation. We have always worked together in a 
bipartisan way to make sure that we move America and keep people 
working.
  This is America, and I want to say I fully believe it's possible to 
build the Keystone pipeline in a way that improves our access to crude 
oil and put thousands of people to work while protecting citizens from 
hazardous spills. But we have to hold the industry's feet to the fire 
and make sure that they take every possible precaution to build this 
pipeline.
  The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration must ensure 
full oversight in every step of the way in developing this pipeline and 
must ensure that it is completed safely.
  I want to ask Chairman Mica and the ranking member to ensure that the 
committee fulfills its oversight role by regularly reviewing the 
construction of the pipeline to ensure that it is capable of 
transporting these most damaging products.
  I want to take this time to express my disappointment that the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee waived its jurisdiction 
over the Keystone pipeline legislation that was developed by the Energy 
and Commerce Committee. The Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure is the committee of primary jurisdiction over pipeline 
construction and safety legislation and is the primary committee to 
refer for the Keystone legislation.
  Just last week our subcommittee held a hearing on the spill in 
Montana and is continuing to monitor the progress on cleaning up this 
spill and compensation of those who were harmed. The legislation we are 
debating today should have been strongly vetted by our committee, and I 
join Ranking Member Rahall in urging the committee to hold hearings and 
markups up on any legislation within our jurisdiction.
  Our railroad and pipeline subcommittee held at least five hearings 
last session concerning pipeline safety and found significant problems 
with reporting and inspections, as well as an unhealthy relationship 
between the pipeline industry and the agency regulating them.
  Moreover, much like the sewer and water infrastructure in this 
country, much of the pipeline infrastructure is reaching the end of its 
useful life. And we are going to need to make significant investments 
improving this access if we are going to accomplish the goals of both 
delivering critical petroleum to the States and protecting citizens 
from the danger of hazardous pipelines and spills and deadly 
explosions.
  We need to develop new technology and strategies for improving safety 
in highly populated areas now located above the aging pipelines. With 
the high unemployment rate this country is currently facing, we should 
be hiring and training inspectors.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. We should be hiring and training inspectors and 
putting construction workers to replace this aging pipeline 
infrastructure in the U.S. gas and oil industry.

[[Page H5515]]

  Let me rush to say that the Republicans in their deficit reduction 
plan are protecting the big oil companies that made over a trillion 
dollars in the last 10 years: $310 billion by Exxon; $552 billion by 
Chevron; $207 billion by Shell and BP. We are giving them a tax break 
of a--they made a trillion dollars, but yet we are trying to take 
senior citizens' retirement and Social Security.
  You know, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you 
can't fool all of the people all of the time. And I will submit their 
profit record for the Record.

                                                   BIG FIVE OIL COMPANIES' NOMINAL PROFITS, 2001-2010
                                                            (All figures in billions, 2011 $)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    2001-2006          2007         2008         2009         2010         2001-2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BP............................................................              80.39         22.2        21.68        17.14        -3.74             137.67
Chevron.......................................................              77.39        19.86        24.45        10.78        19.29             151.77
Conoco Phillips...............................................              49.07        12.53        17.18         5.03        11.51              95.32
Exxon Mobil...................................................             169.42        43.12        46.23        19.81         30.9             309.48
Shell.........................................................             116.93        33.24         26.9        12.01        18.28             207.36
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................              493.2       130.95       136.44        64.77        76.24              901.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures rounded to the nearest billion.
Sources: EIA and Google Finance.

  --Mr. SHUSTER. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I thank Chairman Shuster for the time.
  I might point out that our energy companies are making major profits 
overseas because that's where this White House has chased our jobs and 
our energy production.
  Today we're saying ``yes'' to North American-made energy. The 
Keystone XL pipeline will increase our access to safe and secure energy 
supplies from our neighbors from the north. Not from the Middle East, 
not from unstable parts of the word.
  When completed, the pipeline will build millions of barrels of oil 
into our Midwest and gulf coast refineries and thousands of jobs--good-
paying American-made jobs--with them. Unemployment is high. Prices at 
the pump are high. We've seen the effects of delay of American-made 
energy. And if you haven't seen that delay, ask our gulf coast workers 
who've lost their jobs and been hurt because of the ``permitorium'' in 
the Gulf of Mexico.
  We have part of the solution before us today. More North American-
made energy, solutions for safe, affordable energy from a strong 
trading partner and ally, and a solution that supports good old 
American jobs.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chair and my colleagues, I rise in strong support of 
the proposal by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). We should all 
be thanking Mr. Terry for this initiative.
  Not only are people in this country hit by incredible unemployment 
economic challenges and a dysfunctional Congress, but if they go to the 
local service station to fill up with gasoline, they're paying record 
prices.
  I woke up this morning and I heard one of the commentators that was 
interviewing an expert, again, on energy, and he predicted that 1 year 
from now we will be paying between $4.50 and $5.50 for a gallon of 
gasoline.
  Now, you just heard the ranking members criticize me for fast-
tracking this legislation. I guess I beat some kind of record, never 
having waived before. I'm telling you I will waive this and anything 
else we need to do to get this country energy independent and find a 
way for the average citizen to be able to afford energy.
  We need a short-term plan, and that's bringing energy into the United 
States without being held hostage to people like the regimes in the 
Middle East or Venezuela. This pipeline will bring in 1.3 million 
barrels of oil per day. That exceeds what comes in from Venezuela. It 
exceeds what comes in from Saudi Arabia.

                              {time}  1500

  How frustrated the people of America must be. Then, of course, is the 
attack on the FAA, the lack of reauthorization. How could they attack 
me? For 4 years they controlled this place with incredible numbers, 
huge numbers to do anything in the House, huge numbers to do anything 
in the Senate--4 years. I authored the last FAA authorization in 2003 
that expired in 2007, and they sat on it and never did anything. They 
did 17 extensions. They forced us to do three. And I'm telling you, 
I've had it. If they've done this before in a different way, it's not 
going to be done that way anymore.
  We sent them, last Wednesday, an extension, and it was a clean 
extension. It had one provision which they passed unanimously, and they 
don't like part of that one provision that stops funding of Essential 
Air Service subsidies, Federal taxpayer subsidies in excess of $1,000. 
So for three airports where their passengers are being paid a subsidy 
of $1,500 to $3,700--at three airports--they're closing down the FAA. 
They've had it since last Wednesday, and they've sat on it.
  So I don't care how we've done things before. We're going to do 
things differently. I will be in charge of the committee at least 
through next year, and I'm going to find a way to do things. We're 
going to get reasonable energy to the American people. And a year from 
now, mark your calendar.
  We didn't mandate that they build the pipeline. And I want the 
pipeline built with every safety consideration. Yes, the Obama 
administration shouldn't be asleep at the wheel, like they were with 
the gulf oil spill when they issued the permit and stamped it in just a 
few days. They issued more permits for deepwater drilling in their 
short term in office and then closed down the rest of the access to 
energy across the United States, and actually issued more deepwater 
permits in their first few months in office than the entire Bush 
administration and then were asleep at the switch when they should have 
been inspecting that procedure. And they should inspect this. This 
doesn't say you must build the pipeline. It sets a deadline for a 
response from this administration.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and his 
anger. It is, indeed, frustrating. I, again, invite him to fast-track 
without consideration of process, as he has done on this pipeline bill, 
in order to free us from reliance upon foreign sources of energy. I 
would hope he would just as quickly fast-track our clean extension of 
the FAA bill we introduced today in order to fast-track jobs, getting 
people back to work here in America. There are people that are already 
sitting at home for the second, going on the third day without jobs.
  As I noted during my previous remarks, these are good-paying jobs. 
They are union jobs. A project labor agreement has been entered into 
that will ensure the protection of these union workers and their 
families.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support the pending legislation at 
the same time that I would urge, again, my chairman to expedite 
consideration of a clean FAA reauthorization bill that has been 
introduced today by Representative Costello and myself.

         U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 
           Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 2011.
     Hon. John L. Mica,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Mica:I write to express my serious concerns 
     regarding your decision to discharge the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure from consideration of H.R. 
     1938, the ``North American-Made Energy Security Act''. I urge 
     you to reconsider your decision to abandon ``regular order''.
       The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is the 
     committee of primary jurisdiction over pipeline construction 
     and

[[Page H5516]]

     safety legislation. Following these long-standing precedents, 
     on May 23, 2011, the Speaker designated the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure as the committee of primary 
     jurisdiction of H.R. 1938.
       Nevertheless, in your June 24, 2011, letter to Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, you indicated your 
     intent to discharge the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure--the committee of primary jurisdiction--from 
     consideration of the bill.
       Although jurisdictional letters between committees are 
     commonplace, I cannot recall an instance where the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure, as the committee of 
     primary jurisdiction, has discharged its consideration of 
     major legislation in this manner. I urge the Committee to 
     hold hearings and Subcommittee and Full Committee markups of 
     the legislation prior to its Floor consideration.
       Thank you for your consideration.
       With warm regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                Nick J. Rahall II,
     Ranking Democratic Member.
                                  ____



                                                       LiUNA!,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2011.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the trade unions 
     representing well over 2-million members, including the 
     skilled craft workers who will build the Keystone XL 
     pipeline, we seek your support for H.R. 1938, the ``North 
     American-Made Energy Security Act.'' H.R. 1938, a bi-partisan 
     effort sponsored by Congressman Terry, would require a timely 
     decision by the Executive Branch whether to grant or deny a 
     Presidential Permit for the construction of the pipeline. 
     Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline will employ tens of 
     thousands of our members and help secure the United States' 
     economic and national security. The pipeline has been delayed 
     in the permitting process for nearly three years. Each week 
     that goes by in the permitting process of Keystone XL 
     furthers the sense of uncertainty that private sector 
     companies face when making massive investments that depend on 
     regulatory approval. Providing procedural certainty to the 
     project owner is simply good public policy.
       The Keystone XL pipeline will help the Nation's energy 
     security by reducing U.S. imports of foreign oil from 
     Venezuela and the Middle East and replacing it with stable, 
     secure supplies from both the U.S. and Canada. This project 
     will also help strengthen the U.S. economy by creating good 
     jobs and will reduce the American economy's vulnerability to 
     supply shocks like the one in Libya today that has driven up 
     prices at the pump for consumers.
       This $13-billion construction project is privately funded, 
     privately financed and will not involve any government 
     subsidy or expenditure. With sustained unemployment in the 
     construction sector at double the national average, our 
     members desperately need the work that the pipeline will 
     create. Our unions have entered into a Project Labor 
     Agreement with TransCanada which will ensure that a capable, 
     well-trained and ready workforce is used to build the 
     pipeline. Estimates are that the construction of the pipeline 
     will:
       Spur more than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. 
     economy;
       Directly create 20,000 high-wage construction and 
     manufacturing jobs in 2011-2013 across the U.S. and 118,000 
     person-years of employment;
       Generate $6.5 billion in new personal income for U.S. 
     workers and their families;
       Stimulate more than $585 million in new state and local 
     taxes in states along the pipeline route during construction; 
     and
       Deliver $5.2 billion in property taxes during the estimated 
     operating life of the pipeline.
       We believe that the demand for oil and gas resources will 
     dictate the development of the Alberta oilsands, regardless 
     of whether or not the Keystone XL is built. Allowing the 
     construction of the pipeline will assure that the product is 
     transported to American markets in the safest and most 
     efficient way possible.
       Further delay in the permitting process could have 
     detrimental consequences and puts at risk the billions of 
     dollars in private sector investment to be made into 
     America's energy infrastructure. The members of our unions--
     and indeed the U.S. economy--need the Keystone XL Pipeline. 
     That is why the four pipeline craft unions are proud to 
     endorse H.R. 1938. The leadership of you and your colleagues 
     on this project is greatly appreciated.
           Sincerely,
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
     Laborers' International Union of North America,
     International Union of Operating Engineers,
     United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the 
     Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and 
     Canada.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Did I hear correctly that the gentleman is going to 
support the underlying legislation?
  Mr. RAHALL. Yes. I made that clear in both of my speeches.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thought so. But I guess I wasn't paying attention to 
the end. So it is great to hear.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, it's important that we pass this on a 
bipartisan basis because it does mean jobs for Americans, construction 
jobs, somewhere up around 20,000. It means steel that is going to be 
made in U.S. steel plants. So this is a bill that is not only going to 
create jobs, but it's going to help us break that dependence on foreign 
oil.
  Again, I tip my hat to Mr. Terry from Nebraska for putting forth H.R. 
1938, and I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this pro-energy, pro-jobs bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I claim time on behalf of the Committee 
on Natural Resources.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This legislation takes a crucial step towards securing our Nation's 
energy security and putting Americans back to work. In 2010 alone, the 
United States imported over 1 trillion barrels of oil from OPEC 
countries, many of which have unstable or unfriendly governments. While 
my preference would be that we replace that oil with domestically 
produced resources from the Rockies, our Outer Continental Shelf, and 
Alaska, we have the next best thing by having Canada as a stable, 
friendly, energy-rich trading partner sharing our northern border.
  As we have seen in so many other aspects of our Nation's energy 
portfolio, whether it be offshore production, onshore production, or 
even renewable energy production on Federal lands, the Obama 
administration is once again slow-walking or even stonewalling domestic 
energy security and job creation with needless delays and bureaucratic 
red tape.
  This legislation will help ensure a steady supply of crude oil from 
one of our strongest allies. It has the potential to create 20,000 
direct construction jobs for Americans and spur $20 billion in new 
spending in the U.S. economy. The extension of this pipeline will 
generate $585 million in new State and local taxes during construction. 
It will greatly lessen our dependence on oil from OPEC.
  Opponents of this pipeline seem to believe that if we don't use this 
oil here, it won't be produced. That position is fundamentally wrong 
and displays a foolish and naive disregard for the flow of 
international oil production.
  The reality is, if America won't take this oil, China will. Instead 
of having a secure pipeline feeding the American heartland, we will see 
massive tankers off the coast of Washington and Oregon as China fills 
its ships for export. And China doesn't have the environmental 
safeguards that we do.
  We should pass H.R. 1938.
  At this moment, Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from 
the State of Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 1938, the North 
American-Made Energy Security Act.
  For far too long, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline has been caught 
up in bureaucratic red tape that unfortunately has become the norm with 
this administration. This legislation simply forces the administration 
to make a decision by November 1 of this year, which will be more than 
3 years after the application was originally submitted. This bill 
addresses our Nation's dependence on OPEC for oil, but it also creates 
American jobs.
  The pipeline extension would allow for an additional 700,000 barrels 
of oil per day to be brought to the U.S. marketplace. This increase in 
oil, from America's largest trading partner, would begin to make 
America less beholden to unstable OPEC countries for our oil demands. 
Furthermore, if this pipeline isn't built, the oil will simply go to 
China instead of coming to America.
  This legislation would also pave the way for the creation of 13,000 
direct

