[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 71 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3038-H3049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4348, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                     EXTENSION ACT OF 2012, PART II

  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Barrow moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed 
     to insist on title II of the House bill, regarding approval 
     of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
clause 7 of rule XXII, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) each will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether whoever is 
claiming time to speak on this motion on the Republican side of the 
aisle is, in fact, opposed to the motion.
  Mr. UPTON. I would like to claim time on the Republican side in 
support of the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7(b)(2) of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BARROW. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a motion to instruct the conferees 
on the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012 to insist on title 
II of that act, which contains revisions of the North American Energy 
Access Act, essentially calling for the completion of the Keystone XL 
pipeline.
  Mr. Speaker, in these times of increasing security threats and 
economic uncertainty, the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline 
represents a win-win for America's national security and economic 
interests. Not only will this project create thousands of much-needed 
jobs, but it will secure America's energy future by reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  By working with our neighbors to the north on an effort that ramps up 
our domestic energy production, we'll better protect families here at 
home from the effects of energy market insecurity caused by political 
and economic troubles in other parts of the world. Estimates vary, but 
the most conservative estimates predict that this jobs project will 
create 13,000 new construction jobs and an additional 7,000 
manufacturing jobs.
  But that's not all, Mr. Speaker. The Keystone XL pipeline, when 
operating at capacity, will be able to move 840,000 barrels of oil per 
day into our domestic refining capacity on the domestic production 
market. To put that in perspective, America imports about 8.4 million 
barrels per day. The carrying capacity of this pipeline alone is 10 
percent of America's net national daily imports. America consumes 20 
million barrels of oil a day. The carrying capacity of this pipeline 
represents 5 percent of current U.S. daily consumption of oil products.
  The U.S. produces about 8.8 million barrels a day. This pipeline will 
have the capacity to bring in 10 percent more than what we're already 
producing on a daily basis here in this country. It also represents 
approximately a one-third increase in the total daily imports from 
Canada. And if that wasn't enough, the 840,000 barrels a day this 
pipeline carries comes real close to the 900,000 barrels that we import 
every day from Venezuela.
  I don't know about anybody else, but any policy in this country that 
private enterprise is going to lead the way on and pay for that can 
cause us to tell the folks in Venezuela, Good-bye, we'll see you later, 
that's good economic policy and good energy policy for this country.
  Mr. Speaker, we've held hearings on this matter. We've engaged the 
public and energy experts. We've checked and rechecked for 
environmental soundness

[[Page H3039]]

and debated for hours on the floor of this House. After all that, what 
we're left with is a very well-vetted and, I think, worthwhile project 
that is ready to start construction. For the jobs and for the energy 
security, the folks I represent want us to get moving on this. We have 
an opportunity to make that happen in the highway bill conference 
that's currently under way.
  I encourage my colleagues to support my motion to instruct so we can 
send that message loud and clear to the conferees.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment is really about jobs and the economy. The 
President, you will remember, in a national address in January, said he 
would do whatever it takes to create U.S. jobs. That's what this bill 
does. It creates, by just about everybody's estimate, 20,000 direct 
jobs and more than 100,000 indirect jobs. And I would note that under 
Ed Whitfield's leadership, the chairman of the Energy and Power 
Subcommittee, we went through regular order on this bill last year. We 
held hearings, we held a subcommittee markup, we had a full committee 
markup, and last summer we passed it on the House floor by almost a 
two-to-one margin; obviously, bipartisan.
  Mr. Speaker, we consume about 18 or 19 million barrels of oil every 
day. We produce only 8 to 9 million barrels a day. This is a pipeline 
that will bring us 800,000 barrels a day from our friends, the 
Canadians.
  We've waited 3 years. You'll remember that Secretary of State Hillary 
Clinton said in October of 2010 that she was inclined to support this. 
And in August of last year she said, We'll have the review done before 
the end of the year. It's not been done yet. And even though this House 
passed the bill by a significant margin, the Senate did not act. That's 
why this bill has been attached to a couple of different bills, and now 
it's part of the highway bill. I support the gentleman's instruction to 
the conferees to include this.
  The route has been rerouted through Nebraska. They now support this 
new route. We have spent billions of dollars in our refineries across 
the country trying to get ready for this new source of oil coming from 
our friends, the Canadians. So what happens if we continue to say no? 
The Canadians, for sure, are going to still produce this. They're still 
going to mine the oil sands in Alberta. But it's not going to come 
here. It's going to go to China. China is prepared to spend with the 
Canadians literally billions of dollars to send it there, of which none 
of it will come back to the United States.
  That is not the right answer. No, it's not. That's why it's not only 
a national security issue as part of the highway bill, but it's also a 
way that we will know that we will have a steady source of supply.
  Now let me just make one more point. Today, we import from Canada 2.6 
million barrels of oil every single day. A million barrels of that 
already is oil sands. In my home State of Michigan, the Marathon 
refinery outside of Detroit has spent $2.2 billion expanding their 
refinery, preparing for oil sands--not from Alberta, not from this part 
of Canada, but other parts--of which the oil sands will then be part of 
what we consume here in the United States. A million barrels of the 2.6 
million that Canada sends us every day is oil sands. What is the 
problem with expanding that by another 800,000 barrels a day that will 
produce American jobs and allow us to have less reliance on friends 
like Venezuela and folks in the Middle East, if we can use our best 
friend, Canada, to help us provide this oil to the United States?
  So I support the gentleman's instruction. I hope that it will pass 
when we have the vote tomorrow.
  I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be reserved and 
under the direction of Mr. Whitfield, the subcommittee chair of the 
Energy and Power Subcommittee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Woodall). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to this instruction.
  First of all, whatever your views are on the pipeline coming out of 
Canada, this is not the place for this issue to be brought up because 
what this provision would do would be to short-circuit the 
decisionmaking and mandate approval of the pipeline. It doesn't belong 
in the transportation bill.
  We see this over and over again. Our Republican colleagues like to 
take bills and then hold them hostage to get what they want. They 
wanted to get the pipeline approved so they mandated the President had 
to make a decision within 60 days in a previous bill. The President 
didn't want it. He said, Okay, I'll sign it. But then he said he's not 
ready to make a decision in 60 days.
  So this provision doesn't require him to make a decision. It tells 
him this is going to be decided. This is going to be done. That's what 
we used to call earmarks, and in fact this is an earmark--a special 
interest earmark.
  On its merits, this legislative earmark for TransCanada makes no 
sense. Mandating approval of the Keystone XL pipeline might help jobs 
in other countries. It might create more jobs in Canada. But when the 
Republicans tell us it's going to produce so many jobs in the United 
States, they are not buying a pipeline; they are buying a pipe dream.
  A green light for Keystone will lead to massive imports of 
transmission pipe manufactured overseas. The American people will bear 
all the risks and Big Oil will reap all the rewards of this pipeline. 
We are going to get more carbon pollution, more dangerous oil spills, 
land seizures by a foreign company, and higher oil prices in the 
Midwest. Big Oil gets the ability to extract more profits from the 
Midwest, a conduit for exploiting tar sands products to China, because 
that's where this oil is going to go. Because it's an international 
transport of oil from these tar sands from Canada to the United States 
going down to the Gulf, it can then be put on steamers and sent to 
China, and there is no restriction against it. We have open markets, 
and China would be delighted to take that oil. But it is not going to 
benefit us. It is going to benefit China.
  President Obama listened to the differing views of American citizens 
and he made a responsible decision. He said he was not going to approve 
this pipeline through the ecologically fragile Sand Hills area of 
Nebraska. But the State Department would consider an alternative route, 
and Nebraska is still looking for another route that would be 
acceptable to the State.
  The President is making sure he has all the information he needs to 
make the right decision. This provision takes the opposite approach. It 
gives the pipeline an unprecedented legislative earmark. It doesn't 
give discretion. It requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
to approve the pipeline immediately, even though we don't know what 
route it will take through Nebraska.
  I think we ought to recognize these tar sands in Canada are very, 
very dirty, and it is going to require a lot of energy to get them into 
an oil form that can be transported through a pipeline. The consequence 
of that is going to be to add more carbon emissions at a time when our 
planet is already suffering from global warming and extreme climate 
change.
  It would be incredibly reckless for Congress to jeopardize this 
critically important transportation bill by playing politics over an 
unrelated and extraneous provision. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
motion and to not put in this poison pill provision that would lead to 
the whole transportation bill being vetoed.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARROW. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, construction of the Keystone XL pipeline 
would create thousands of jobs for hardworking Americans, but it would 
also increase our energy independence. Canada has already confirmed its 
intention to build the pipeline. The only question now is whether or 
not our Nation will benefit from the jobs, economic growth, and energy 
security that comes with construction of the pipeline.
  We cannot allow this opportunity to pass us by. The project would be 
developed in keeping with all environmental

