[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.
____________________