[[Page H5517]]

jobs and tens of thousands of indirect jobs should the project be 
approved.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1938.
  We are here debating whether to expedite the approval of a pipeline 
that will import the dirtiest crude oil on the planet into the United 
States of America by melting the oil out of the tar in Canada, which 
creates more greenhouse gases than any other production method for 
crude oil on the planet.

                              {time}  1510

  It also destroys the boreal forest. It contaminates millions of 
gallons of water each day. That is a very high environmental price to 
pay for oil from tar in Canada that may not lower prices for Americans 
and may never be sold to Americans. But we will build the pipeline for 
them through our land to accomplish this goal.
  The majority has repeatedly claimed that expediting the approval of 
this pipeline will lower gas prices at the pump for the American 
public. But what factual evidence should we rely upon in order to 
substantiate this claim?
  Well, we can't rely upon TransCanada, the very company that wants to 
build the pipeline through our country, because it has concluded that 
after the pipeline is constructed that gas prices would rise in the 
Midwest of our country as a result of the Keystone XL pipeline.
  We are also told that building this pipeline will enable us to reduce 
our dependence on imported oil from countries who don't like us very 
much. Instead, we will be able to rely upon dependable Canada, our 
friends, the Canadians.
  But what are the guarantees that building this pipeline will actually 
lead to greater supplies of crude oil for the American people?
  Well, the answer, Madam Chair, is that there are no guarantees. There 
is nothing in this bill, nothing that prevents Keystone XL pipeline oil 
from being shipped to the gulf coast, refined there, from the tar of 
Alberta Canada, and then re-exported and sold into the global oil 
market to China, to Korea, right out of our country.
  I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have 
required the Department of Energy to ensure that the approval of this 
pipeline would, in fact, guarantee that the benefits of the Keystone 
oil being transported through our country stay right here in our 
country.
  My amendment would have required that Keystone oil be sold in this 
country. That would increase the gasoline and the diesel supplies at 
the pump and would help to ensure lower prices at the pump. And my 
amendment would have benefited domestic businesses that use refined 
petroleum products, including plastics and chemical companies, by 
ensuring a steady supply of petroleum products for their manufacturing 
plants here, made in America. My amendment was consistent with 
longstanding U.S. policy on oil exports.
  Well, ladies and gentlemen, the Republicans refused to allow a vote 
on my amendment here today. They won't even allow our Members to vote 
on keeping the oil that is going to be transported in a pipeline that 
we're going to allow to be built through our country here.
  So, yes, it's the dirtiest oil in the world; but at least, if you're 
going to build the pipeline, at least have it be sold here in America 
and not sold to China, not sold to Korea. At least have that guarantee.
  They refused to even have a vote on it, ladies and gentlemen. That's 
what this is all about. Once again, it's all about this ideological 
belief that the largest oil companies know best. We should not be 
taxing them. We should not be putting any burden on the biggest oil 
companies.
  Better to push the American economy to the brink of fiscal collapse 
than the Republicans would ever consider allowing to rescind tax breaks 
for the biggest oil companies. They wouldn't even begin to think about 
putting that on the table. Grandma's Social Security check, absolutely. 
Building a pipeline through our country with the dirtiest oil in the 
world to be sold to Asia, absolutely no problem for the Republicans.
  So this bill, despite the overwhelming factual evidence that building 
the pipeline will only result in dirtier air, more profits for Big Oil, 
without benefits for the American consumer, they are going to continue 
to push forward.
  Vote ``no'' on this environmental atrocity.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield 1 minute to my good colleague and friend from 
the State of Texas (Mr. Flores).
  Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1938, 
the North American-Made Energy Security Act.
  This bipartisan legislation would increase access to more energy 
supplies by expediting the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL 
pipeline extension.
  We are all aware that every additional barrel that can be produced 
within North America is one fewer barrel that we need from the Middle 
East. This pipeline extension will help bring total capacity up to more 
than 1.2 million barrels per day into our markets. Also, as we look for 
opportunities to address our struggling economic recovery, this project 
will create an estimated 100,000 American jobs and help grow our 
economy.
  Canada's vast oil resources have also attracted interest from other 
energy-hungry nations. If we do not tap this valuable resource, the 
Chinese or other countries will. The Obama administration has already 
delayed the decision on this project for almost 3 years and it is time 
that they act and make a decision.
  The choice is clear. By passing this bill, we will increase our 
energy security with a more stable supply of efficient and affordable 
energy from our best international friend and trading partner, and we 
will lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
  I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, the North American-Made Energy Security 
Act is a pivotal first step toward securing our energy future, 
lessening our dependence on oil from OPEC countries, and putting 
Americans back to work.
  Canada and the U.S. have the world's largest two-way relationship. 
Rather than put up roadblocks, we should foster and build upon that 
relationship to utilize each other's resources.
  If we don't use this oil, Chinese consumers will, and we will 
continue to rely on oil from OPEC. We cannot stand idly by as the Obama 
administration continues to delay and put up roadblocks that prevent 
the production of American energy and the creation of American jobs.
  H.R. 1938 will force the administration to make a decision that has 
been unnecessarily delayed for years. The legislation is good for the 
American economy and good for American jobs, and I urge my colleagues 
to support this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1938 and 
object to this majority's repeated attempts to circumvent environmental 
law and prioritize special interests over sound science.
  The Keystone XL is a proposed pipeline project from Alberta, Canada 
to Port Arthur, Texas. Since the project crosses national boundaries, 
it requires Presidential approval to proceed. By Executive Order, 
President Obama has delegated that authority to the State Department, 
which is in the process of reviewing public comment so that it can 
finalize the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required by the 
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Once an EIS has been 
completed, the State Department will receive final input from other 
relevant federal agencies, as well as the general public, before making 
a final determination as to whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in the 
national interest. According to the State Department, this review--
which appropriately includes a thorough evaluation of the project's 
environmental, marketplace, national security and community impacts--
should be completed by the end of the year.
  However, rather than allowing that process to come to a timely and 
considered conclusion, today's legislation sets forth its own 
demonstrably inaccurate and woefully incomplete findings in order to 
justify the majority's preferred outcome--and then directs the 
President to make a final permitting decision by November 1, whether 
the required evaluation is complete or not.

[[Page H5518]]

  In truth, one need look no further than the errors and omissions 
throughout this legislation's findings to understand why an objective, 
complete, scientifically-based review of the proposed Keystone XL 
pipeline project is so necessary.
  Accordingly, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chair, I appreciate the 
leadership of Congressman Lee Terry of Nebraska to develop H.R. 1938, 
the North American-Made Energy Security Act.
  H.R. 1938 would expedite the Presidential Permit approval process for 
the Keystone XL pipeline extension. This pipeline extension would allow 
the delivery of more oil to come into this country from Canada's oil 
sands in the province of Alberta. I appreciate Canada as America's 
largest trading partner.
  There are strategic and economic impacts of the development and 
delivery of oil and natural gas between the U.S. and Canada, and I am 
well aware of the economic impacts in South Carolina, creating 
thousands of jobs in the District I represent in Aiken and Lexington 
Counties.
  Currently, there are over 100 of the large mine haul trucks operating 
in the Oil Sands powered by MTU engines. The engines produced by MTU in 
Aiken, South Carolina, support not only the North American 
manufacturers of these large mining trucks, but the international 
market as well. Interestingly, by next year, Aiken will be producing 
MTU's largest engine for the haul-truck market, the 20V 4000. The 
marine variant of this engine powers the U.S. Coast Guard's Fast 
Response Cutter, and this will also be produced in Aiken. Hundreds of 
jobs are created in Aiken County and neighboring Georgia due to the oil 
sands development in Alberta.
  Furthermore, the Michelin tire manufacturing facility in Lexington, 
South Carolina, produces earthmover tires and is one of the mining 
industry's largest suppliers. Overall, 7,930 people are employed by 
Michelin in South Carolina with locations in Anderson, Greenville, and 
Lexington.
  Passage of this legislation is critical to our economy. The nearly 
three-year delay of the Keystone XL pipeline expansion project is 
blocking significant economic growth and preventing Americans from 
fully accessing a safe and dependable source of oil held by Canada, a 
longtime ally and the largest trade partner of the United States. This 
expansion would enable expanded importation of 830,000 barrels of oil 
daily from Canada, instead of importing it from other unfriendly 
sources.
  A Canadian Energy Research Institute study found that investing in 
Canadian oil sands will produce 340,000 U.S. jobs and create $34 
billion in revenues for the U.S. government. Construction of the 
pipeline itself would also support more than 10,000 jobs, and the 
addition of the pipeline to the Bakken formation would enable 
additional, more cost-effective development of that domestic energy 
source.
  For these reasons, I support this legislation and am hopeful of 
ultimate support from the President.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce printed in the bill 
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1938