[[Page H3040]]

regulations and constructed with the safest and most advanced pipeline 
technology available. What's more, the Keystone pipeline takes 
advantage of Canada's vast oil resources that are the second-largest on 
the planet.
  The time for delay has long since passed. The House legislation would 
advance the approval and construction of the pipeline passed by the 
House on multiple occasions with bipartisan support. The Keystone 
pipeline has the potential to become a viable, long-lasting, 
sustainable source of energy for the future. Construction of the 
pipeline would provide a steady source of energy for our country, 
decrease our reliance on volatile oil markets, and provide the 
certainty that comes with steady jobs for tens of thousands of 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, the pipeline is going to be built. What is left to 
decide is whether Americans will benefit from it. I strongly urge the 
conferees on the Surface Transportation reauthorization committee to 
include the Keystone pipeline in the final bill, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to continue to advance our Nation's energy 
independence.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who 
is one of the primary sponsors of the Keystone pipeline legislation, 
and the route of the pipeline will be going partially through his home 
State of Nebraska.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise in strong 
support of the gentleman from Georgia's motion to instruct conferees to 
support the Keystone pipeline in the transportation bill.
  Let's start with a quick tutorial here. Right here above the United 
States border in Canada, a couple hundred miles north of our border, 
lies the second or third largest current reserve of oil.
  Now, there's already an existing pipeline coming down through the 
Bakken fields in North Dakota. This blue dotted line is the new 
pipeline, the one that is of controversy now, mostly because the 
environmental left, the NRDC and some other organizations that have 
come out and opposed that because they don't want fossil fuel use, 
especially a heavier crude. Now, that's the focus of the debate. They 
have stated that their whole goal here is to kill this pipeline.
  Now, what does this pipeline do for the United States of America? 
First of all, we have the second or third largest reserve here. This 
pipeline will bring 800,000 barrels per day. We've already heard from 
two different gentlemen that our country imports about 10 million 
barrels per day. So if we can bring 800,000 to a million barrels per 
day, that's that much less that has to be imported from a country like 
Venezuela. And, by the way, we import about 800,000 to 900,000 barrels 
per day from Venezuela. Maybe we can stop sending our dollars to 
Venezuela so they can buy military equipment from Europe--I'm sorry--
from Russia to destabilize South and Central America, which is what 
these dollars are doing.
  So it provides us a level of energy security; offsets imports into 
our country from countries we don't like.
  The bonus here is jobs--10,000 to 20,000 jobs will be created 
directly. And we hear statements that it won't create jobs, but I can 
take you to the laborers' facility that has a project labor agreement 
in hand. I can take you to the IBEW that has a project labor agreement 
in hand. I can take you to several other of our unions that have 
agreements ready to go if they would start building this pipeline.
  Now, I wanted to mention and clear up some of the misinformation 
that's out there regarding this pipeline in my home State of Nebraska.
  First of all, in the efforts that we took to get this pipeline out of 
the politics of the White House and into reasonable hands to get this 
approved, we exempted the State of Nebraska, giving them enough time to 
find a new route. The President ignored that provision of the bill and 
still used the State of Nebraska as his excuse to kill the pipeline. 
We're here today because the President denied their permit, said no to 
the Keystone pipeline.
  Well, as we stand here today, this pipeline has already been 
rerouted, a different route chosen off of the Sand Hills of Nebraska. 
The environmental assessment is occurring as we speak here today, and 
it'll be done in a few months. There is no longer an excuse for the 
President to use to kill this new permit just recently filed by 
TransCanada for this pipeline.
  So in review, we offset the oil we import from other countries we 
don't like.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. TERRY. We create 20,000 jobs building this pipeline, and we have 
a relationship with China where we access the second or third largest 
reserve.
  And the gentleman is right. There's a pipeline that they're building 
to go off west so the Chinese can have access to part of this. We need 
this oil. Let's complement our friends and let's pass this pipeline.
  Mr. WAXMAN. At this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), an important member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to 
instruct.
  Like Mr. Barrow and many of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, I support building this pipeline in a way that protects the 
environment and creates good American jobs--but not in the manner that 
this motion to instruct would have us do.
  I've come to the floor many times to talk about the Keystone 
pipeline. Many times my concern was that we're not using enough 
American-made steel in this project, that a lot of what we were told 
initially about the steel worker jobs and the things that would be 
created just didn't come to materialize. But my biggest concern with 
this motion to instruct is we're once again talking about a 30-day 
timeline for approval from an agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, which has nothing to do with oil pipeline siting and 
permitting.
  We're tasking FERC with the regulation of wholesale electricity. We 
task them with ensuring reliability, hydropower permitting, and natural 
gas pipeline siting. FERC doesn't have the authority or the expertise 
to permit and site oil pipeline at all, and it is unrealistic to expect 
that they can do it in 30 days. And if FERC doesn't issue a permit in 
30 days, it doesn't matter; this motion would allow the permit to be 
deemed as issued, to build the Keystone XL pipeline even if FERC 
doesn't approve a permit within 30 days.
  A 30-day arbitrary and rushed approval for this pipeline is not worth 
holding up our entire highway bill conference. The Keystone XL pipeline 
will be built in due time with appropriate permitting. It will create 
good-paying jobs and strengthen our relationship with our neighbor 
Canada. Let's not hold up the highway bill conference that can bring 
even more good jobs and improved infrastructure that our country so 
badly needs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for offering this 
motion and I thank him for yielding me this time.
  We've heard a lot from different Members out here already about what 
the construction of this pipeline would mean in terms of increased 
capacity, of product coming from North American sources for U.S. oil 
consumption. We've heard about the jobs for the construction of the 
pipeline, and I'm not going to repeat all of those numbers and 
statistics. But I thought it would be helpful to talk about a couple of 
the issues that have been raised about this pipeline and try to clarify 
some of the facts about what's going on with this type of product and 
this type of pipeline.
  A lot of people think this is a brand new product. They're worried 
about product from oil sands. In fact, according to the Congressional 
Research Service, there are already five other pipelines that are 
bringing this product from Canada to the United States. In fact, for 
years this product has been coming to refineries in the State of Utah, 
where I'm from, and refined in refineries in North Salt Lake.
  The most recent of those five pipelines that brings this product from

[[Page H3041]]

Canada was actually approved by the Obama administration in 2009. It 
brings 800,000 barrels a day from Canada into the United States. And 
when that project was approved by the Obama administration's State 
Department, the State Department said that the pipeline would send:

       A positive economic signal in a difficult economic period 
     about the future reliability and availability of a portion of 
     United States' energy imports, and in the immediate term, 
     this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for 
     workers in the United States.

  Now, when it comes to the Keystone proposal, as it was going through 
3 years of environmental review, when discussing this pipeline, 
Secretary Clinton's Coordinator for International Energy Affairs, David 
Goldwyn, stated:

       Balancing jobs and energy security . . . I think the case 
     for a pipeline is overwhelming and she will approve it.

                              {time}  1950

  This is a project that has received a lot of scrutiny. It's not a new 
type of project--five other ones come to this country. I know there may 
be some unique aspects of this specific pipeline proposal, but in 
general there are five other ones that bring this product to the United 
States already.
  This has become a symbol. We can have honest disagreements about what 
we think about issues, but we should make sure we understand what the 
facts are about this pipeline. As I said, this product has already come 
into this country many times.
  I thank the gentleman again for offering this motion to recommit, and 
I urge passage.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee and a real advocate for the Keystone 
pipeline.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.
  I want to rise in strong support of the gentleman from Georgia's 
motion to instruct. This is a strong bipartisan motion that has support 
not only in the Halls of Congress, but also has support amongst the 
American people as they look at this proposal.
  Keystone, our friend in Canada, they have vast oil reserves, and 
they're going to extract those reserves whether they're used in America 
or whether they're used in China. So the question is not whether or not 
Canada is going to go and explore their oil sands, it's whether or not 
we get the oil from a friend in Canada--1 million barrels a day when 
it's in operation--or we continue to become more reliant on Middle 
Eastern oil, oil from countries, in many cases, that use the money that 
we send--the billions of dollars a day we send to them--against us, 
against our troops.
  We have an opportunity to do many things here. We can help secure 
America's energy independence by saying that's 1 million barrels a day 
less that we need to get from Middle Eastern countries who don't like 
us, we can get it from a friend in Canada. They want to send it to us. 
And oh, by the way, it's going to create about 20,000 American jobs 
upfront. There's much more to come. The estimates are even higher long 
term once the pipeline is in operation.
  This shouldn't even be a dilemma. It's not controversial to most 
people. Most people consider it a no-brainer--20,000 jobs, 1 million 
barrels a day of oil from a friend in Canada instead of other 
countries--and yet President Obama has said no. Now, he goes around 
giving speeches saying he's for all of the above. We've heard it time 
and time again, he's for all of the above. Maybe he's for all up above, 
but nothing below. Because if you say ``no'' to the Keystone pipeline, 
you're not for an all-of-the-above energy.
  You just look at the facts. We've got the opportunity to say ``yes'' 
to something that creates great jobs, and this transportation bill is 
the perfect place for it because this is infrastructure. We've got 
pipeline already running all throughout our country.
  Even if this amendment passes, Mr. Chairman, there's nothing that 
says that every State has to have the Keystone pipeline go through it. 
If there are any environmental issues, each State still has to permit 
the pipeline if it goes through their State. So each State still has 
the ability to say, look, we want to make sure the route fits best with 
our environment. That will happen anyway, even if it's approved.
  But if the President rejects Keystone, make no doubt about it, the 
oil will still be produced in Canada, except it will be sent to China, 
and the jobs will be sent to China, and the billions of dollars of 
private investment--this isn't one of those phony stimulus bills where 
we print a bunch of money we don't have and borrow it from China. This 
is actually real investment from private sources, and they want to 
spend those billions of dollars here in America. They want to create 
those jobs here in America. They want to help ensure our American 
energy independence right here at home, and the President keeps saying 
``no.''

