[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.''
____________________