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``North American-Made Energy 
     Security Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds and declares the following:
       (1) The United States currently imports more than half of 
     the oil it consumes, often from countries hostile to United 
     States interests or with political and economic instability 
     that compromises supply security.
       (2) While a significant portion of imports are derived from 
     allies such as Canada and Mexico, the United States remains 
     vulnerable to substantial supply disruptions created by 
     geopolitical tumult in major producing nations.
       (3) Strong increases in oil consumption in the developing 
     world outpace growth in conventional oil supplies, bringing 
     tight market conditions and higher oil prices in periods of 
     global economic expansion or when supplies are threatened.
       (4) The development and delivery of oil and gas from Canada 
     to the United States is in the national interest of the 
     United States in order to secure oil supplies to fill needs 
     that are projected to otherwise be filled by increases in 
     other foreign supplies, notably from the Middle East.
       (5) Continued development of North American energy 
     resources, including Canadian oil, increases domestic 
     refiners' access to stable and reliable sources of crude and 
     improves certainty of fuel supply for the Department of 
     Defense, the largest consumer of petroleum in the United 
     States.
       (6) Canada and the United States have the world's largest 
     two-way trading relationship. Therefore, for every United 
     States dollar spent on products from Canada, including oil, 
     90 cents is returned to the United States economy. When the 
     same metrics are applied to trading relationships with some 
     other major sources of United States crude oil imports, 
     returns are much lower.
       (7) The principal choice for Canadian oil exporters is 
     between moving increasing crude oil volumes to the United 
     States or Asia, led by China. Increased Canadian oil exports 
     to China will result in increased United States crude oil 
     imports from other foreign sources, especially the Middle 
     East.
       (8) Increased Canadian crude oil imports into the United 
     States correspondingly reduce the scale of ``wealth 
     transfers'' to other more distant foreign sources resulting 
     from the greater cost of importing crude oil from those 
     sources.
       (9) Not only are United States companies major investors in 
     Canadian oil sands, but many United States businesses 
     throughout the country benefit from supplying goods and 
     services required for ongoing Canadian oil sands operations 
     and expansion.
       (10) There has been more than 2 years of consideration and 
     a coordinated review by more than a dozen Federal agencies of 
     the technical aspects and of the environmental, social, and 
     economic impacts of the proposed pipeline project known as 
     the Keystone XL from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, 
     Nebraska, and then on to the United States Gulf Coast through 
     Cushing, Oklahoma.
       (11) Keystone XL represents a high capacity pipeline supply 
     option that could meet early as well as long-term market 
     demand for crude oil to United States refineries, and could 
     also potentially bring over 100,000 barrels per day of United 
     States Bakken crudes to market.
       (12) Completion of the Keystone XL pipeline would increase 
     total Keystone pipeline capacity by 700,000 barrels per day 
     to 1,290,000 barrels per day.
       (13) The Keystone XL pipeline would provide short-term and 
     long-term employment opportunities and related labor income 
     benefits, as well as government revenues associated with 
     sales and payroll taxes.
       (14) The earliest possible construction of the Keystone XL 
     pipeline will make the extensive proven and potential 
     reserves of Canadian oil available for United States use and 
     increase United States jobs and will therefore serve the 
     national interest.
       (15) Analysis using the Environmental Protection Agency 
     models shows that the Keystone XL pipeline will result in no 
     significant change in total United States or global 
     greenhouse gas emissions.
       (16) The Keystone XL pipeline would be state-of-the-art and 
     have a degree of safety higher than any other typically 
     constructed domestic oil pipeline system.
       (17) Because of the extensive governmental studies already 
     made with respect to the Keystone XL project and the national 
     interest in early delivery of Canadian oil to United States 
     markets, a decision with respect to a Presidential Permit for 
     the Keystone XL pipeline should be promptly issued without 
     further administrative delay or impediment.

     SEC. 3. EXPEDITED APPROVAL PROCESS.

       (a) In General.--The President, acting through the 
     Secretary of Energy, shall coordinate with each Federal 
     agency responsible for coordinating or considering an aspect 
     of the President's National Interest Determination and 
     Presidential Permit decision regarding construction and 
     operation of the Keystone XL pipeline, to ensure that all 
     necessary actions with respect to such decision are taken on 
     an expedited schedule.
       (b) Agency Cooperation With Secretary of Energy.--Each 
     Federal agency described in subsection (a) shall comply with 
     any deadline established by the Secretary of Energy pursuant 
     to subsection (a).
       (c) Final Order.--Not later than 30 days after the issuance 
     of the final environmental impact statement, the President 
     shall issue a final order granting or denying the 
     Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, but in no 
     event shall such decision be made later than November 1, 
     2011.
       (d) Environmental Review.--No action by the Secretary of 
     Energy pursuant to this section shall affect any duty or 
     responsibility to comply with any requirement to conduct 
     environmental review.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112-
181. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Welch

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 112-181.
  Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H5519]]


       Page 6, after line 24, insert the following new paragraph:
       (18) The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would run through 
     the Ogallala aquifer, risking an oil spill into one of the 
     world's largest freshwater aquifers that provides 30 percent 
     of the groundwater used for irrigation in the United States 
     and drinking water for millions of Americans. Even a small, 
     undetected leak from an underground rupture of the pipeline 
     in the Nebraska Sandhills could pollute almost 5,000,000,000 
     gallons of groundwater--enough oil to pose serious health 
     threats to anyone using the underlying Ogallala Aquifer for 
     drinking water or agriculture.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, this amendment inserts an environmental finding that 
highlights the very significant environmental and health risks that are 
proposed that will occur as a result of this proposed pipeline. This 
pipeline is going to carry up to 900,000 barrels of tar sands oil every 
day, and it's going to carry them a distance of 2,000 miles. And 
whatever assurances are given about the safety of any mechanical and 
engineering system, we have too much regular experience that the best 
of intentions oftentimes fail.

                              {time}  1520

  So there is risk, and we want that to be known as part of the 
findings.
  A University of Nebraska professor recently released the first 
independent assessment of the spills that could come from the Keystone 
XL pipeline. That study found that TransCanada has in fact greatly 
understated the risks of the pipeline. That study established that the 
pipeline could spill over 5 million gallon of tar sands oil into a 
major river, making water undrinkable for hundreds of miles. Also, the 
Keystone real-time leak detection system doesn't register spills that 
are less than 700,000 gallons per day.
  Cynthia Quarterman, the administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, has noted that the U.S. pipeline 
system was not designed with raw tar sands crude in mind.
  My amendment is very simple: if we're going to rush through--and 
that's what we're doing--the environmental permitting process for a 
project that has questionable benefits to our Nation, let's at least 
recognize the risks.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for up to 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, I urge rejection of this gutting amendment. 
What this would do is basically say you can't build any pipelines in 
this general area.
  I would like the gentleman from Vermont to know that there are many 
pipelines already running through this area, oil pipelines, natural gas 
pipelines; and also the other part that I would like to make regarding 
this amendment, this almost 2 feet high stack of materials is the draft 
environmental study, the supplemental environmental study, PHMSA's 
report. I can assure the gentleman that there is no other pipeline that 
has been studied to the point that this one has. It is as close to the 
best built pipeline as demanded by the agencies that have oversight. It 
has gone through a very thorough, thorough examination.
  The owners of this pipeline, TransCanada, have already agreed to not 
only increasing the thickness of the pipeline, itself, but additional 
pump stations to be able to detect when there's a leak. The pipeline 
reform bill will be reported out of committees later; and they would 
have to adhere to all of those rules, including something that we're 
discussing that all leaks have to be able to be onsite repaired within 
1 hour.
  There's no way to design a perfect pipeline, but there are ways to 
make sure that if there is an issue, there's a rapid response, and that 
has been built in. Those are additional agreements. I'm vastly positive 
that, A, any leaks that would occur are going to be minimal and not 
hazardous to the Ogallala aquifer or to the Sand Hills.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH. How much time do I have?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELCH. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Welch-Cohen 
amendment. Our simple, not a gutting, amendment--that's totally wrong--
noncontroversial amendment, states an important fact that was not 
mentioned in the findings section. I'm disappointed that this stilted 
legislation fails to mention any of the risks associated with the 
pipeline, such as the critical fact that Keystone XL would run through 
the world's largest fresh water aquifer, the Ogallala, which provides 
30 percent of the groundwater used for irrigation in the United States 
and drinking water for millions of Americans. This fact is an essential 
aspect of the pipeline that must be considered by the State Department 
and the American public before granting a determination of national 
interest.
  Our amendment also states the results of the only independent 
assessment of the worst-case spills for the proposed Keystone XL 
pipeline, a report that indicates that TransCanada has greatly 
understated the pipeline's risks.
  Perhaps the most important component of the report is the discovery 
that even a small undetected leak from an underground rupture of the 
pipeline in the Nebraska Sand Hills could pollute almost 5 billion 
gallons of groundwater, enough oil to pose serious health threats to 
anyone using this aquifer for drinking water or agricultural purposes; 
and a leak of this magnitude is certainly possible given that the 
Keystone XL's real-time leak detection system does not register spills 
less than, get this, 700,000 gallons a day. They'll have no knowledge 
of it.
  What is even more disconcerting is that according to Cynthia 
Quarterman, the administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration, the U.S. pipeline safety regulations were not 
written to address the unique risks of piping tar sand, the worst oil 
one could imagine. Additionally, Administrator Quarterman noted that 
her agency, the government's pipeline safety experts, has not been 
included in the review of Keystone XL and has never studied the risks 
of piping tar sands.
  As we consider building a dangerous tar sands pipeline through our 
Nation's most important aquifer, it is critical the decision be based 
on an accurate depiction of the pipeline's risks and not just rosy, 
overly optimistic descriptions of its projected benefits. This is why 
the Sierra League and the National Resource Defense Council are so 
interested, as is the American public in these findings.
  I urge support for the Welch-Cohen amendment.
  Mr. WELCH. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, in closing, I want to allay the fears here. 
To sit there and say that this hasn't been studied, we have the 
environmental impact study; we have the supplemental. This has been 
studied. All the agencies are involved, including PHMSA. I'm sure they 
will make their recommendations based on sound science.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TERRY. I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 112-181.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, lines 10 through 13, strike paragraph (15) (and 
     redesignate the subsequent paragraphs accordingly).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

[[Page H5520]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, during both the subcommittee and full committee markups, 
I offered my amendment to delete a finding that I thought was 
particularly misleading.
  Finding No. 15 states: ``Analysis using the Environmental Protection 
Agency models shows that the Keystone XL pipeline will result in no 
significant change in total United States or global greenhouse gas 
emissions.''

                              {time}  1530

  My amendment was defeated on a party-line vote after my colleagues on 
the other side insisted that the statement was indeed true. Well, Madam 
Chair, I took it upon myself to write a letter to the EPA asking the 
agency to weigh in on the accuracy of this finding, and this was the 
agency's reply:
  ``EPA has conducted no modeling, nor provided any models, to analyze 
the likely effect of the Keystone XL pipeline on U.S. or global 
greenhouse gas emissions. The language in the above finding is 
therefore incorrect.''
  The official EPA statement went on to say:
  ``As detailed in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Keystone XL project issued by the Department of 
State, the Department of Energy directed a contractor to conduct 
modeling on potential impacts of the project. EPA provided some data to 
be used in that effort, but EPA models were not used and EPA did not 
model any projected emissions effects of the project.''
  Madam Chairman, there are some who believe that the majority does not 
care about facts or truth or science or climate change if these facts 
and otherwise get in the way of industry moving forward unfettered. 
Well, by voting for my amendment, we have an opportunity to set the 
record straight and prove to the American people that when a statement 
is demonstrably shown to be false, then Members of Congress from both 
sides, Democrat or Republican, will put their partisan differences 
aside and stand on the side of truth. Know ye the truth and the truth 
shall set you free.
  So I urge all my colleagues to support my corrective amendment in 
order to correct this misleading statement contained in the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. I would like to join my friend in standing up for the 
truth and accuracy; so what I will do is read the Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Study.
  Page 7: ``The WORLD and DOE Energy Technologies Perspective model 
analyses results show no significant change in total U.S. refining 
activity, total crude and product import volumes and costs, in global 
refinery CO2 and total life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions 
whether Keystone XL is built or not.''
  It's the exact verbiage from the actual Department of Energy using 
the EPA's modeling conclusions. So we're just using the Department of 
Energy study's own language that it's not increasing. So what this 
amendment does is takes out the exact language from an independent 
study by the Department of Energy and supplants it with an inaccurate 
statement.
  Now, I think where my friend is going, and the EPA has recently 
written a letter saying, the standard they would like to see is not 
heavy crude versus heavy crude. Because what this study is saying is 
this oil is still going to be refined, whether it's in Kansas, 
Oklahoma, Texas, or Chicago. If it's not being refined there, it will 
be refined in China; therefore, it has the same impact globally, the 
same life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions.
  Well, the EPA wrote a letter and said, Well, we're changing that 
standard. We would like you to just compare it to Texas sweet crude. 
And they just pulled that out of a hat here just a few months ago. So 
that's what he's saying, but it's not part of what the study says. So 
there is no reason to remove this.
  This is accurate. It's exactly from the Department of Energy's study 
based on EPA's own modeling.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Nebraska has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, this is simply an argument over whether or not 
this House will allow demonstrably false information in this bill to 
move forward even though we have documentation from the very agency in 
question stating that the information is false. This is the letter. 
This is the letter. It's a letter dated June 22, and it says:
  ``EPA has conducted no modeling, nor provided any models, to analyze 
the likely effect of the Keystone XL pipeline on U.S. or global 
greenhouse gas emissions. The language in the above finding is 
therefore incorrect.''
  How clear can it be that the EPA states beyond a shadow of a doubt 
that this particular passage in this bill is false, is misleading? And 
if, in fact, we vote to enact this wrong piece of legislation, not only 
is it wrongheaded, it's wrong in its effort. If we vote to pass this 
legislation, then we are perpetuating a falsehood.
  Madam Chair, this Congress stands for a greater and higher standard 
than to vote for something that we know is false. We know it's not 
accurate. The other side knows it's not accurate. But if industry wants 
it, if it's accurate or not, industry, according to them, must have it. 
And I say industry must not have it. We should have to stand for the 
truth in this Congress, and the truth is that the EPA did not conduct 
any model.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, once again, in the entire record that's been 
submitted from the Department of Energy to EPA, the studies that have 
been done conclude that, in global refineries, CO2 and total 
life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, whether the Keystone XL is built 
or not, there is no additional CO2, no significant 
CO2. That is the exact language in here. To strike that 
would strike the truth that is set forth in the studies and supplant it 
with something that doesn't exist in all of the models and studies that 
have been provided.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois will be postponed.