  It's our opportunity to stand up in a bipartisan way and say this is 
something we all agree upon. Just because some radical 
environmentalists went and held a big rally over at the White House a 
few months ago, and literally 3 days later the President said, oh, 
wait, now I'm against Keystone. It's time for us to stand up and do the 
right thing--stand up for those American jobs, stand up for billions of 
dollars in private investment, and stand up for American energy 
security and say ``yes'' to the Keystone pipeline. I strongly support 
this motion.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from California.
  The transportation bill should be about increasing the number of 
riders on our mass transit systems to reduce our oil dependence. It 
should be about increasing the number of riders in HOV lanes to ease 
commuters' lives and to encourage people to get more energy-efficient 
vehicles. The transportation bill should not be used as a vehicle to 
force approval of the Keystone XL ``export'' pipeline, because that's 
what it is--it's an extra large export pipeline.
  The American Petroleum Institute ads claim that the Keystone pipeline 
will deliver oil ``to power our country.'' Sounds great. But in fact, 
there is no legislative guarantee that even a single drop of this oil 
and fuel from the Keystone ``export'' pipeline would stay in the United 
States for American consumers.
  When I asked, in the hearing, the president of the TransCanada 
pipeline company whether he would guarantee that the oil that came from 
Canada through the entirety of the United States would stay here in the 
United States, he said no, I will not give you a guarantee. So let us 
not hear again from the Republicans about how this is oil for America 
because the president of the pipeline would not give us a guarantee 
that he would keep the oil here in the United States. And why is that? 
Because the pipeline is going to Port Arthur, Texas.
  Now, what's so special about Port Arthur, Texas? Well, it just 
happens to be that it's a tax-free zone. So they're going to bring this 
pipeline, without any environmental safeguards because they just want 
to approve it themselves, the Congress--and a congressional expert is 
an oxymoron, okay. There is no such thing compared to real 
environmental experts, real experts in this area. A congressional 
expert is like jumbo shrimp or Salt Lake City nightlife--I mean, there 
is no such thing. And yet they're saying, no, let's approve the 
pipeline. No environmental safeguards--we'll just move it through, 
we're experts. We're going to supersede the Environmental Protection 
Agency and send it to Port Arthur, Texas. And then, in Port Arthur, 
Texas, it's going to get sent, and guess where it's going to get sent? 
You don't have to be Dick Tracy to figure this out. It's going to be 
sent to China. It's going to be sent to Latin America. It's going to be 
sent to Europe--tax free.
  By the way, if you represent Port Arthur, Texas--if you represent any 
part of Texas, vote ``yes'' on this resolution. I'll throw in Louisiana 
and Oklahoma as well. But if you come from another State, I don't know 
what you're thinking. I really don't know what you're thinking. You 
don't have a guarantee on the environment. You don't have a guarantee 
that the oil is going to stay here in the United States. You're going 
to accept the canards, the fabrications, the misrepresentations that 
this is oil for America, when no one will put it in the bill that the 
oil must stay in America.

[[Page H3042]]

  You won't hear the president of TransCanada or ExxonMobil or Chevron 
saying the oil is going to stay in America--let me know when that 
happens. This is oil that they're going to sell in other parts of the 
world. And why do they want to do that? Because right now a barrel of 
oil in the United States is $93 a barrel, and a barrel of oil in Europe 
is $115 a barrel. You don't have to be a finance major to figure out 
that they want to sell that oil on the world market.
  So all we are is just a big conduit for that dirtiest oil in the 
world coming out of Canada, coming right through the United States--
without environmental safeguards--going to Port Arthur, Texas, tax-free 
zone, to send it so that ExxonMobil and the rest of these companies can 
make a fortune on the global market. Now, is that crazy or what?
  Why are we debating this right now? And why are we listening to these 
people at the same time that we export? You know something else we 
export, ladies and gentlemen? We export our young men and women over to 
the Middle East in order to protect oil coming into the United States. 
We should not be exporting young men and women at the expense of 
domestic oil which we could keep in our own country. That should not be 
exported, not if more young men and women have to be sent overseas in 
order to protect the oil lines coming in from the Middle East. That's 
our greatest vulnerability.
  So vote ``no'' on this resolution. This is the capstone of the 
Republican majority's commitment to the oil industry. It is something 
that is very consistent with everything that they have done since they 
took over the majority. But the truth of the matter is is that this is 
just a one-way trip to exotic locations in China and Morocco and 
Singapore for oil that is going to compromise the environment of the 
United States and not protect our security one whit.
  I'm waiting for the first Republican to stand up and accept an 
amendment which would keep that oil in the United States. It just is 
not going to happen.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Kissell).

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Georgia for the time, and I rise in full support of his motion to 
instruct the conferees to support the Keystone pipeline.
  A lot of numbers and a lot of facts have been given out. I will not 
repeat those. I will just cover a couple of points very quickly.
  We have heard through the past years and even decades, we've talked 
about energy independence, but yet we haven't gotten that. We have the 
opportunity to create North American energy independence if we just 
make a few good decisions. This is one of them.
  It's time. We've talked about this long enough. It's time to move 
this pipeline forward for all of the benefits that we can receive in 
jobs, in energy security. It's time.
  We've heard a lot of discussions tonight about what the 
administration might say or Congress might say or the petroleum people 
and a few others. But we haven't heard something, an opinion for the 
American working families. Our families are desperate for energy 
security, for the pricing stability. This is a step towards that.
  We should not forget at all our American working families, our 
responsibility to helping them as they struggle to get by in this tough 
economy. They have to be front and center in this decision. So I 
encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  And I appreciate, once again, my colleague bringing this motion 
forward.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like, at this time, to yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to 
instruct the conferees. I'm a member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, and we would like to see our bill passed.
  And I represent a city, Memphis, Tennessee, that is the 
transportation and distribution center of America. Transportation jobs 
are extremely important to the city of Memphis.
  It's been 958 days, nine extensions, nearly 3 years since the last 
surface transportation bill expired. The Keystone proponents insist 
this language be in this transportation bill, which is language, if 
it's anywhere, should be in an energy bill, not a transportation bill. 
But by doing so, they will end the hopes of transportation workers 
throughout this country, let alone Memphis, to have a transportation 
reauthorization bill passed. We will, instead, have a 10th extension 
and even more uncertainty in the transportation business.
  The Senate's made it clear they're not going to accept the bill with 
the Keystone pipeline extension and so has the President of the United 
States, the same President of the United States who allowed the 
extension, the southern extension of the Keystone XL to go through. 
He's not against pipe lines. He's not against oil. But he's against 
this one because it hasn't gone through the proper processes. And at 
that time, he'll make a decision, pro or con. But it needs to go 
through the proper processes, so we don't need to defeat the scientific 
judgment and environmental studies that are necessary before we approve 
a pipeline.
  But what's happening is the proponents of the Keystone pipeline are 
paying homage to their patron saint, their patron saint, Big Oil. What 
Big Oil wants, Big Oil often gets. And it's Big Oil, not the people of 
Canada, our friends with the hockey pucks, our friends who have got a 
long-time good relationship with this Nation. It's Big Oil that will 
make the profit and control the oil. And Big Oil wants to sell it where 
they will make the most profit.
  There is a greater demand in this world for oil than ever before 
because of a burgeoning middle class in China and India and other parts 
of this world where people are starting to get cars and need gas to 
drive those cars. Because of that, the price of oil has gone up.
  While the middle class in America has shrunk, the middle class around 
the world has grown, and they want that oil, and that's where it's 
going to be sold. It doesn't have to go to Port Arthur, Texas, to go to 
other places. But it's going to be sold on the international market 
where it gets the best price for the oil companies who are already 
getting great tax breaks from this Congress, and that won't help the 
American people one iota.
  The fact is we need to end our addiction to Big Oil. We need to get 
away from fossil fuels, and we need to think about the next generation.
  James Hansen, a leading NASA climate scientist, has called the 
pipeline the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet. Game over. 
Give up future generations. Forget the flora and the fauna. Forget what 
we've known in the past.
  But the real issue besides that is this is just not relevant and 
pertinent to this bill. What's important is that we pass a 
reauthorization bill that builds our highways, improves our 
transportation system, gets more people into buses, finds alternative 
forms of energy, has bike lanes and encourages people to get around 
without burning fossil fuels, and gets our transportation bill passed 
and puts people to work.
  It's the best thing we could do for the economy is to pass the bill. 
And the conferees' suggestion that the Keystone pipeline be kept alive 
as an issue just keeps the passage of this bill further down the road, 
keeps American workers unemployed, keeps commerce stalled.
  We need to not approve this recommendation. I ask us to vote ``no.''
  Mr. BARROW. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, some have said that because we are inextricably part of 
a world market, because we consume more than we produce of this vital 
commodity that, therefore, we cannot legislate ourselves an island in 
this process; and since we both produce and consume and produce and 
export, therefore it follows from that that virtually anything we can 
get, any new source of conventional energy that we get is going to be a 
mere conduit, a pass-through to somebody else and a loss to us.
  I'd like to point out that we produce in this country some 12 million 
barrels a day. We export some 2.9 million to 3

