[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 138 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7952-H7959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5682, APPROVAL OF THE KEYSTONE XL 
                                PIPELINE

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 748 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 748

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5682) to 
     approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Polis, my 
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the past 6 years, President Obama, 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State Kerry, and 
Senate Democrats have made sure that the American people would continue 
to wait for the Keystone pipeline.
  The Keystone pipeline provides jobs, energy security, and perhaps 
most of all a closer and better relationship with our friends from 
Canada.
  Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, the bottom line is we need to do 
business with our friends in Canada rather than friends in other places 
around the world who may be using that money that they receive for 
reasons that are not in America's best interest. We trust the 
Canadians.
  Today we have a bill on the floor because we believe that House 
Republicans, being led by Dr. Bill Cassidy, can lead us to a way to 
construct the Keystone pipeline, provide us with a closer relationship 
with Canada, and make sure that the TransCanada application to 
construct the Keystone XL pipeline will be done. That is why we are 
here on the floor of the House of Representatives today.
  With that said, I rise in support of not only this rule that will 
provide the context for the bill but also the legislation.
  Let me be perfectly clear today: this bill to approve the Keystone 
pipeline is a jobs bill. Over the last few years, too many Americans 
have been out of work, not always in the right places where jobs were 
available, but too many Americans are out of work, and this is an area 
where people are out of work and need the work and can get it.
  Wages have been stagnant, and median incomes for American families 
have fallen because this administration and the policies of the 
Democratic Party have led to a stagnation of the free enterprise 
system, and an opportunity in particular in the area of energy has been 
a political issue rather than a jobs issue for the American people.
  The Keystone pipeline would support tens of thousands of great-paying 
jobs and help resolve some problems in this area and across a 
multistate area of the West. Yet President Obama, Secretary Hillary 
Clinton, and Senate Democrats have stood constantly and consistently in 
the way of job-creating, shovel-ready projects.

[[Page H7953]]

  For 6 years we have known that the impact of the Keystone pipeline 
would be positive on the American economy, with positive benefits that 
it would provide for the American people. For 6 years, we have known 
that the pipeline would add over a billion dollars of revenue to a 
tepid economy, a billion dollars in places where people are out of 
work, need work. And it can be done through efficiency and 
effectiveness of this pipeline.
  Americans have been looking for leadership to secure energy 
independence, energy independence to where we no longer have to go 
across the oceans to receive the energy that we need. With this 
pipeline, it is an important step, I believe, in the right direction.