                              {time}  1540


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Eshoo

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 112-181.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, after line 24, insert the following new paragraph:
       (18) Recent oil pipeline spills, such as the May 2011 leak 
     of 21,000 gallons of crude from TransCanada's existing 
     Keystone pipeline in North Dakota, have raised serious 
     concerns about the risks associated with pipelines carrying 
     diluted bitumen. At a June 16, 2011, hearing on pipeline 
     safety held by the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, Cynthia L. Quarterman, 
     Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
     Administration of the Department of Transportation, testified 
     that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
     Administration had not done a study analyzing the risks 
     associated with transporting diluted bitumen.
       Page 7, line 19, insert ``Notwithstanding the previous 
     sentence, prior to the issuance of a final order granting or 
     denying the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, 
     the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 
     shall complete a comprehensive review of the properties and 
     characteristics of bitumen and the hazardous liquid pipeline 
     regulations to determine whether current regulations are 
     sufficient to regulate pipelines used for the transportation 
     of tar sands crude oil.'' after ``November 1, 2011.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H5521]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chair, pipeline safety is not a subject that we can 
afford to take lightly. On September 10, 2010, last year, a natural gas 
explosion in San Bruno, California, just north of my congressional 
district in Congresswoman Speier's district, killed eight people, 
injured dozens of others, and destroyed 55 homes. This was from a 
natural gas explosion.
  Since 1938, Congress has attempted to promote natural gas pipeline 
safety, but the horrific explosions, like the one in San Bruno, 
California, continue to occur every year someplace in our country. It 
is a dangerous business under the best of circumstances.
  To move forward with the tar sands pipeline, which we have little 
experience regulating, without a solid understanding of the safety 
issues is an enormous and, I think, dangerous mistake. We have heard 
strong, well-informed concerns that pipelines carrying tar sands and 
the chemical bitumen may pose greater safety risks than even those 
pipelines carrying conventional or synthetic crude.
  On June 16 of this year, during an Energy and Power Subcommittee 
hearing on pipeline safety, Cynthia Quarterman, administrator of the 
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, known as PHMSA, 
testified that this agency, specifically tasked with researching and 
administering pipeline safety, has not analyzed the risks of these new 
pipelines. But Ms. Quarterman replied, when asked, that the agency 
would be pleased to make such a review. I think the American people 
would be safer if they did.
  My amendment would require PHMSA to complete a comprehensive review 
of the properties and characteristics of bitumen and the hazardous 
liquid pipeline regulations before a final Presidential permit is 
issued.
  I think this study is very, very important for the safety of all 
Americans, and it will determine whether current regulations are 
sufficient to regulate pipelines used for the transportation of tar 
sands crude oil. This approach I think makes sense because it is far 
less costly to build pipelines correctly than to try to fix or replace 
a line that is already built.
  The explosion that occurred in San Bruno, California, and the recent 
oil spills that have occurred, particularly the spills from 
TransCanada's Keystone pipeline, which leaked 21,000 gallons of crude 
in North Dakota--I want to repeat that--leaked 21,000 gallons of crude 
in North Dakota, is a warning to all of us that we need to get this 
right. So let's protect lives, money, property, and take the proper 
precautions now.
  For these reasons, I urge all of my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, the crux of this amendment is that the 
gentlelady from California is asking for another study. That seems to 
be kind of the new tactic of how to delay or kill a bill; let's do a 
study instead of implementing something.
  I want to talk about the safety of the pipeline with the chemical 
bitumen, which helps the crude actually flow through the pipeline 
better. This chemical isn't new to the Pipeline Hazardous Materials 
Safety Agency. In fact, heavy crude has been sent through pipelines 
with this chemical since the 1920s, including out of California. So 
they have the expertise to deal with this already. They are working on 
their assessment of the Keystone pipeline to assist the State 
Department and Department of Energy in their recommendation, so there 
is really no need for this type of a study.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chair, to respond to my friend and colleague, Mr. 
Terry, with all due respect, I didn't come to the floor today with a 
tactic. I offered this, I raised this in the committee. We had a very 
good discussion about it there. It's my understanding that an EIS is 
being conducted, but an EIS on the entire pipeline is very different 
than what I am raising.
  And the head of the agency, of PHMSA, when she appeared before the 
committee, understanding that there had not been an examination in 
particular about the tar sands crude oil and bitumen, said that her 
agency would be pleased to undertake that study.
  So I'm here today, obviously, to offer this amendment. I think it is 
based on good common sense that we examine this before we go ahead with 
it. I raised something that is very real and that is just a handful of 
miles from where I live, even though it is outside my congressional 
district, where lives were lost--eight people were killed, dozens were 
injured, and 55 homes destroyed. So this is not a tactic. This is not 
to delay. This is to get this right before the permit is issued. I 
think the agency can do this on an expedited basis. I'm not seeking to 
delay and blow up anything. I'm here relative to public health and 
public safety.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, I too have great confidence in PHMSA to be 
able to determine whether or not the chemical creates any issues. 
Bitumen has been around for 91 years with heavy crude, and so I just 
don't think there is a need for additional delays or studies.
  Ms. Quarterman has already said she is undertaking the study, and 
that will be included in her recommendation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be 
postponed.


              Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Christensen

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 112-181.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, after line 24, insert the following new paragraph:
       (18) The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
     estimates that the Keystone XL pipeline would increase carbon 
     pollution associated with United States fuel use by up to 
     23,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, 
     which is equivalent to the annual emissions from an extra 
     4,500,000 passenger vehicles.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the gentlewoman from the 
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chair, I rise to introduce an amendment that 
would simply add a provision to H.R. 1938 to recognize that the 
construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would increase carbon 
emissions and make it harder to address global warming.
  Permitting Keystone and allowing the transport of heavy petroleum 
product from the Canadian tar sands to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico 
has serious environmental and economic ramifications. Reports indicate 
that the production of fuel from tar sands can yield greenhouse gas 
emissions nearly three times as high as those produced from 
conventional extraction.
  While my colleagues and I last Congress worked to reduce greenhouse 
emissions by 2020, Canada has projected that their emissions will grow 
25 percent by 2020, with those from tar sands being the single largest 
contributor. This is not something that we should be working to 
expedite.
  H.R. 1938 makes a series of findings related to the Keystone XL 
pipeline. Some of these findings are a matter of opinion, and some are 
just flat-out wrong. All of these findings share one characteristic--
they all support the pipeline. And inconvenient facts are not included. 
In fact, there are a lot of inconvenient facts about the pipeline that 
the American people should know.
  Tar sands require far more energy to extract and process than 
conventional crude oil.

                              {time}  1550

  The result is that emissions from using tar sands fuel are 
approximately 9 to as high as 37 percent higher than from our baseline 
fuel mix. This pipeline would almost double our current use of tar 
sands fuel. At a time when

[[Page H5522]]

we're trying to curb carbon emissions and stop global warming, Keystone 
makes us more reliant on one of the dirtiest sources of fuel currently 
available.
  In short, tar sands oil threatens our air, water, land, and economy, 
and will increase already dangerously high greenhouse gas emissions and 
demand for natural gas. It has no place in the clean energy economy.
  On page 3-198 of the State Department's Supplemental Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement, it is estimated that Keystone XL 
pipeline could increase carbon pollution associated with U.S. fuel use 
by up to 23 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year. 
This is equivalent to the annual emissions from an extra 4.5 million 
passenger vehicles.
  The SDEIS further indicates that most of the greenhouse gas emissions 
will come from the production of crude oil, refining of the crude oil, 
and combustion of the refined products. Transportation of the crude oil 
to the refinery and transportation of the products to the market also 
contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. This does not include the range 
of secondary carbon emissions to be considered as well.
  In a letter to the State Department, our very own EPA indicated that 
the extra greenhouse gas emissions associated with this proposed 
project may range from 600 million to up to 1.15 billion tons of 
CO2 over Keystone XL's lifecycle.
  It's unfortunate that while the Department of State and EPA have 
recognized the huge risk that would be incurred, the proponents of H.R. 
1938 simply ignore them. While some will tout that the Keystone XL will 
enhance energy security, the other side of this equation must be 
considered.
  Now is not the time for us to increase harmful air emissions and 
further jeopardize the people in our environment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  THE CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. Two points here: I think, number one, the gentlelady's 
amendment really helps define what the real issue here is. It isn't 
with, necessarily, the pipeline or its placement of the pipeline or a 
chemical that's in it. It's actually about whether we're going to 
continue to use oil. As we use more oil, it gets heavier.
  As I mentioned earlier with the amendment by the gentleman from 
Illinois, the EPA is doing this switch where you don't compare a heavy 
crude or sour to the same, like what's been brought in by Venezuela. 
Now you have to compare it to a different type of sweeter crude or 
easier to refine crude.
  The reality here--and that's the point that's made in the study 
itself, and the part that the gentlelady reads from, it is actually 
noting that we're using a heavier crude. So I just want to point out 
that that's kind of an unfair comparison. We have got to do heavy to 
heavy to determine if there's going to be an increase in greenhouse 
gasses.
  There's no rushing or expediting. This has been sitting around for 3 
years. So it's really time to get up and do something.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus).
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. This debate is about U.S. energy security, North 
American energy, and jobs.
  The original Keystone pipeline cost $2 billion, a thousand U.S. jobs. 
The expansion of the refinery bordering my district and the 
chairwoman's district is thousands of jobs and an expansion of the 
refinery. Keystone XL will allow us to create thousands of new jobs 
expanding the pipeline, expanding new refineries, getting down to the 
refineries in Texas.
  The Canadians are going to build this pipeline in one or two 
directions. They're either going to go south to help us become North 
American reliant and secure in energy, or they're going to build this 
pipeline west to put it on tankers and ship it to China.
  Now, I would ask my colleagues: What's more environmentally safe, 
secure, and sound--a pipeline or a supertanker? What's better for our 
country--have that oil coming to the United States or that oil going to 
China?
  I think the answer is clear. We can become North American energy 
independent. The Keystone XL pipeline is part of that.
  I would ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chair, my amendment really says nothing about 
the placement. This is also a problem. And while I realize that we will 
be using oil for a long time, it's time for us to begin to move towards 
a clean and greener economy and to slow down global warming and do what 
we can to protect the public health.
  My amendment is in direct opposition to the finding. The finding says 
the XL pipeline will result in no significant change in total U.S. or 
global greenhouse gas emissions, when EPA and also the supplemental EIS 
from the Department of State clearly says: range from 600 million to 
1.15 billion tons of CO2, assuming the life cycle that's 
projected, and also that the range could be equivalent to greenhouse 
gas emissions from the combustion of fuels in approximately--this is 
from the State Department--588,000 to 4.5 million passenger vehicles, 
or the CO2 emissions of combusting fuels used to provide 
energy consumed by approximately 255,000 to 1.9 million homes.
  In addition to that, the social cost has not been assessed. The 
social cost to agricultural productivity, human health, property 
damages from flood risk, ecosystem services due to climate change. So 
even though this has been under discussion for a long time, there are a 
lot of things that have not been considered.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. I still am in opposition because it doesn't really 
accurately reflect the statements within the EIS, the Environmental 
Impact Studies.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chair, while we're trying to reduce the 
emissions, when you look at Canada, primarily because of the tar sands, 
their emissions are projected to rise by 25 percent. So I continue to 
offer my amendment and ask for the support of my colleagues.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  The amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 112-181.
  Mr. COHEN. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 6, lines 14 through 17, amend paragraph (16) to read 
     as follows:
       (16) TransCanada Corporation's first wholly owned oil 
     pipeline in the United States is the recently built Keystone 
     I, which spilled 12 times in the United States and 21 times 
     in Canada in less than one year of operation. Despite claims 
     that it is ``the safest pipeline ever built'', Keystone was 
     recently shut down by the United States Government because it 
     was deemed a ``threat to life, property, and the 
     environment''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As the State Department and the U.S. public consider whether the 
proposed Keystone XL tar stands pipeline is in the national interest, 
it is critical that the most accurate information be made available. 
That's why I have offered an amendment to this legislation that 
eliminates a rhetorical, baseless safely claim and replaces it with a 
substantiated factual statement.
  TransCanada is engaged in a high-stakes public relations campaign to 
brand the Keystone XL pipeline as safe and their company as responsible 
operators. I'm sure that BP Oil said the same thing about Deepwater. 
But that wasn't true. Just because they say it doesn't make it true. It 
is one thing for a foreign oil company to employ misleading rhetoric, 
but it's not the place of the House of Representatives to endorse these 
mistruths.