[[Page H3043]]

million barrels a day. So there's both oil being produced in this 
country and exported, for a net annual production on a daily basis of 
8.8. It does not follow from that that any new sources of energy that 
we get are going to flow right through this country someplace else. In 
fact, a study commissioned by the Department of Energy addressed the 
dynamic effect of limiting our access to unconventional sources of this 
energy in Canada and allowing that energy to go someplace else.
  And a study compiled for the Department of Energy pointed out what 
the perverse effect of this would be. If we deny ourselves access to 
this new source of Canadian oil, what will happen is it will go to 
other countries. And who will fill the gap? Middle Eastern and African 
OPEC countries will actually increase their shipments to this country. 
We'll become more dependent upon imports from folks that we don't want 
to rely upon if we deny ourselves access to those folks we do want to 
rely upon.
  In the words of the study commissioned for the Department of Energy, 
they would displace, the Canadian oil crudes would be lost to the U.S. 
market and go instead to Asia. They would displace the world's 
balancing crudes, Middle Eastern and African, predominantly OPEC 
grades, which would in turn move to the USA. The net effect would be 
substantially higher U.S. dependence on crude oils from those sources, 
the sources we want to wean ourselves off of.
  Finally, along this line, it's been said that because we're 
describing conditions in ordinary terms when the markets are working as 
we hope they will and as they should, we need to remember, we need to 
bear in mind there's always the possibility the world market will fail 
us.
  I'm old enough to remember a time in this country's history when we 
were embargoed. First, in 1973, because we came to the aid of our ally, 
Israel, in response to the Yom Kippur War, we were embargoed by the 
OPEC oil countries. Folks who supply a little more than a third of our 
imports today, at that time, cut us off completely. It happened before. 
It did happen again in 1979. We were embargoed a second time in the 
same decade.
  We need to bear in mind that while we're concerned about market 
conditions and the ebb and flow of product and consumption in ordinary 
times, we also have to gird ourselves for the possibility that we can 
be embargoed by our current vendors. And against that backdrop, access 
to North American oil, in time of emergency, can have a far greater 
impact on our economic and national security at that time than the 
conditions we're talking about and arguing about now in the ordinary 
course of events.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side 
has?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chaffetz). The gentleman from California 
has 5 minutes. The gentleman from Georgia has 8\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from Kentucky has 8 minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Before I yield to Mr. Rush from Illinois, I just want to 
make a comment.
  We need to get ourselves off of our dependence on oil whether it is 
from the United States or overseas; and if we go along with this 
pipeline, we are increasing our dependence on a very, very dirty oil 
that is going to use up a lot of carbon just to be able to get it into 
a State where it can be sent down that pipeline.
  I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member and, 
hopefully, the next chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the ranking member of the full committee 
for recognizing me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct. A 
mandatory approval of the Keystone XL pipeline does not belong in our 
transportation bill. This provision jeopardizes the entire 
transportation bill and all of the American jobs that the 
transportation bill will provide and produce.
  The southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline from Oklahoma to the 
gulf is already moving forward with the President's support, but the 
northern portion does not yet have a final route through the State of 
Nebraska. President Obama has made it clear that he will not short-
circuit the normal approval process and deprive the American people of 
their opportunity, their right, to have input just to benefit a foreign 
company and foreign interests.
  As it stands now, it is very unclear if this project would benefit 
the hard-pressed communities of this Nation, such as the one that I 
represent, with jobs and contracts and other economic opportunities 
that we have been hearing so much about and that has been bandied about 
by the proponents of this pipeline. We desperately need jobs and 
contracts and economic opportunity, but we have no guarantees that this 
XL pipeline will produce the same.
  So, regardless of whether you believe this pipeline should be built 
or not, including the Keystone XL pipeline approval--mandatory 
approval, I might add--in the transportation bill, which the President 
already promised he will veto, it may not necessarily further the 
pipeline, but it may doom the same. It may doom the entire 
transportation bill.
  If you care about American jobs, then the number one priority should 
be to pass the transportation bill all by itself. Pass the 
transportation bill to create and preserve American jobs for the 
American people. Don't burden the jobs-producing transportation bill 
with extraneous gimmicks and extraneous gestures. The passage of this 
motion to instruct conferees will be a stumbling stone for Keystone.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask who has the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
introducing this motion to instruct as I think it is for the benefit of 
the American people. Yet, having said this in many hearings on this 
subject, I really am puzzled as to how people can be opposed to the 
Keystone pipeline.
  Many people have come up today who have been opposed to it, and 
they've talked about the necessity for jobs. The Keystone pipeline will 
create many jobs. As a matter of fact, we know that oil from the oil 
sands in Canada is already coming to America. There are over 1,000 
American companies today supplying goods and services to Canadian oil 
sands and pipeline companies.
  Just to give you an example, with regard to Caterpillar, which makes 
the 797--the world's largest truck--the engines are made in Indiana; 
the cab is fabricated and installed in Illinois; the frame component is 
cast in Louisiana; and the Michelin tires are made in South Carolina. 
That's just one. I could go through here and list a multitude of 
companies from which jobs are being created because of the oil sands, 
and only more will be created if we can build this new pipeline.
  People say, Oh, you're going to export all this oil. Well, I 
genuinely believe that is a red herring. The Department of Energy, 
itself, did an analysis of this and said, if any oil were exported 
coming out of Canada, it would be a very minute amount. Yes, we do 
export some petroleum products now, but no one can honestly say--and no 
one has ever heard--that we intend to export the majority part of this 
oil, not even close to it. So I think that is a red herring.
  I might also say that there was a moratorium on the Transatlantic 
pipeline in Canada from exporting oil. We found out that, when that 
happened, oil production in America went down because companies 
decided, well, the prices are down, and we're not going to be able to 
export any. Then President Clinton lifted that moratorium. So I think 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, in making this argument of, ``Oh, 
we've got to prevent export'' is a red herring.
  There are a lot of pipelines already in America. On the average, they 
were studied for 18 months before they were approved. This pipeline has 
been studied for 40 months. I might also say that the Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has put together 57 
additional safety measures for this pipeline that are not on other 
pipelines. This would be the safest pipeline built in America.

[[Page H3044]]

  So we have the ability here, if the President would simply approve 
it, of building a pipeline that will bring 830,000 more barrels of oil 
a day to America. I still believe in supply and demand. If supply goes 
up, prices go down, and I think that we all recognize that. Yet 
President Obama received a final environmental impact statement from 
the State Department.
  That environmental impact statement said, between the option of 
building this pipeline and not building this pipeline, the preference 
would be to build the pipeline.
  That's why we all were so shocked. It's because, after that, we 
thought the President would approve this pipeline. But what did he say?
  I don't want to make a decision until after the Presidential 
election.
  Now, I'm not going to put words in his mouth, but I'm assuming he was 
concerned about the environmental groups, and that's fine. Yet to 
deprive the American people of approximately 20,000 new jobs directly 
in building the pipeline, additional jobs like Caterpillar that would 
be selling more products to the Canadian companies where the oil sands 
are being produced--the oil is being produced in the oil sands--really 
makes no sense.
  This is a safe pipeline. It's 1,700 miles long. Only 60 miles of this 
pipeline route was suggested to be changed, which was in Nebraska, and 
the Governor of Nebraska and the legislature in Nebraska agreed with 
the change.

                              {time}  2020

  They've basically signed off on this. So I am puzzled by why anybody 
would be opposed to it. More oil, more jobs, less dependent on Middle 
Eastern oil. Yeah, we all would like to be less dependent on oil, but I 
tell you what, there are not enough electric cars in America to provide 
the necessary transportation that we need, despite the millions of 
dollars from President Obama's stimulus funds into the production of 
it.
  The reality is we need oil. We have an opportunity to do it here, to 
create jobs. I think the perfect place for this to be considered is in 
the transportation bill because we're talking about transporting oil 
for America to be less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
  I would urge everyone to support the gentleman from Georgia and his 
motion, and I urge everyone to vote in favor of it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Those of us who are speaking on this motion to instruct the conferees 
are from the Energy and Commerce Committee, not the Transportation 
Committee, which developed the fundamental underlying bill to which 
this pipeline issue has been attached. The transportation bill provides 
an enormous amount of money for people to have jobs building the roads, 
mass transit, other kinds of transportation systems, and that all will 
be stopped if we don't renew the transportation bill itself.
  The Senate, on an overwhelming bipartisan basis, got together and 
passed a transportation bill. The House wasn't able to do that. We were 
passing short-term extensions of existing law until we passed something 
to go to conference, and we're now in conference. So the motion is to 
instruct the conferees to take the House position on this pipeline 
issue.
  The problem with it is the President has said he'll veto the bill. 
He'll veto the transportation bill if the pipeline provision is in it. 
He said it because he feels it needs to be reviewed before the decision 
is made on whether to allow this pipeline to be built. I don't consider 
that unreasonable.
  What's really going on here is the Republicans want to stick it to 
the President. This is all politics. They want to make the President 
have to veto the bill, and then they'll say he vetoed the bill, how 
outrageous it is.
  Let's not play politics. Let's reject this motion to instruct.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the conferees to include 
approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. It will get Americans back to 
work. And while we're developing the alternative energy sources of the 
future, it will reduce our current dependency on purchasing oil from 
countries that don't share our values.
  I understand the reasons why some folks are opposed to any new and 
unconventional sources of traditional energy that we rely on. The 
argument essentially is: More of the same means we'll increase our 
dependence upon a dirty source of energy. It will increase our 
dependence upon oil as the basic feedstock for transportation energy in 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, you can't increase your dependence beyond 100 percent. 
We are 100 percent dependent upon oil and its byproducts for the 
transportation energy in this country. Unlike the energy we get out of 
the walls or off the grid or out of the light sockets, a whole bunch of 
different energy feedstocks go into that basic energy commodity--some 
of it's coal; some of it's natural gas; some of it's nuclear, like the 
plants we're building in my district at Plant Vogtle; some of it's wind 
and solar.
  We've got a lot of different energy feedstocks that go into the wires 
and we utilize in every other way. But the transportation energy in 
this country that we use to push all of our trucks, all of our cars, 
and all of our tractors, it all comes from oil. We've got all of our 
transportation eggs in one energy basket.
  You can't increase your dependence anymore than 100%. That's where we 
are. I understand that's what people's concerns are. But I think 
Secretary Clinton summed it up conclusively just a year and a half or 
so ago back in October of 2010 at a conference. Secretary of State 
Clinton was quoted as saying:
  We're either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Persian Gulf 
or dirty oil from Canada until we can get our act together as a country 
and figure out that clean, renewable energy is both in our economic 
interests and in the interests of our planet.
  Until we do that, we're going to be getting our oil from one source 
or the other. As for me, as between the Persian Gulf on the one hand 
and Canada on the other, I choose Canada.
  Meanwhile, I am optimistic about the future of alternative, clean 
sources of energy, and I want to wean us off the use of foreign oil as 
much as anyone in this building. But we aren't there yet, we're not 
there now, and we're not going to be there in the foreseeable future. 
For as long as oil is our primary source of transportation energy in 
this country, we can't take it for granted, and we can't pretend that 
making it more scarce, or what's the same thing, making it more 
expensive is going to hasten the day we're no longer relying upon it 
just because we don't like it.
  Mr. Speaker, the folks that I represent expect us to vote for jobs 
and for energy security. We have an opportunity to do that with the 
transportation bill. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to 
instruct and to send that message loud and clear to our conferees.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rahall moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed 
     to agree to sections 1528, 20017 (to the extent that such 
     section amends section 5323 of title 49, United States Code, 
     to provide subsection (k) relating to Buy America), 33007, 
     33008, and 35210 of the Senate amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from New

[[Page H3045]]

York (Mr. Hanna) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My motion is simple. It instructs the conferees to seize the 
opportunity to create more American jobs and to revive American 
manufacturing by closing loopholes in Buy American laws.
  The House-Senate conference committee is seeking to resolve 
differences on the surface transportation reauthorization bill. But one 
thing we should be able to agree on right now is that every taxpayer 
dollar spent constructing highway, transit, and rail projects should 
help create jobs in America and not overseas.
  American workers are still struggling to find work as our economy 
slowly recovers from the worst economic recession since the Great 
Depression. The construction and manufacturing sectors have been 
particularly hard hit. More than 56,000 U.S. factories have closed or 
moved overseas in the last 10 years, and 90,000 more manufacturing 
firms, most of which are small businesses, are at risk of going out of 
business.
  Today, more than 2.2 million construction and manufacturing workers 
remain out of work. I have pleaded again and again that we must enact a 
well-funded, long-term surface transportation bill immediately and not 
let another construction season dwindle while Congress dawdles.

                              {time}  2030

  We must find common ground, and we must find it fast. As part of that 
effort, one area where I hope we can all agree is ensuring that the 
investments we make with this bill will be spent on projects that are 
stamped ``Made in America.'' We have the capability, the capacity, and 
the workers ready to get the job done here at home. Unfortunately, we 
are currently giving these contracts and these high-skilled jobs away 
to foreign manufacturers and workers.
  This motion to instruct directs House conferees to adopt several 
bipartisan Senate provisions to strengthen the Buy American provisions. 
The other body adopted these noncontroversial, commonsense Buy American 
provisions by voice vote and without a word of opposition.
  First and foremost, the Senate Buy American provisions close existing 
loopholes that allow highway, transit, and rail projects to be 
subdivided into separate contracts, meaning Buy American rules no 
longer apply to most of the work. The most glaring recent example--and 
we've all heard about it--of project segmentation is California's Bay 
Bridge project, connecting Oakland to San Francisco.
  Even though more than $320 million of Federal aid highway funds were 
spent on the Bay Bridge project, the project was divided into 20 
separate construction projects. As a result, 343,000 tons of steel for 
the project were manufactured in China by a Chinese State-owned company 
that had no prior bridge-building experience--no prior bridge-building 
experience, employed 3,000 workers on the project, including welders, 
polishers, and engineers. These workers could be American workers, with 
our engineers designing the bridge and our workers welding the girders 
on our steel manufactured here at home and guaranteed to be much safer.
  The Senate Buy American provisions also ensure, through robust notice 
and comment requirements, that U.S. companies will know of potential 
waivers to the Buy American law before the U.S. Department of 
Transportation grants the waivers. This process will enable these 
companies to assess whether they have an American-made product that can 
be used in the project. And that is what this motion is all about, 
ensuring that American workers and companies get a fair shot.
  Last year I introduced bipartisan legislation, H.R. 3533, the Invest 
in American Jobs Act of 2011, to strengthen Buy American. The 
bipartisan Senate Buy American provisions incorporate many major 
provisions from this legislation.
  Although I believe that we can do even more to strengthen Buy 
American, particularly in the area of public transportation, the 
bipartisan Senate Buy American provisions represent a good start. We 
will hear from some of our friends across the aisle that we should let 
the conference committee work its will. But let's be honest with 
ourselves: a vote against this motion is a vote to continue to send 
jobs overseas, to continue to weaken our economy, to continue to allow 
our foreign competitors to reap the benefits of rebuilding our Nation 
with American taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to U.S. taxpayers to ensure 
that the investments we make in our Nation's transportation and 
infrastructure truly help rebuild America--our infrastructure, our 
companies, and our people.
  I urge adoption of this motion, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This motion, offered by my friend, the gentleman from West Virginia, 
instructs conferees to the Surface Transportation reauthorization 
conference to agree to several provisions in the Senate bill relating 
to Buy American requirements. These Senate provisions will expand Buy 
American requirements for the Federal highway program, the Federal 
transit program, and for Amtrak.