[[Page H5523]]

  It only requires a brief objective glance at the safety record to 
realize that TransCanada's meritorious safety claims do not withstand 
even the slightest scrutiny. When selling Keystone--that's not Keystone 
XL, which we're looking at; Keystone, another pipeline--to the U.S., 
TransCanada claimed the pipeline was ``state-of-the-art,'' and even 
went as far as dubbing it the ``safest pipeline ever built.'' Well, 
we're in trouble.

                              {time}  1600

  After 1 disastrous year of operation, TransCanada's rosy claims are 
not reflective of the reality that exists.
  In less than 12 months of operation, the so-called ``safest pipeline 
ever built'' has spilled 12 times in the United States--the dirty 
dozen--and 21 times in Canada. Following that 12th domestic spill, the 
Department of Transportation shut down pipeline operations because 
Keystone was deemed ``a threat to life, property and the environment.''
  Since Keystone is TransCanada's first wholly owned pipeline in the 
United States, TransCanada's safety record is off to a pretty bad 
start. TransCanada's misleading safety claim extends far beyond their 
simple rhetoric. Here are three of the most egregious claims for 
Keystone XL:
  Number one: TransCanada claims that, if and when the Keystone XL 
pipeline has a leak, it will shut down the pipeline almost instantly.
  Unfortunately, spills on the Keystone pipeline have demonstrated that 
TransCanada's theoretical response is far better than their actual 
response. In May, when Keystone spilled 21,000 gallons, it took 
TransCanada 44 minutes to shut down the pipeline after the spill. It 
would have taken even longer had it not been for a landowner who called 
in the spill, which shot a six-story-high gusher of toxic oil into the 
air. You'd have thought it was Texas.
  Number two: TransCanada suggests there is little risk of a spill on 
the Keystone XL pipeline.
  However, the only independent assessment of the worst case spills for 
Keystone XL indicates that TransCanada has greatly understated the 
severity and frequency of significant spills, an estimate that is more 
than 800 percent lower than what would likely occur.
  Over the last few weeks, we have all witnessed the irreparable damage 
caused by the 40,000-gallon Silvertip pipeline spill in the Yellowstone 
River. Now try to imagine how devastating a 6.95 million-, almost a 7 
million, gallon spill of more toxic oil would be on the Yellowstone 
River. A spill of this magnitude and devastation is possible if we 
approve the Keystone XL.
  Number three: TransCanada claims that Keystone XL would be built of 
thicker steel and operate at lower than allowed pressures.
  But major segments of Keystone XL would be made of thinner steel than 
Exxon Mobil's failed Silvertip pipeline. So while Keystone XL would 
operate at lower than allowed pressures, it would still operate at 
nearly twice the pressure of the Silvertip. Additionally, Keystone XL 
would be transporting tar sands, a substance which is far more 
corrosive and volatile than conventional oil.
  Even a cursory review of TransCanada's safety claims reveals a web of 
exaggerations, understatements and lies that have been carefully woven 
together to manufacture an image of safety and responsibility.
  It is critical that the American people have an accurate depiction of 
the dangers of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Congress must 
exercise more scrutiny and not take TransCanada's manufactured rhetoric 
at face value. We cannot afford to let TransCanada once again dupe us 
into permitting an even more dangerous pipeline, for as they say, 
``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' Somebody 
from Texas tried to say that once, but we know the statement.
  I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. TERRY. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Nebraska is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. There is no doubt that the facts are that, on the Keystone 
but not the Keystone XL, there have been 12 leaks, 12 leaks of as 
little as 5 gallons to 400 barrels from a recent one. Those were 
determined to be caused, not by the safety of the pipeline but by 
valves that were mal-manufactured, where there was a manufacturing 
problem, but within a 12-hour period, they were up and running again. 
Those have all been replaced. That's the type of response that we 
expect under our pipeline laws.
  I think the issues here are better placed in our discussions of 
pipeline safety, on which both the Transportation Committee and Energy 
and Commerce Committee will begin working soon, so I just don't see the 
need for this type of an amendment, or fact-finding, to be put into 
this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 112-181.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, lines 18 through 23, amend paragraph (7) to read as 
     follows:
       (7) Consultants employed by Canadian tar sands companies 
     have publicly stated that without the Keystone XL pipeline, 
     Canada's tar sands will be ``landlocked'' and unable to be 
     exported overseas. There are significant barriers to 
     construction of a pipeline to ports on the West Coast of 
     Canada. The Keystone XL pipeline, which would service Port 
     Arthur and the Port of Houston, would allow tar sands crude 
     to be exported. Permitting the pipeline would provide an 
     export route to China where none now exists.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, my amendment before us today 
asks a simple question:
  Why should America shoulder new environmental risks to help power the 
economy of China?
  Many Members have come to the floor today to document the 
considerable ecological and public health threats posed by the 
development of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline. In addition to 
producing 40 percent more life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than 
conventional oil, the recent Exxon pipeline spill in Montana's 
Yellowstone River serves as a stark reminder of the very real risks 
posed by these kinds of pipeline projects.
  However, in discounting these facts, the proponents of Keystone XL 
assert that, without the new pipeline, Canada's dirty tar sands oil 
will be shipped to China and to other overseas markets. This simply 
isn't true. Without access to a major new shipping terminal and 
refining hub on the gulf coast, Canada's tar sands will remain stranded 
on the North American continent.
  Indeed, Keystone XL is essential to the economic expansion of 
Canadian tar sands because it opens up new trade routes to the East. 
Current pipeline infrastructure carries tar sands oil to the Midwest 
but no further. By 2015, existing markets will no longer be sufficient 
to absorb this increased tar sands production. So the Keystone XL 
pipeline will provide that new market to China for this oil.
  Indeed, earlier this year, the CEO of Valero Energy, one of the 
companies that has signed up to ship oil through Keystone XL, said 
this: that the future of refining in the United States is in exports.
  So America is increasingly now the global middleman in world oil 
exports. Our oil exports have doubled in the last 5 years. The question 
is this: Shouldn't we have some say in where our oil goes?
  With the construction of this new pipeline, we are going to be 
shouldering

[[Page H5524]]

all of the increased environmental risks that come with its 
construction to help meet the growing overseas oil demand of our 
economic competitors. How does that further the energy independence of 
the United States?
  So the amendment we are offering today with Mr. Cohen and Mr. Welch 
will merely make it clear that a decision to permit Keystone XL is a 
decision to, in part, help promote North American oil exports to China. 
Whether you like that or don't like that, we should at least admit that 
that is one of the byproducts of our action today. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment and to face the reality of the Keystone XL 
pipeline rather than just the rhetoric.
  At this point, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding 
time.
  I rise in support of the Murphy-Cohen-Welch amendment. This amendment 
sheds light on the oil industry's attempt to pressure the U.S. into 
approving Keystone XL by threatening to export tar sands to China if we 
do not approve the pipeline.
  As Mr. Murphy has well stated, Canada has already said themselves 
they can't get that oil out of Canada without this pipeline, that they 
can't get it to China unless they build a pipeline. They want to build 
a pipeline through America over one of our most important aquifers--
threatening our environment and our drinking water so that Canada can 
get some oil to possibly go to China.

                              {time}  1610

  Canada cannot get it to China without going through the United 
States, and it makes no sense. The fact is this amendment, like the 
previous amendments, is just simply putting the facts, the truth, into 
this particular paper.
  There is nothing wrong with these. Nobody disputes the facts. In 
fact, the gentleman agreed on the previous amendment that there had 
been a dozen leaks of the Keystone pipeline. He mentioned that some of 
them were very small. The average one is a thousand barrels.
  So if the Keystone pipeline, which was the safest in the world, was 
not safe, what's wrong with mentioning it in the findings?
  And the same thing here. What they said about China is just not true. 
The only feasible route to export tar sand to China is the Keystone XL. 
And that's what they're looking to do, because it's not going to affect 
the United States' use of oil, oil as a commodity that the Canadians 
want to sell, and they're not going to give it to us any cheaper than 
they're going to give it to anybody else. They want to make money, but 
they've got opposition in their own country as well.
  We need to look out for the American people and not have some 
situation where maybe because Canada is helping us with oil in the 
Middle East that we're helping them with oil through our Midwest. 
America's Midwest is too important to sacrifice to some misguided 
adventure that Canada got into with us and the Mideast all because of 
oil.
  So I would support the Murphy-Cohen-Welch amendment.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I would like to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of Mr. Murphy's amendment, 
and this amendment replaces misleading findings about the Keystone XL 
pipeline's critical faster implementation.
  The only problem that I see was the majority's argument in that 
Canada has really--and I agree with Mr. Cohen--that Canada has no way 
to send oil to China now and no realistic prospect of ever sending oil 
to China. They won't do anything any time soon.
  So I think that this is a commonsense amendment, and I certainly 
stand in support of this amendment.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  First of all, the purpose of this pipeline is so that American 
citizens will have a reliable source of fuel made in America. That's 
the whole point of this. And there are companies that are expanding 
their refineries right now to be able to accept this crude.
  Now, it's been stated that if we don't use it, then this is not going 
to be used because it's landlocked, but nothing could be further from 
the truth. It's only 800 miles from the point that the oil sands will 
be used to the Vancouver coast where it could be put on and would be 
put on tankers to be shipped to China.
  Now, Enbridge is already in the promoting process for a pipeline that 
will link the Athabasca fields in northern Alberta to a terminal in 
Kitimat, British Colombia. It's 525,000 barrels per day. So the 
statement that it will be landlocked and never used is just simply flat 
wrong. That is not what the Canadians will do.
  To say that it's going to be sent to our refineries in Oklahoma, 
Chicago, Texas, and Louisiana so it could be then refined and put on a 
tanker then to go south through the Panama Canal and through just makes 
no sense because we have the most stringent regulations in refining and 
on cleaning, or a clean process that adds a great deal more to the cost 
of refining, so it just makes no economic sense to do that. It would be 
much cheaper just to put a pipeline to the west coast of Canada, put it 
on tankers. It would be much cheaper to do that.
  At this point I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska.
  That line through Canada, less than 800 miles long, to add an 
additional almost 10,000 miles to go through the Panama Canal to 
Shanghai doesn't make economic sense. And let's keep in mind, Canada is 
our neighbor. They are our friend, our most consistent and reliable 
ally, and I trust the way they are going to be working on many things 
with us.
  But I also trust the workers who will work on this pipeline, American 
workers from here in the United States, well-trained people who have 
gone through good training programs as apprentices and journeymen. 
Construction of this pipeline will generate about $20 billion in 
economic output, perhaps $13 billion in direct work on the pipeline 
itself.
  Now, some estimates have said that for every $1 billion you spend on 
infrastructure, it yields about 35,000 jobs. That's some jobs that go 
for manufacturing, that's some jobs that go for the actual 
construction, and some jobs that go for all the supports that help 
those workers as well as the places that they will spend money--
steamfitters and welders who make $45 to $50 an hour, operating 
engineers, laborers who will earn between $23 and $31 an hour.
  And, yes, this is a time we need to do this, not with more delays and 
more problems, but at a time when we need jobs.
  Let's keep this in mind too: Construction of this pipeline with oil 
from Canada is going to make us less dependent on OPEC. Right now we 
send $129 billion a year to OPEC. That's $129 billion in foreign aid 
which we do not have to send to those countries there, $129 billion 
which we wouldn't have to be spending on countries that sometimes turn 
around and use U.S. dollars against our soldiers and then we end up 
fighting for both sides on the war on terror.
  This is what we need to keep in mind: This is a jobs bill; this is a 
bill dealing with a friend; and this is a bill that makes a lot of 
sense, and we shouldn't put more delays and restrictions on this 
because we have to get off of our addiction to OPEC oil.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this onerous and job-
killing amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H5525]]

the gentleman from Connecticut will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 112-181.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, line 14, strike ``30 days'' and insert ``120 
     days''.
       Page 7, lines 18 and 19, strike ``November 1, 2011'' and 
     insert ``January 1, 2012''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, today's debate on fast-tracking the Keystone 
XL pipeline by 2 months reminds me of a saying that adequately sums up 
the fight before this Congress: Good sense minus common sense equals 
nonsense.
  With the current crisis our Nation faces on lifting the debt ceiling 
and other priorities for the American people, including the economy and 
jobs, it is incomprehensible that we are here debating a bill that is 
totally and absolutely unnecessary, completely futile, and is not even 
worth not one millisecond of Congress' time.
  Mr. Chairman, as written, this bill will force the administration to 
issue the Presidential permit for the pipeline within 30 days of the 
environmental impact statement and no later than November 1, 2011, 
regardless of whether or not the review process has been completed.
  This arbitrary, willy-nilly time line would reduce the allocated time 
that the Federal agencies will have to determine the national interest 
in deciding this proposal by almost two-thirds of the time that they 
need, while also reducing or eliminating the 30-day public comment 
period.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering would allow for 120 
days after the final environmental impact or no later than January 1, 
2012, for the President to issue a final decision on the Keystone XL 
pipeline.
  I believe that public input is a vital and necessary part of the 
permitting process, and I also believe that it is important for the 
various departments to weigh in with their national interest 
determinations, which this bill would severely curtail, if not 
completely eliminate. In fact, in conversations that my office has held 
with the State Department and the EPA, we were informed that it would 
be close to impossible for the responsible agencies to complete their 
due diligence and reply by the arbitrary timeline of November 1, as 
this bill would mandate. Additionally, just yesterday, the State 
Department publicly stated that this bill was ``unnecessary'' since the 
agency already plans to reach a final decision on the Keystone XL by 
the end of the year, after first holding a series of public hearings in 
the very six States that would be affected by the enactment of this 
bill. Mr. Chairman, whether you support the Keystone XL pipeline or 
not, it is extremely important that all of the relevant information and 
consequent impacts be considered so that an informed decision can be 
made.
  So I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment, which would 
allow for the appropriate time period for the public and the different 
agencies to weigh in, while also mandating that a decision is made 
within a timely manner.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I first want to state that this is an 
infrastructure bill. This is a $13 billion project, $13 billion spent 
in the United States, employing United States workers.
  On the surface, my friend from Illinois' amendment seems fairly 
innocuous, just delaying this decision by 61 days. The point that I 
would like to make is that we've just had it with the delays. This 
isn't rushing or expediting. This is only weeks away from the 3-year 
anniversary of the filing of the application when, in comparison to 
other transcontinental pipelines, the average is 18 to 24 months. So 
it's time that we act.
  The date of November 1 was actually calculated by the time it would 
take the State Department, after they requested another round of town 
hall meetings, to have sufficient time to accomplish those. So there's 
just no reason to bump it back from this date, from November 1, 61 days 
to January 1.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for 
generously yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm also from Illinois. And I can tell you, in Illinois 
there is a very tough economic environment right now. We've got a tough 
budget. There is a lot of talk about the budget right now. We've got 
huge unemployment. We've got people who desperately want to go to work. 
And when I do town hall meetings, when I'm in the 11th Congressional 
District in towns like Joliet, or when I'm in Ottawa, or Princeton, or 
some of those towns, I get this from a lot of people: Why can't we just 
become energy independent? Why can't we just become energy secure? And 
I think that's a great question.
  When people look at Washington, D.C., and they say, Washington, D.C., 
is broken, I think one example of that is the fact that we can't get 
our act together and do what we need to do to increase oil that we're 
not pulling in from the Middle East. I mean, it's just very basic. How 
can we do anything in this Congress if we can't even agree that our 
partners to the north can bring their oil here for our consumption so 
that we can come off of that oil we're buying from the Middle East 
that, in some way, is always going to fund the people that we are 
fighting overseas and the terrorists that we're fighting?
  But when we talk about the Keystone pipeline, let me ask you, what 
does the pipeline mean for the United States and for Illinois? For 
starters, it means creating more than 100,000 American jobs. We've been 
seeing the jobs reports lately. They're not good. How would you like to 
add 100,000 American jobs? That's what we're offering. It means 1.3 
million barrels of oil from our friends to the north, which means we 
need less oil from the Middle East, from Venezuela, and less oil from 
other countries that we can no longer rely on and are not friendly to 
the interests of the United States. What's bad about that? It means 
$5.2 billion in new property tax revenue for bankrupt States, like my 
own, like Illinois.
  The North American-Made Energy Security Act expedites a final 
decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would allow 
millions of barrels of Canadian oil supplies to flow into U.S. markets 
and requires the President to issue a final Presidential permit 
decision by November 1, 2001. This bill does not require the President 
to accept the benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline. It merely requires 
him to make a long overdue decision on this pipeline.
  The State Department has, at their discretion, the authority to 
decide if the U.S. benefits from this. The fact is that someone will 
benefit from the oil out of Canada. If it's not the United States, it 
will be China. Unless we take immediate action to expand the Keystone 
pipeline, it will be American businesses, American consumers, and those 
who are unemployed that are desperately seeking a job in this terrible 
economy who will suffer the consequences from our inaction.
  According to a Department of Energy report, the pipeline extension 
will ``essentially eliminate'' our oil imports from the Middle East. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the final 
passage.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I really want my friend from Illinois to know 
that I don't have to travel to Joliet, Illinois, or any other part of 
Illinois; I don't even have to come down to his district in Peoria to 
see unemployment, to see the joblessness. I am not standing here 
fighting against jobs. I am fighting for jobs. But I think at the same 
time that we fight for jobs, we have to also fight so that the American 
people have input in terms of making decisions such as this. Mr. 
Chairman, I also believe that at the end of the day, we want to ensure 
that this pipeline benefits America and not China.

[[Page H5526]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Hanabusa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 112-181.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, after line 23, insert the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Worst-case Discharge Scenario Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--No Presidential Permit shall be issued 
     approving the construction and operation of the Keystone XL 
     pipeline unless the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with 
     the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 
     certifies that the applicant--
       ``(A) has calculated a worst-case oil spill scenario for 
     the proposed pipeline; and
       ``(B) has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary 
     and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
     Administration that the applicant possesses the capability 
     and technology to respond immediately and effectively to such 
     worst-case oil spill scenario.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary of Energy, in consultation 
     with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
     Administration, may waive the requirement under paragraph (1) 
     if the applicant has already completed a worst-case discharge 
     scenario analysis and established that it possesses the 
     capability and technology to respond immediately and 
     effectively to such worst-case oil spill scenario.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires that prior to the Presidential 
permit approving the construction and operation of the Keystone XL 
pipeline, that it will not issue until such time as the Secretary of 
Energy, in consultation with the PHMSA, certify that the applicant has 
calculated a worst-case oil spill scenario for the proposed pipeline 
and has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary and the PHMSA 
that the applicant possesses the capability and technology to respond 
immediately and effectively to the worst-case scenario.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason this amendment is so necessary is because we 
are talking about a 2,000-mile pipeline from Alberta to the gulf coast. 
Actually, according to the bill itself, it will increase the 
production; and the pipeline will carry 700,000 to 1.290 million 
barrels of oil in a day.
  This pipeline will go over important aquifers; and what we need to 
recognize is that the people of this great country, after experiencing 
the BP oil spill, expect us to address and recognize that that type of 
catastrophe may occur. And what this amendment does is it gives the 
people that assurance.
  I would also like to say, Mr. Chairman, that part of this amendment 
also gives the Secretary the opportunity to waive the requirement. If 
the Secretary and the PHMSA believe that the applicant has, in fact, 
completed a worst-case discharge scenario, then they can say that this 
provision is no longer necessary.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is really for the people. It gives the people 
peace of mind that, in fact, we have addressed the situation, 
especially when we're going over aquifer and many people's lands, 2,000 
miles.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. I appreciate the thoughts of the gentlelady from Hawaii. 
Coming from Nebraska, where it's the Sand Hills and the sensitive area 
and the Ogallala aquifer, I want to make sure that the people in my 
State have the peace of mind and the confidence that the worst-case 
scenarios have already been modeled out and written into their plans. 
In fact, that's the whole premise of PHMSA. And so the analysis of a 
worst-case scenario spill is already part of the application. It's part 
of the environmental impact statement and the supplemental 
environmental impact statement.
  Furthermore, it's demonstrated its response plan in the event of the 
worst-case discharge, that the pumps will be stopped in 9 minutes and 
the valves will shut in 3 minutes. So the worst-case scenarios are 
actually part of the record so that the entities that have to make the 
recommendation to the President already have that determination. Then 
they'll use those facts and figures and models to determine what to 
recommend to the President. Then the President can make that 
recommendation.
  So I believe that this amendment is really superfluous and 
unnecessary.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the proponent of this 
measure is stating. However, let us also recognize that this bill, in 
its own requirement, says that not later than 30 days after the 
issuance of the final environmental impact statement, the President 
shall issue an order either granting or denying the Presidential 
permit.
  We're not here to slow this up. We're actually here to assist them if 
this is really what they want to do. The reason why is this: if you're 
very familiar with the environmental impact statement process, and we 
are in the comment period right now, but you know that after the 
comment period is done, that what will then happen is that you will 
then be able to file challenges to the EIS itself.
  What this does is it then creates the opportunity to say, in a 
challenge, to an EIS, the sufficiency of which, if it's challenged on 
the fact that it did not properly address the worst-case scenario, that 
there is a process in the law itself which will permit them to say, 
hey, we can look at the worst-case scenario. And I believe that any 
kind of construction project such as this, it would be the worst-case 
scenario argument that would bring it to a complete halt.
  So, given that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
this amendment because it really will give the people the peace of 
mind; and if this is a project worthy of going forward, that it does 
assist in that process.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to give a degree of confidence that 
this scenario's already been set forth. This is the environmental 
study, pages 3-99: maximum spill volumes. It's already been modeled 
out. It's already been determined.
  And just to provide further confidence, even the EPA, that wrote a 
letter a few months ago, did not say anything about the maximum spills 
and whether the responses were appropriate or not. Most of theirs was 
on greenhouse gases. So this issue is pretty well settled. The facts 
are there for those who will make the recommendations. I request defeat 
of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 112-181.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H5527]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, after line 23, insert the following new subsection:
       (e) Required Study.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and 
     (e), final approval of construction and operation of the 
     Keystone XL pipeline shall not occur until the President has 
     determined that the appropriate Federal agency has completed 
     a study of the health impacts of increased air pollution in 
     communities near refineries that will process up to 830,000 
     barrels per day of tar sands crude transported through the 
     Keystone XL pipeline, including an assessment of the 
     cumulative air pollution impacts on these communities, many 
     of which already experience unhealthy levels of air 
     pollution.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to 
speak today on H.R. 1938, the North American-Made Energy Security Act 
of 2011, and on my amendment to this legislation.
  I oppose H.R. 1938, which would accelerate the approval of the 
Keystone Koch Brothers XL pipeline. No one knows how much air pollution 
this pipeline will cause, or how the pollution will impact the public 
health.
  My amendment, which has been endorsed by the National Resources 
Defense Council and the Sierra Club, is common sense. I'm simply 
requesting a thorough analysis of the potential health risks that 
should be completed before any decision is made to begin construction.
  Even though the State Department has submitted two environmental 
impact statements on the Keystone Koch Brothers XL pipeline, the 
Environmental Protection Agency has found that neither statement 
included a satisfactory evaluation of the increased air pollution that 
would come as a result of this pipeline's operation.
  Communities surrounding the oil refineries that would be along the 
transportation route for these raw tar sands crude are already exposed 
to dirty air. Approval of the Koch Brothers Keystone XL pipeline will 
only make it worse.
  The raw tar sands crude is more toxic and acidic than other types of 
crude. Raw tar sands crude produces significantly more harmful 
pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions than conventional crude oil due 
to the complex refining process it must go through before it reaches 
gas pumps in China.
  As this type of crude has only been exported to the United States 
from Canada for a relatively short period of time, there has not been a 
thorough study on how its transport would effect air pollution in our 
Nation. It's troubling that the construction of the Keystone Koch 
Brothers XL pipeline, which could transport 900,000 barrels of this 
crude oil daily, should take place before such a study is ever done.
  We have a responsibility to the American people to properly assess 
what risks the construction of this pipeline may pose to our health. It 
would be irresponsible for us to sweep these concerns under the rug, 
just to rush this project to the finish line.