  It is important to note that this is a nonbinding procedural vote. A 
vote for or against this motion does not impact the outcome of the 
conference negotiations. However, it's also important to note that time 
spent preparing and debating this motion would have been better spent 
at the negotiating table.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a very valued member of our 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank Ranking Member Rahall for yielding 
and for his leadership on this issue and his leadership on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this commonsense motion to put America back to 
work by preventing the harmful outsourcing of American jobs. The U.S. 
is still recovering from the worst recession since the Great 
Depression. The manufacturing and construction sectors have been 
particularly hard-hit. In the past decade, more than 56,000 U.S. 
factories have closed or moved overseas. An additional 90,000 
manufacturing firms are at risk of going out of business. More than 2.2 
million construction and manufacturing workers remain out of work.
  This motion to instruct directs conferees on H.R. 4348 to address 
important loopholes in Buy American laws in order to create more 
American jobs. Provisions contained in the Senate amendment to H.R. 
4348 will help ensure that all steel, iron, and manufactured goods used 
to construct highway, transit, and rail projects are produced in the 
United States. By closing loopholes, these provisions will make certain 
that projects financed by U.S. taxpayers will be made in America, with 
jobs in our communities, not outsourced overseas.
  This motion to instruct directs conferees to adopt several Senate Buy 
American provisions that would prohibit project segmentation on certain 
projects, require public notice and comment on waiver requests, require 
review of longstanding waivers, and require an annual report on 
waivers. I think that reasonable people would agree that this isn't too 
much to ask for projects that are paid for with U.S. taxpayer dollars.
  Federal transportation dollars should not be used to outsource 
American jobs. It doesn't make sense. It isn't right. I urge my 
colleagues to support this motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).
  I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct. The motion to 
instruct would add to already stringent Buy American provisions in 
American law that apply to highway, transit, Amtrak, and inner city 
rail projects, making them unworkable in our increasingly globalized 
economy.
  I know this is well-intentioned. But too often in Washington, what 
some hope a bill will do, in fact, it does just the opposite. I know 
that many Members see the term ``Buy American'' and think they should 
automatically be in

[[Page H3046]]

support. I understand that. I can certainly see justification for some 
Buy American provisions, and we already have that in law today. These 
are longstanding rules that are manageable for our American job 
creators and aligned with our international standards.
  However, ``Buy American'' doesn't actually mean what it appears to 
mean. This motion to instruct would actually have the opposite effect, 
undermining America's transportation, infrastructure, and development 
as well as America's competitiveness and job growth. Instead of 
providing surefire markets for our local companies, goods, and 
services, this motion to instruct would actually backfire. The result 
will raise costs for American taxpayers, delay American projects, and 
burden American businesses that could, instead, be focusing on creating 
jobs in the struggling economy. And it conflicts with our goal of 
making the United States the most competitive country in the world.
  I also want to insert into the Record two letters, one from the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, which is representing 3 million businesses in 
America, and another from the Emergency Committee for American Trade, 
local companies that employ over 6 million workers, both opposing this 
motion to instruct.
  Let's explore the reasons why I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
motion. First, it will increase costs for transportation projects by 
requiring that local content requirements apply to more projects by 
making waivers from these local requirements much more difficult.

                              {time}  2040

  That means that few transportation projects can be undertaken to fix 
our aging infrastructure. This is not the time to impede strategic 
investment in American infrastructure, which holds the key to U.S. 
economic competitiveness and prosperity.
  Second, a misplaced requirement to ``buy local'' would hurt American 
companies, undermine their competitiveness, hamper their innovation and 
productivity, and prevent them from participating in bidding for 
transportation projects due to their increasingly global supply and 
production chains.
  As we all know, many products that American companies build will 
sometimes have parts from other parts of the world, mainly so they can 
compete against other products in the world. Take, for example, a store 
from back home in Texas, where a Canadian manufacturer of PVC pipes and 
fittings was advised by its distributor in California that the 
contractor, who had used its fittings on sewage pipes installed at Camp 
Pendleton, was being asked to remove the fittings from the ground and 
replace them with a similar product from an American competitor.
  So far, it sounds good. The problem is the Canadian manufacturer 
purchased most of its plastic resin inputs to make those fittings from 
Texas-based companies--from American companies in Texas. That meant 
that Buy American restrictions prevented our local companies from being 
able to export their product to Canada and sell it as part of an 
overall project in California. It was an overall lose-lose situation 
for everybody.
  In short, more stringent Buy American provisions actually make it 
harder to sell American because of the realities of how products are 
built these days. These provisions will prevent American companies from 
being able to sell inputs--their products--to foreign companies, who 
then go after government contracts. It may sound attractive to cut 
foreign companies out of the procurement market, but don't forget about 
the thousands of American companies and millions of American workers 
who stand behind them and depend on them.
  Third, tightening Buy American restrictions also sends a message to 
our global competitors that it's all right for them to enact more 
barriers against American goods and services when they're selling and 
buying procurement in their home market. In fact, all over the world--
in countries like China, India and Brazil--local-content rules in a 
variety of industries are popping up to block American companies from 
selling into there.
  In justifying those restrictions against our American companies, 
these countries often point to Buy American provisions and argue that 
what they're doing is just the same. Well, this dynamic has the effect 
of stopping American businesses and their workers from competing in 
vast foreign procurement markets around the world, resulting in 
billions of dollars lost to America and to our opportunities to sell 
our products overseas.
  Fourth, such measures also make the United States a less attractive 
market for foreign-based companies that employ millions of hardworking 
Americans here at home. Expanded domestic content requirements send 
precisely the wrong signal, as America seeks to reverse the trend of 
declining foreign investment into America, which creates products and 
companies and jobs here in America.
  And, fifth, tightening the Buy American restrictions could also leave 
the United States vulnerable to World Trade Organization litigation and 
retaliation based on what our obligations are under the WTO government 
procurement agreement.
  Overall, stricter Buy American provisions undermine the American 
Government's ability to buy the highest quality goods and services at 
the lowest cost to us, the American taxpayers. It makes it more 
difficult to maintain policies consistent with our obligations around 
the world, and it blocks our ability to show our trading partners they 
need to open their procurement markets to American goods and services, 
and at the same time they hurt U.S. companies that are trying to find 
customers for their products and services.
  I understand how politically appealing these measures can be; but 
when they backfire against American companies, when they backfire 
against American workers, you don't read much about it, but it costs 
these workers their livelihood. Frankly, it takes American companies 
competing here at home and around the world out of the picture.
  At a time when we have a struggling economy, after the stimulus, 
after all the bailouts, after all the Cash for Clunkers, deficit 
spending, we actually have fewer Americans working today than when the 
President took office. Now is not the time to hurt more American 
workers, drive up the cost of these projects, delay them further, and 
ultimately hurt our ability to compete and sell around the world. No 
matter how politically appealing, this makes no economic sense for 
America.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
motion.
                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 2012.
       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation representing the interests of more than three 
     million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, 
     and region, urges you to oppose the Rahall Motion to Instruct 
     on the Highway Extension Conference Report that would expand 
     requirements that projects be built with U.S. steel and other 
     goods--otherwise known as ``Buy America'' provisions.
       The Rahall motion would impose costly and burdensome 
     contracting obstacles upon federal, state, and local entities 
     that receive funding under the surface transportation bill. 
     Passage of this motion would have the unintended consequence 
     of increasing costs and delaying much-needed infrastructure 
     reinvestment, thereby resulting in fewer transportation 
     projects being funded.
       While the ``Buy America'' sentiment may sound appealing, 
     the reality is quite different. As the U.S. already imposes 
     significant ``Buy America'' contracting requirements, the 
     Rahall motion would undermine American job creation and 
     competitiveness, and would undercut Congress' goal of 
     ensuring that transportation funds are spent in the most 
     efficient and cost-effective manner possible. There is no 
     need to expand ``Buy America'' provisions and doing so would 
     be highly counterproductive, particularly for industry 
     sectors hard hit by the recession.
       The Chamber opposes the Rahall Motion to Instruct and urges 
     you to vote against this effort to expand ``Buy America'' 
     provisions.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____

                                               Emergency Committee


                                           for American Trade,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 2012.
       Dear Representative: We are writing to express our strong 
     opposition to the Rahall Motion to Instruct Conferees to 
     accept certain Buy America expansion provisions included in 
     the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4348, the Surface Transportation 
     Act/Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century that would 
     substantially expand ``Buy America'' provisions for 
     transportation projects in ways that will undermine 
     infrastructure development, and American competitiveness and 
     job growth.