                              {time}  1640

  Valid questions have been raised about the health risks associated 
with the increased air pollution this pipeline will produce, and these 
questions deserve legitimate answers. For this reason, I am requesting 
that a study be conducted to measure the health impacts of raw tar 
sands crude pollution in communities surrounding the refineries where 
the Keystone-Koch XL pipeline would operate. If you share my commitment 
to safeguarding Americans' health, I ask that you approve my amendment 
and allow for such a study to be done before we make any decision on 
the pipeline's construction.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. Thank you.
  Let me assure the gentleman from Georgia that part of the 
environmental impact study based on the EPA modeling inherently 
includes the impact of health around the communities. So I am confident 
that the Department of Energy and the Department of State will have the 
necessary health impact data to make the proper recommendation to the 
President, and the President will then be able to rely on those or 
review the data himself before issuing it. But to require an additional 
study on top of the ones that have already been done appears to me to 
just simply be an act of trying to slow the process down.
  Let me remind the Chairman that we are on the third-year anniversary 
of this particular application, whereas ordinarily these types of 
transborder pipeline applications are resolved within 18 to 24 months. 
The owner, TransCanada--TransCanada is a Canadian company--they've 
agreed to all of the recommendations that have come forth from all of 
the draft environmental impact studies and supplemental, so I really do 
not want additional studies layered on additional studies layered on 
additional studies to slow this down.
  This is a $13 billion construction project, not funded by the 
government, that will employ at least 20,000 union contractors and 
100,000 to 200,000 employees to help build the refineries and to work 
the refineries in the United States. This is the jobs bill. This is 
getting people back to work. This is an infrastructure bill. Let's get 
this decision done. The data's available. It can be done by November 1. 
I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman from Nebraska is incorrect in terms of the 
Environmental Protection Agency having conducted a study of the 
increased air pollution that would come as a result of this pipeline's 
operation.
  The State Department has submitted two environmental impact 
statements on the Keystone XL/Koch brothers pipeline, but the 
Environmental Protection Agency has found that neither statement 
included a satisfactory evaluation of the increased air pollution that 
would come as a result of this pipeline's operation. So I wanted to 
correct the record on that.
  Last but not least, I want this body to know that it is the health of 
Americans that is most important here as opposed to making money for an 
oil company.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I hold up the United States Department of State report here. A 
cooperating agency in the development of the report is the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. The actual study was done by the 
Department of Energy using the EPA standards and modeling, so I think 
that may be where the confusion is entering here. I didn't state that 
the EPA did the study. I've always said that the Department of Energy, 
using EPA's modeling and standards, did it, but the EPA was a partner 
in this and had made their recommendations on it. Again, what we're 
requesting is a redundant study being done, and I urge the defeat of 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Members are advised not to traffic the well while 
another is under recognition.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


          Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 112-181.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, after line 23, insert the following new subsection:
       (e) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the United States must decrease its dependence on oil from 
     countries

[[Page H5528]]

     which are hostile to the interests of the United States. 
     Canada has long been a strong trading partner, and increased 
     access to their energy resources will create jobs in the 
     United States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
  I am glad I'm able to rise and speak about legislation that involves 
one of our closest allies, Canada, and because this is a relationship 
with Canada, and because it is an international issue, I'm assured that 
in the process, we will have significant oversight that includes the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, 
Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Attorney General who 
will have to comment on this application before the conclusion and the 
final decision. That is good news.
  I also think it's important, as we discuss what the potential of this 
relationship is and the opportunity for oil coming from a friendly 
neighbor, to be reminded that many of us have said over and over again 
that we must cease to rely upon foreign oil.
  In fact, in a Senate hearing when Egypt was beginning to, in essence, 
explode, Members said, watch Egypt, and we must lessen our dependence 
on foreign oil. Obviously Egypt is not one of our major sources of 
energy, but they were beginning to see the ripple effect in the Mideast 
of what has been called the Arab Spring. For many of us, we realize 
that it is a long, long winter as our friends in the Mideast seek 
peace. So this is an important statement about our commitment to 
creating jobs, but also it is an important statement on relieving or 
ceasing the dependence of the United States on foreign oil.
  Let me just take one State's economy and realize what would happen 
with this particular effort. There would be a $2.3 billion investment 
in the Texas economy, creating more than 50,000 jobs in the Houston 
area, providing $48 million in State and local taxes, increase the 
gross State product by $1.9 billion.
  But I don't choose to be selfish in my amendment, and my amendment is 
a sense of Congress that says that it is the sense of Congress that the 
United States must decrease its dependence on oil from countries that 
are hostile to the interests of the United States and that Canada has 
been a strong trading partner, and increasing access to their energy 
resources will help create jobs in the United States. If I were to add 
to that, I would say continue the strong relationship between the 
United States and Canada.
  In addition, I think it is important to note that the President of 
the United States has indicated that we should decrease our reliance on 
foreign oil.

                              {time}  1650

  In this instance, I believe that we are making an effort toward that. 
Do I believe that we should, in essence, cross our environmental Ts? 
Absolutely. So I would ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. I would like to inform the Chair and the gentlelady from 
Texas that we think that her amendment reflects the thoughts of the 
American people, and we agree with it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. May I inquire as to the time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much for his 
agreement.
  Let me give a famous quote: ``Can we all get along?'' I mentioned the 
different agencies that will have oversight. I have listened to a 
number of concerns about safety, security, and health. I frankly 
believe we can do it all. We can increase jobs here up to 300,000 and 
we can pay attention to the issues of environmental safety and 
security.
  I think it will be important for TransCanada to be able to address 
the question of spills, important for there to be discussions about 
protecting against toxic chemicals, important to disarm farmers--when I 
say disarm them, about fears about the pipeline in their area.
  I've worked on pipelines. I know there is a lot of work that goes 
into construction, a lot of overall State laws that regulate the 
building. And so putting forward more safety procedures and standards, 
being concerned about the public health, and making sure that we 
address the concerns of all Americans is an important step.
  But I think we have a bottom line here: the importance of lessening 
our dependence on foreign oil, and as well to be able to ensure that 
jobs are created here in America. That's what we are sent to Congress 
to do: to create these jobs, to stand alongside our neighbors and make 
sure they have a safe environment while they work, and produce an 
economy that is known only to America, the greatest economy in the 
world.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I thank the Chair for this opportunity to explain my amendment #6 to 
H.R. 1938 ``North American Made Energy Security Act,'' expressing the 
sense of Congress that it is imperative that we decrease our dependency 
on oil from nations hostile to our national interest. Canada has long 
been a strong trading partner, and increased access to their energy 
resources will create jobs in the United States.
  I represent the 18th Congressional District in Houston, TX, our 
Nation's energy capital. I understand the vital role that the oil and 
gas industry plays in our economy and will continue to play in the 
future. Our nation needs a concrete and viable strategy for gaining 
independence from foreign oil and gas sources. These strategies need 
balance on the one hand this pipeline will create jobs and on the other 
we must weigh the costs associated. Upon careful and deliberate 
considerations of our energy needs, our need for jobs, and our need to 
protect our national security will result in finding a comprehensive 
energy strategy that works.
  Houston is the fourth most populous city in the United States, and is 
home to nearly 3,500 energy companies and related firms. There is no 
denying the importance the energy industry has in creating jobs in 
Houston and across our Nation. I understand the need to put the hard-
working people of the Gulf region back to work, and I believe it can be 
done in compromise with The Department of Interior. We have all heard 
the famous phrase ``can't we all just get along.'' I believe that we 
can get along.
  I have consistently brought attention to our dependence on oil coming 
from nations in the Middle East who are in turmoil and have shifting 
views of the United States. I offer this amendment to call attention to 
the national security implications of our continued dependency on 
foreign oil imports. I also, offer this amendment to draw attention to 
the need to create jobs here in the United States.
  The United States imports 49% of all the oil we use. In 2010, 16% of 
oil imports came from OPEC countries in Africa and South America, with 
another 9% coming from OPEC nations in the Persian Gulf. Relying on oil 
imports from hostile regions greatly weakens our energy security.
  A variety of events have caused increases in the price of oil over 
the last decade. In 2003, strikes shut down oil production in 
Venezuela, increasing oil prices of other OPEC nations. A 2004 
terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia caused a sudden increase in oil 
prices, as did militant attacks in Nigeria in 2003, 2007 and 2008.
  With the current political unrest brought by the Arab Spring, our oil 
supply is constantly threatened by hostile nations, and circumstances 
beyond our control. Oil is an integral part of the U.S. economy. 40% of 
the nation's total energy requirements are met by oil, including 94% of 
the energy used in transportation, and 41% of the energy used by the 
industrial sector.
  Increases in the price of oil affect average American consumers as 
well as industry. Last week, the average price of gas in Houston ranged 
from $3.57 to $3.85, according to the U.S. Energy Information 
Administration's weekly retail gasoline index.
  Increasing the amount of oil imported from Canada is beneficial to 
both our energy security and economy. Canada provides a far more stable 
source of oil than many of the OPEC countries, and importing Canadian 
oil often yields investment in U.S. infrastructure.
  Additionally, Canada has been a longtime ally of the United States, 
and an important trading partner. In fact, the U.S. and Canada 
represent the world's largest two-way trading

[[Page H5529]]

relationship, and for every U.S. dollar spent on Canadian products, 
including oil, 90 cents is returned to the U.S. economy.
  In addition to providing a stable and reliable energy source, the 
Keystone pipeline XL, which we are considering in H.R. 1938, will 
generate $20 billion of private sector investment in the U.S. economy, 
as well as $585 million in new taxes for states and communities along 
the pipeline route.
  The American oil and gas industry are inextricably linked to our 
economy, and we must take steps to ensure that the U.S. remains 
competitive in the energy sector. According to an independent review of 
the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and its potential economic impact, 
during the construction period the pipeline will stimulate $20 billion 
in new spending for the U.S. economy, spur the creation of 118,000 jobs 
and generate more than $585 million in state and local taxes for the 
states along the pipeline route. When Keystone XL is operational, the 
states along the pipeline route are expected to receive an additional 
$5.2 billion in property taxes during the operating life of the 
pipeline, according to the analysis.

  However, there are some aspects of the legislation that require 
further review. I am particularly concerned about the implications of 
Congress legislating to force a decision of executive authority, as 
well as the environmental risks that may be associated with the 
pipeline.
  As a Representative of Houston, the nation's energy capital, I 
certainly understand the importance of the energy industry with regard 
to our economy. The energy sector creates jobs, and increased energy 
production is good for the economy, but I do have reservations about 
the precedent set by this legislation. Ordinarily, we do not require a 
permit for constructing oil pipelines. However, any pipeline that 
connects the United States and another country is subject to executive 
permission, conveyed through a Presidential permit. Historically, any 
pipeline crossing international borders has required executive 
permission by way of a Presidential permit. Executive Order 13337 
designates the Secretary of State as able to receive applications for 
Presidential permits. TransCanada submitted its permit applications to 
the Department of State in September of 2008. Environmental impact 
review has been underway since January of 2009, and has included public 
comment periods with extensions for additional input from impacted 
communities. The State Department is afforded primary jurisdiction over 
the proposal for the pipeline and expects to make a decision by the end 
of the year. Forcing the State Department and President Obama to render 
a decision before completing a thorough review is in no one's interest. 
Currently several agencies have worked together to determine the 
feasibility of this pipeline.
  The Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be released 
by the EPA in August, at which time, the Secretaries of Defense, 
Commerce, Transportation, Energy, and Homeland Security, along with the 
Attorney General, and EPA Administrator will be asked for their views.
  It is imperative that we achieve energy independence; we cannot 
continue to rely on foreign sources of oil from regions of the world 
which are unstable, and in some cases, opposed to our interests. 
Accordingly, there is no issue more integral to our economic and 
national security than energy independence.
  We must encourage the development of innovative new technologies that 
create jobs; we must focus on reducing carbon emissions, protecting 
consumers, and increasing production of clean and renewable energy 
sources to truly modernize our infrastructure.
  Yet, oil and gas companies provide jobs and serve a valuable need, 
and must be instrumental in devising a pragmatic strategy for achieving 
energy independence. We need new solutions, but they must strike a 
balance that will support continued growth in the oil and gas industry.
  However, we must also carefully examine any project that impacts the 
environment to prevent lasting harmful effects to the nation and the 
planet. Before a decision is rendered on the current Keystone pipeline 
XL project, it is essential the proposal be thoroughly reviewed, and 
all environmental impact be evaluated.
  We can work together to find a solution to our energy concerns upon 
which we can all agree. We can take the time to educate farmers who 
have valid concerns. We can brief environmental groups and seek their 
input from the planning stages to the implementation of the Process. We 
must not forget that the Canadian people also have an interest in 
protecting their environment. Certain parts of Canada are known for 
their pristine landscapes and nature conservatories. We must be 
prepared to advance and listen to the environmental concerns raised in 
the United States and Canada. We must protect both our citizens and the 
citizens of Canada.
  The pipeline considered in this legislation transports tar sands oil, 
a high polluting fuel that produces high rates of carbon emissions. We 
must consider the potential for leaks and explosions that will release 
harmful toxins into the environment.

  I am confident that both parties can find ways to work with the 
energy industry, the Administration, and other stakeholders to forge a 
compromise that will protect the environment without an adverse impact 
on the industry or consumers.
  Rome was not built in a day; however, it was built on the backs of 
hard workers. At a time when our citizens seeking employment, many are 
struggling to live from one check to the next, it is imperative to 
review opportunities presented to us that will create a significant 
amount of jobs. We must utilize the technology and the resources we 
have at hand to advance our understanding of how to effectively process 
and use energy. We must acknowledge that we need energy. Our need for 
energy requires a comprehensive energy plan that will create jobs and 
decrease our dependence on countries that are hostile to our interests 
and indeed to our national security.
  The oil resources currently available in Alberta, Canada are second 
to those available in Saudi Arabia. No one can argue that against the 
preference of getting oil from a stable country rather than from 
countries that are constantly in turmoil.
  Canada has been our longest and strongest trading partner. Our 
countries share a common boarder and a common language. The sky will 
not fall if we build a pipeline. There is no doubt that we have all 
learned from the damage that can result by accidents caused by poor 
oversight.
  I have thought about both the pros and the cons. I have carefully 
studied this issue. I believe that we must use the technology of today 
to advance the technology of the future. A lot has been made today of 
the recent pipeline explosion--has anyone asked why it occurred? How to 
prevent it from happening again?
  Today, we are faced with looking at ways to decrease our dependence 
on oil from nations that are hostile to our interests. I support firmly 
advancing, if not this pipeline, then access to the oil resources in 
Canada. We must look at the thousands of jobs that can be created. 
There is .3 billion in revenue that can be generated. In the greater 
Houston area which has suffered so much job loss this will add 
thousands of jobs.
  The arguments made have been balanced ones; however, when placed in 
context, when balanced against the need for working parents to have 
jobs that will feed their children during a time of economic crisis, 
then we must consider all options. I have long been and will continue 
to be a champion of the environment. Groups who have championed the 
environment are the very watchdogs we need to ensure its safety. At 
this time, our relationship with Canada merits careful and deliberative 
consideration.
  We must consider all of the aspects of this legislation, and I offer 
this amendment to express the Sense of Congress that, despite how we 
will individually vote on H.R. 1938, we are committed to reducing our 
dependency on foreign oil from hostile regions, or those that oppose 
the interests of the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and make very clear to 
the American people that we are dedicated to finding stable energy 
sources, reducing fuel costs, and creating jobs.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 112-181.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 7, after line 23, insert the following new subsection:
       (e) Manipulation of Oil Markets.--The President shall not 
     issue a final order granting or denying the Presidential 
     Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline until the Secretary of 
     Energy, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, 
     has certified that permitting the pipeline would not lead to 
     manipulation of the United States oil market that would be 
     detrimental to United States consumers.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, Americans are turning to the Federal 
Government for relief from high gas prices. However, approval of the 
Keystone XL pipeline will lead to exactly the opposite result; it will 
actually raise gas

[[Page H5530]]

prices--principally in the Midwest. In fact, some of the States that 
will suffer the worst gas price increases are the same ones that will 
have to bear the environmental burden of this pipeline.
  This is not just my conclusion, this is the conclusion of 
TransCanada, the company that wants to build the Keystone XL pipeline. 
This is the conclusion of international energy consultant Purvin and 
Gertz, Inc., the company that TransCanada hired to evaluate its 
Keystone XL pipeline. And this is the conclusion of respected oil 
market economist Philip Verleger. That is why TransCanada wants to 
build this pipeline.
  My amendment simply requires the Secretary of Energy to analyze the 
effect of the proposed pipeline on increased gas prices for American 
consumers and to determine if this pipeline is just an effort to 
manipulate the market for crude oil in the United States.
  The proposed pipeline would carry up to 900,000 barrels per day of 
tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada over 2,000 miles to refineries on 
the U.S. gulf coast. Proponents have claimed that it would bring down 
oil prices.
  However, TransCanada's permit application to the Canadian Government 
for the pipeline included documents and testimony which said Canadian 
oil companies could use the pipeline to increase America's fuel bill by 
up to $4 billion per year by limiting the supply of Canadian crude to 
Midwest refineries and rerouting it to gulf coast refineries. This 
benefit to Canadian oil companies was used by TransCanada to argue that 
approval of the pipeline was in Canada's interest, but this information 
was conveniently hidden when TransCanada applied for the U.S. 
Presidential permit from the State Department.
  This information comes from a report by international energy 
consultant Purvin and Gertz, Inc., the company that TransCanada hired 
to evaluate its Keystone XL pipeline.
  In section 3.4.3 of their report, they concluded that there was an 
oversupply of crude oil in the Midwest that resulted in lower prices 
for Canadian crude oil and that the Keystone XL pipeline would remove 
this oversupply and raise crude oil prices in the market. In section 
3.4.5 of their report, they recite that ``Keystone has reviewed the PGI 
assessment and agrees with its conclusions.''
  Through manipulation of U.S. oil markets, the Keystone XL pipeline 
will increase U.S. gas prices by 10 to 20 cents per gallon across the 
United States, according to respected oil market economist Phillip 
Verleger. However, the greatest price increase--twice as much by one 
estimate--will occur in 15 States, including my State of Ohio, 
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, 
and Wisconsin. It is estimated to increase prices by $6.55 per barrel 
of crude oil in the Midwest and $3 per barrel across the U.S.
  This market manipulation will gouge American consumers, forcing them 
to hand over up to 3.9 billion hard-earned American dollars to foreign 
oil companies every year. While this boon may benefit TransCanada and 
Canadian oil shareholders, it will only further devastate the American 
people, our economy, and farmers who are already struggling financially 
and can't afford a gas price hike.
  Americans want low gas prices. Permitting the Keystone XL pipeline 
will deliver the opposite by increasing prices at the pump and making 
Americans pay more and more for almost every commodity they purchase.
  I urge my colleagues to protect Americans from being further gouged 
by foreign oil companies and to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. I strongly oppose this amendment. This is a poison pill, 
especially the way that this amendment is worded.
  Now, the reality here is when this infrastructure of the pipeline is 
completed to U.S. refineries that are expanding to be able to accept 
this additional crude from Canada, we will have a reliable supply of at 
least 700,000 barrels per day--not relying on the Middle East as the 
gentlelady from Texas just spoke about, wherein the Arab Spring 
provided great uncertainty of which speculators took advantage.
  But the reality here for the U.S. markets is that we won't have to 
deal with that uncertainty if we continue to take steps like the 
Keystone XL pipeline. Once again, a reliable resource of 700,000 to 1.3 
million barrels per day will only deflate prices at the pump.

                              {time}  1700

  That's what the American citizens want. They want stability and 
reduced prices at the pump. It is a bogus argument to say that this 
pipeline is going to lead to an increase at the pump. It just doesn't 
make sense.
  Now, what I believe is a strained conclusion of a comment made by a 
TransCanada employee that they can actually charge more, well, the 
reality is heavy crude is heavily discounted when compared to a sweet 
or lighter crude that is easier and less costly to refine. So there is 
a discount in there. But if you have a pipeline that easily transports 
and eliminates a lot of the costs of transporting and you have 
reliability, that does slightly increase the value to those buyers of 
that crude in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and other parts of the 
Midwest.
  So the reality is this heavy crude still will not rise to the price 
of a sweet crude. The reality is the reliability of this oil coming to 
U.S. refineries will lower the price at the pumps, and that's what we 
should be doing, besides all of the jobs that will be created from this 
pipeline: 20,000 direct jobs created from this pipeline, energy 
security, an additional 100,000 to 200,000 jobs created on top of the 
construction.
  So we need to move. We need the decision made. The data is here. They 
have enough time for additional comments to be able to make the 
decision by November 1.
  I urge defeat of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. How much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Ohio has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. KUCINICH. The bottom line is the people whose jobs depend on 
their being right, and a company with billions of dollars at stake, all 
concluded that increases in price of gas will especially hit the 
Midwest as a result of this pipeline. These aren't just employees of 
TransCanada; these people are experts, legal experts who put this in an 
application. This is not a bogus argument.
  If that is a bogus argument, to my friend, then that information 
should be conveyed to the Government of Canada, because TransCanada's 
permit application to the Canadian Government for a pipeline included 
documents and testimony which said that Canadian oil companies could 
use the pipeline to increase America's fuel bill by $4 billion per year 
by limiting the supply of Canadian crude to Midwest refineries and 
rerouting it to gulf coast refineries.
  Stand up for the American consumer.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. American workers and American consumers will be better 
off. They will reap the advantages of a reliable source of energy, 
eliminating, or at least greatly reducing, the uncertainties that cause 
the gas price spikes at the pump. Let's defeat this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-181 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Welch of Vermont.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.

[[Page H5531]]

  Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Eshoo of California.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Hanabusa of Hawaii.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Welch

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Welch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 260, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 640]

                               AYES--164

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--260

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bachmann
     Bishop (UT)
     Carter
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Jordan
     Sanchez, Linda T.

                              {time}  1731

  Messrs. POSEY and BISHOP of Georgia changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


 Moment of Silence in Remembrance of Members of Armed Forces and their 
                                Families

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Johnson of Ohio). The Chair would ask all 
present to rise for the purpose of a moment of silence.
  The Chair asks that the Committee now observe a moment of silence in 
remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their 
lives in the service of our Nation in Iraq and in Afghanistan and their 
families, and of all who serve in our Armed Forces and their families.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LaTourette). The unfinished business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 261, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 641]

                               AYES--164

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)

[[Page H5532]]


     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--261

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Johnson (IL)
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bachmann
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Lee (CA)
     Pelosi

                              {time}  1738

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 641, I inadvertently 
voted ``yes'' on the Rush Amendment, when I intended to vote ``no.'' I 
had just led a moment of silence from the chair, and in the excitement 
afterwards pressed the wrong button.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Eshoo

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 264, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 642]

                               AYES--163

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--264

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall

[[Page H5533]]


     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bachmann
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Nunnelee

                              {time}  1742

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Cohen) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155, 
noes 272, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 643]

                               AYES--155

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--272

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bachmann
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Walberg

                              {time}  1746

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152, 
noes 275, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 644]

                               AYES--152

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Shuler
     Sires

[[Page H5534]]


     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--275

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey

                              {time}  1750

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Rush) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, 
noes 265, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 645]

                               AYES--161

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--265

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bachmann
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Stark
     Wolf

[[Page H5535]]



                              {time}  1755

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Hanabusa

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Ms. Hanabusa) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 260, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 646]

                               AYES--168

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--260

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bachmann
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey

                              {time}  1758

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 263, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 647]

                               AYES--163

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--263

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy

[[Page H5536]]


     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bachmann
     Cantor
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Nugent

                              {time}  1804

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 261, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 648]

                               AYES--164

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--261

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bachmann
     Cantor
     Deutch
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Scott, Austin

                              {time}  1807

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 648 I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________