[[Page H3047]]

       Founded in 1967, ECAT is an organization of the heads of 
     leading U.S. international business enterprises representing 
     all major sectors of the American economy. Their annual 
     worldwide sales exceed $3 trillion and they employ more than 
     6.4 million persons. ECAT's purpose is to promote economic 
     growth through the expansion of international trade and 
     investment.
       As you know, the United States maintains robust domestic 
     preference (e.g., Buy America) provisions in U.S. law, with 
     particularly strong provisions related to transportation 
     projects. These provisions provide strong preferences for the 
     use of U.S. products and only permit the use of foreign goods 
     from those foreign governments that are members of the World 
     Trade Organization--Government Procurement Agreement (or 
     similar provisions in trade agreements) where foreign 
     governments open their procurement markets to U.S. goods, and 
     for limited cost and availability, or public interest 
     reasons. Those exceptions are vital to enable the U.S. 
     government to procure effectively and efficiently in the 
     public interest and to avoid price increases that will 
     undermine procurement that would otherwise occur without a 
     competitive marketplace.
       The importance of maintaining balance in U.S. Buy America 
     rules is more important than ever. U.S. companies are 
     increasingly engaged in international supply and production 
     chains that use inputs from overseas, which enhance their 
     competitiveness and the ability to manufacture and sustain 
     and grow jobs in the United States. With tight fiscal 
     constraints, the United States and state governments need to 
     procure in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.
       The Senate amendments, if adopted, would undermine U.S. 
     infrastructure development, reduce competition, and restrict 
     the United States' ability to acquire the best goods, 
     services, and technologies at the best value for U.S. 
     taxpayers.
       Equally concerning is the impact that such Buy America 
     expansions will have on U.S. companies seeking to expand 
     their sales to burgeoning foreign procurement markets, where 
     other governments are likely to retaliate with their own 
     limits on U.S. participation in foreign procurements, 
     shutting U.S. companies potentially out of hundreds of 
     billions of dollars of new procurements overseas.
       The Senate provisions that the Rahall motion would seek to 
     include in H.R. 4338 would create costly and time-consuming 
     obstacles to the waiver process and limit procurement 
     flexibility of local governments, thereby expanding the 
     application of Buy America provisions. Such proposals are 
     unnecessary and counterproductive to efforts to promote 
     infrastructure development and improve America's 
     international competitiveness. Such proposals also send the 
     wrong signal to other countries that will use buy national 
     provisions like this to justify increasing the exclusion of 
     U.S. goods and services from their own infrastructure 
     projects.
       We share your strong interest in strengthening America's 
     infrastructure and promoting greater economic growth. We 
     strongly urge you, therefore, to oppose the Rahall Motion to 
     Instruct Conferees on adopting of restrictive Senate Buy 
     America provisions that will undermine the goals of this 
     legislation and its ability to stimulate U.S. growth.
           Respectfully,
                                                     Calman Cohen,
                                                        President.

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), who's been a real stalwart and real 
fighter for Buy American provisions and American jobs.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the laborer and the steelworker. I rise 
today for the small business owner and the working family. I rise today 
to support this motion to instruct because we should all rise and we 
should all strive to support our working families and create jobs right 
here in this country.
  We know that one way to do that is to ensure that the money we spend 
to rebuild and strengthen our transportation and infrastructure, if we 
spend it here, it leads to jobs here. If we invest in American iron, 
steel, and manufactured goods, we are investing in the people who 
produce those products.
  While it's easy to stand up here on the floor and talk about the need 
to support our workers and create jobs, this motion takes those words 
and turns them into action. By closing loopholes and strengthening Buy 
American provisions, we come one step closer to ensuring that every 
American taxpayer dollar spent on transportation and infrastructure 
will be spent on an item proudly stamped: ``Made in America.''
  Last year, I was proud to introduce the American Jobs First 
Initiative, a series of four bills to strengthen Buy American laws and 
level the playing field for American manufacturers and workers. I 
introduced them, Mr. Speaker, because every day I hear from Ohioans who 
are ready to get back to work. Every day I hear from Ohioans who just 
want a chance at a good-paying job and a slice of the American Dream. 
And every day I hear from Ohioans who want this Congress to act to make 
sure that when their taxpayer dollars are being used, that we will use 
American iron and steel and manufactured goods to build that 
infrastructure.
  This is our chance, Mr. Speaker. Vote ``yes'' on this motion to 
instruct. Vote for jobs. Vote for working Americans. And vote to give 
our constituents a fair chance at the American Dream.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chris Murphy.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Rahall.
  I rise in support of this motion to instruct. Over the past year, the 
President and Democrats have proposed a series of measures to spend a 
little bit of money to put people back to work, to spend some money to 
educate our kids, to build some new schools, to expand broadband. Every 
single one of those efforts has been met by resistance from 
Republicans. I realize why that is. The argument is that we don't have 
any more money to spend. I get that argument. What I don't get is the 
argument against this motion.
  What this motion says is that forget spending new money. Let's just 
make sure that the money that we are already obligated to spend is 
spent on American jobs. No new money. Let's just redirect the money 
that we're spending on bridges, on roads, on railways, and make sure 
that it gets spent on U.S. companies.
  It's wrong to suggest that we're talking about dramatically 
ratcheting up Buy American standards such that we're going to ignite 
some trade war with WTO companies. That's not what we're talking about 
here today. Buy American laws have been on the books for generations. 
What we're talking about is just bringing Buy American standards back 
to what they used to be.
  The fact is that we have blown hole after hole after hole in Buy 
American, in part because the Chamber of Commerce, which opposes this 
motion to instruct, thinks it's a good thing for big multinational 
companies who bid on a lot of this work to be able to take big chunks 
of it overseas where they can drive down the cost to them and keep a 
bigger differential of the contract.

                              {time}  2050

  Let me give you an example of these loopholes. One loophole is a 
provision that allows you to segment a contract into all sorts of 
small, little pieces. When you segment that contract into small pieces, 
each one of those pieces can result in the amount of the particular 
contract being so small that it doesn't qualify for Buy American.
  Well, on one particular bridge contract in San Francisco, by 
segmenting out the contract and getting around Buy American, we lost 
43,000 tons of steel to a Chinese steel company. American jobs lost.
  When you allow for every country that signs a trade agreement to be 
exempt from Buy American, this happened. Guess what? Today we make our 
dog tags on a European-made machine simply because the country that 
makes it is exempt from Buy American, and they bid 4 percent less than 
the American company did. American jobs lost.
  We win when we enforce Buy American because what happens is a company 
gets a contract. They subcontract with other American companies, and 
the ripple effect of that one initial contract multiplies jobs times 
three throughout the economy. Every time we send a contract overseas, 
yes, it may save that particular bid 3 or 4 or 5 percent. But when we 
lose that job here in America, when we have to start paying 
unemployment compensation, when we lose the taxes to the Federal 
Government, when that unemployed worker's kids need to go on Medicaid, 
guess what? That 3 or 4 or 5 percent disappears overnight. Let's pass 
this motion to instruct.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to a very 
valued member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

[[Page H3048]]

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
instruct offered by my good friend, the ranking member of the 
Transportation Committee, Mr. Rahall. Mr. Rahall has been a true 
advocate for the American worker, and certainly for our Nation's 
transportation system. He understands the key importance of not only 
passing this bill, but making sure that this bill is putting Americans 
to work.
  This Congress, I have been working to improve Buy American 
requirements through my Buy American Improvement Act. Mr. Rahall 
introduced the Invest in American Jobs Act of 2011. Unfortunately, we 
have been unable to move either of these bills here in the House, and 
we were unable to include language in the House version of the bill 
that we worked on in committee. But over in the Senate, they came to a 
bipartisan agreement to include these important provisions in the bill, 
including prohibiting the segmentation of transportation projects, 
guaranteeing transparency and opportunities for public comment on 
requests for waivers to Buy American provisions, requiring longstanding 
waivers to be reconsidered, and requiring DOT to report annually on the 
waivers it grants.
  Now why is this important? It's important because all too often there 
are loopholes that are either purposely used in order to get a product 
from overseas, or sometimes just simply overlooked.
  I had an issue with a contractor, a defense contractor in my 
district, who lost a job, lost a bid to make a product to a South 
Korean company. They knew that the law was not followed. But far too 
often, someone who has a product to offer, someone who has a product 
that can be used in a transportation project, does not even know that 
they were passed over. It's critical that we put this Senate language 
in the final bill, the conferees do that, so we can know when an 
American company can do the job, and we get that to American workers.
  If we ensure that all of the iron, steel, manufactured goods used in 
Federal highway, transit, and railroad projects is produced in the 
United States, it creates jobs for American manufacturers and stops 
needless outsourcing. In addition, by closing loopholes, those 
provisions will guarantee that when projects are funded by U.S. 
taxpayers, they will be made by American workers and create American 
jobs instead of being outsourced overseas.
  There's a reason that the Chinese insist on ``Buy Chinese,'' just as 
India insists on ``Buy Indian,'' and Brazil on ``Buy Brazilian.''
  We're here to say that we need to do the same thing, to send the 
message that U.S. taxpayer dollars should be spent in the United 
States, not in China, not anywhere else.
  These are provisions our country needs now more than ever. The 
American taxpayer funds for transportation should be used to create 
American jobs. It's just common sense. If you go home, any of us, we go 
home and we talk to our constituents, they understand it. They know 
that it's common sense. Unfortunately, it's far too infrequent that we 
do what is common sense here.
  The Senate managed to do what is common sense and put in important, 
key Buy American provisions in their version of the transportation 
bill. The conferees should accept that Senate position, that bipartisan 
position, the commonsense position, and make sure that we get this 
transportation bill passed as soon as possible and make sure that those 
taxpayer funds are used to put Americans to work, not to be outsourced.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 14\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York has 21 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. And do I have the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member of the 
Transportation Committee, and I thank him for his leadership.
  Many Members have firsthand experience in addressing some of the 
angst of our constituents, whether it's in West Virginia or in the 
State of Texas, California, Ohio, maybe even Utah. We recognize that we 
have an obligation as part of the international family to engage in 
trade. That it's part of the economic fabric of this construct in which 
we work together.
  But Mr. Rahall's motion is both instructive and vital. For those who 
have had the opportunity to receive most recently Federal 
transportation dollars, the city of Houston has waited a mighty long 
time. But in the course of doing that, unfortunately, over two decades 
of trying to secure funding for a light rail project, we have seen the 
steel industry in America decimated.
  The story of the San Francisco bridge is not only tragic, it is with 
great sadness that one would lose jobs and opportunities because of the 
way that particular project was bid.
  It is no insult to China for America to stand up and demand that we 
Buy American. It is no insult to our other allies for, Mr. Speaker, 
that is what everyone does.
  This motion creates an even playing field in a new world matrix where 
every man and every woman on the international field of trade is for 
themselves. Let me tell you the story of dealing with Federal funding. 
I've made every effort to press for the building of railcars. We don't 
make railcars. What we have are companies that are based here in the 
United States, owned elsewhere, but are based here and therefore they 
make these particular railcars in the United States. That's at least 
halfway because it does create jobs. I frankly believe that if we are 
giving Federal funding, those same companies should try to relocate the 
rail-making process in the area where the light rail or the rail system 
is going.
  The prohibiting of the segmentation of highway transit and Amtrak 
projects is brilliant because what it does, again, it creates an even 
playing field for the construction companies, for those who are in 
essence experts on making the aspects of highway and transit, and 
allows them the even playing field of bidding.

                              {time}  2100

  To require opportunities for public notice is crucial to give our 
companies an even playing field. Why should we be ashamed of trying to 
rebuild manufacturing, to try to put life back into the steel industry, 
because nothing is ever final until you make the effort to do so.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. This gives us the opportunity again to 
match what is being done in other countries. There will be American 
companies that will tell you that bribes are passed, while they are 
trying to negotiate, by others trying to do business overseas.
  I had a constituent in my office today that said that they engaged 
with a Korean company. They went in with an agreement; they had a 
signed agreement. They gave them their intelligence and proprietary 
information. They said that we will match this and do this together. 
When they got to the endpoint, that Korean company said, well, we've 
got to go out for bid, when they had been promised, the American 
company, that that would not be the case, that they would be partnering 
all the way.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what the final results were. The Korean 
company didn't go out for bid. They took the proprietary information 
and they did the job themselves--never did this kind of work, don't 
know how to do the work, but the American company was left out the 
door. Not exactly fitting what Mr. Rahall is saying, but as an example 
of why we have to match the kind of intensity on the international 
arena. We have to match it by protecting American companies.
  I would say that this is an important, vital motion to instruct, and 
I want Federal dollars to be utilized for American companies. I believe 
this is the right approach to Buy American.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I'm ready to close if the gentleman is ready 
to

[[Page H3049]]

yield back his time or close himself first.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion on this motion to instruct, 
let me just say that the motion is in support of the Senate Buy 
American provisions.
  The Senate-passed Buy American provisions are very similar if not 
exactly as the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
adopted on a voice vote, which was offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack) during committee consideration of what was 
then called H.R. 7. So the majority has accepted this language in 
committee deliberation, and yet they appear to be opposing it as it 
comes to the floor today in the form of a motion to instruct the 
conferees.
  I would say also that that Buy American provision that is in the 
Senate-passed bill that this motion seeks to accept does allow for the 
Secretary of Transportation to provide for other than U.S. made when 
that product that is needed cannot be found in the United States of 
America or when it is truly cost prohibitive to make that product in 
the United States of America. So there is sufficient waiver authority 
provided in the Senate Buy American provisions to allow the Secretary 
of Transportation to do what is in America's best interest.
  But most importantly, by adopting my motion to instruct--and in 
conference hopefully adopting the Senate Buy American provision--we're 
ending the most egregious loophole that is used to export American 
jobs, and that is the segmentation of contracts that allows companies 
to circumvent current Buy American provisions.
  Let me say in addition that I was here for most of the previous 
debate on the previous motion to instruct on the Keystone pipeline, and 
I heard a great deal of support from that side of the aisle urging 
American-made energy. I certainly agree with that principle. I'm an 
advocate of all-of-the-above--as long as it's domestic--in our energy 
policy in this country. And, I might add, I'm a supporter of the 
Keystone pipeline and have so voted in previous votes in this body.
  But now it comes to this motion to instruct conferees on Buy 
American, and I hear just the opposite from the majority side by their 
rather silent opposition, but nevertheless stated opposition, to this 
motion because while they're for American-made energy, they appear to 
be against American-made products using American labor and using the 
Buy American label on U.S. steel and other products used in our highway 
construction and transit modes in this country. So it seems to me 
rather contradictory what we're hearing from the majority side in the 
debate on these two motions this evening.
  So as I conclude, let me say that this motion has truly wide-ranging 
support. I recognize that the majority has inserted the United States 
Chamber of Commerce opposition to this bill, and then at the same time 
I heard reference to the deals and the contractual relationships and 
the other alliances that our United States--supposedly--United States 
Chamber of Commerce has with other countries to build these projects, 
again shipping jobs overseas. So I wonder if it's truly the ``United 
States'' Chamber of Commerce that's addressing this issue.
  But I will list those that are supportive of the motion to instruct. 
The Alliance for American manufacturing, the American Institute of 
Steel Construction, the American Iron and Steel Institute, the 
BlueGreen Alliance, the Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports, the 
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, McWane, 
Inc., Municipal Castings Association, National Steel Bridge Alliance, 
Nucor Corporation, Specialty Steel Industry of North America, Steel 
Manufacturers Association, the Transportation Trades Department, and 
the United Steelworkers of America are among just a few of the groups 
that are supporting this motion to instruct.
  So, again, let me say this is about--and I will conclude now--
American jobs. When it's made in America, Americans can make it, and we 
have too many Americans today that are not making it. They are near 
their rope's end. They're frustrated. They do not see Washington or the 
Congress of the United States as in any way addressing the real 
problems that exist out there in America and the real problems in their 
lives. They see us just passing the buck and continuing to argue among 
ourselves and appear to not agree on anything.
  But this is something that we do agree on, as evidenced by the 
bipartisan manner in which this bill passed the other body--and we know 
how hard it is to get anything through that other body. But this 
transportation legislation did pass with over 70 votes in the other 
body--a rarity in this atmosphere today in Washington, but nevertheless 
something that happened. That's what we ought to be adopting here is 
looking at that bipartisan bill and following the other body's lead in 
this provision and in the entire bill itself.
  So I conclude and urge Members to adopt this motion to instruct 
conferees.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of 
Congressman Rahall's Motion to Instruct Conferees to close the 
loopholes in the Buy America laws. By closing these loopholes, we can 
create more American jobs, and revive our domestic manufacturing base.
  Our economy is still recovering from the worst economic recession 
since the Great Depression. Today, more than 2.2 million construction 
and manufacturing workers are still out of work. Let's use this 
opportunity to get them back to work.
  Provisions contained in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4348 will help 
ensure that the materials used to construct our roads and bridges are 
produced in the United States. These projects are financed with 
taxpayer dollars, and we should be using materials produced 
domestically, not outsourced overseas.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to support this motion, and to 
seize this opportunity to promote our construction and manufacturing 
industries. By producing and manufacturing domestically, we will create 
and sustain good-paying jobs in our local communities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________