  When completed, the Keystone pipeline will transport over 800,000 
barrels of oil every single day. That is equivalent to half of our 
daily oil imports from the Middle East.
  Mr. Speaker, that is competition with the current system. That is how 
you get prices lower at the gas pump, by having competition, 
competition with the Middle East for the oil that we will use in this 
country.
  This will further help lower energy costs for American families while 
helping to bolster our national security by weaning us off oil from 
nations that sometimes do not have our best interests in their own 
mind.
  Instead of partnering with countries in the Middle East, the Keystone 
pipeline lets us work together with our dear friends from Canada.
  By approving the Keystone pipeline, the Federal Government will 
reduce our dependency overnight while creating much-needed jobs and 
providing billions of dollars in economic opportunity in the USA.
  We all know that Keystone can accomplish what the American people 
want, and that is that we need to work together. Mr. Speaker, we need 
to work together.
  Finally, what has happened is that the Senate Democrats are asking 
for this bill. Regardless of the reason, what we are doing here today 
is to work together on ideas that we have been trying to push for a 
long, long time.
  In September of 2008, TransCanada submitted their application to the 
Department of State to construct the Keystone pipeline. Yet the Obama 
administration has blocked and delayed construction of the pipeline at 
every single turn. Excuse after excuse after excuse rather than getting 
it done.
  The State Department, led by Secretary Hillary Clinton and Secretary 
Kerry, has stood firmly in the way of jobs created by this project. 
They have held dozens of meetings and issued study after study, each of 
which confirms what Republicans have said all along, and that is, the 
pipeline will create jobs and inject billions of dollars into the 
American economy while doing so in a safe and limited environmental 
impact way.
  Beginning in 2011, with Republicans, as soon as they won this body 
and became the majority, we started passing laws to jump-start the 
pipeline. Time after time I have been on the floor of this body--and, 
Mr. Speaker, you have stood faithfully in your chair to listen to the 
debates. It is you, Mr. Speaker, who has been behind this idea to make 
sure that we would keep it as a part of our objective. An objective for 
the American people, opportunities for the American people, and a 
friendship with the Canadians. Sadly, Senate Democrats have refused to 
allow even a vote.
  Yet just yesterday the Keystone pipeline suddenly became a hot topic 
on the Senate floor. A hot topic because they want to get it done now.
  Well, so what has changed? Last week, after 6 long years, Members of 
the Senate finally decided to listen to the American people. The House 
has been listening and acting for 4 years now, but now that the Senate 
is prepared to join us, we are here to work together.
  The House is prepared to pass this bill from Dr. Bill Cassidy, oh, 
yes, from an energy State called Louisiana. A dear friend of not only 
this body but a dear friend of consumers and families who understand 
that we need to reduce even further costs at the gas pump, that we need 
to be concerned about where we buy our oil and our energy and to make 
sure we are doing business with the friends and people we know.
  So they can pass it and they can send it to the President's desk. We 
are going to send the same bill. Same bill they are doing in the Senate 
is the same one we are going to do here. We are going to get it to the 
President. No more delays, no more excuses. It is actually time to make 
the Keystone pipeline a reality.
  Said another way, the election is over; let's get our work done.
  I am proud that the House has led on this issue. I look forward to 
the Senate joining us. I hope the President will do the same thing. I 
hope we will sign another jobs bill that has been passed by the House 
of Representatives.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the 
Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act.
  Last night, we got a notice that the Rules Committee was going to 
have an emergency hearing to expedite very important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I was very excited. I thought we were going to deal with 
an emergency. Perhaps it was Ebola, perhaps it was dealing with the use 
of force overseas, or emergencies here at home like the thousands of 
families that are separated because of our broken immigration law or 
the emergency of balancing our budget before we leave the next 
generation with a burden of debt. I was really hopeful that the 
majority was ready to take on a pressing issue facing the country.
  Sadly, I was too optimistic. I found out that the bill that was such 
an emergency, that was expeditiously brought before the Rules Committee 
and now to the floor is actually a bill that we have already voted on 
this Congress to bypass the administration's review policy and 
streamline the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
  Turned out last night's Rules Committee meeting was far from an 
emergency. The majority should not have waived clause 11 of rule XXI 
that normally requires 3 days to review legislation before we vote on 
it.
  To be clear, we have not had 3 days to read this bill. Now, one could 
argue, since we have pretty much passed the darn thing before and it 
hasn't changed much, maybe we didn't need the full 3 days, but why are 
we doing another bill?

                              {time}  1630

  I truly hope we are not setting the tone for the 114th where great 
Representatives, Democratic and Republican, come from all parts of the 
country to tackle the issues facing our great Nation, balancing the 
budget, fixing our broken immigration system, and getting our economy 
moving; and we vote on the same bill, in the case of repealing the 
Affordable Care Act, 53 times in the 113th Congress.
  One time, I understand. The House wants to do it, that is what the 
people were elected to do, if they believe that, and that is what a 
majority says, then do it. But what are the other 52 times besides a 
waste of taxpayer money?
  The Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act being revived today is nothing 
new. Again, it bypasses the pending review process and would 
immediately authorize the TransCanada Keystone pipeline company to 
build an 875-mile pipeline from Canada through the United States to the 
Gulf of Mexico for the exportation of oil.
  This bill would expedite a tar sands project without requiring a 
Federal environmental or administrative review process basically saying 
that those are automatically concluded and/or sufficient.
  I asked Chairman Whitfield in our Rules Committee what their 
discussion with the administration was on this. When did they last have 
testimony, formal or informal, from the administration? Where is the 
administration in this approval process?
  Mr. Whitfield informed me that there had been no updates from the 
administration that they have requested for 6 months, so for all we 
know, the President might be ready to approve or not approve this 
project tomorrow, next week, next month--I don't know--but it seems 
like the two branches of government aren't talking to one another.
  Normally, if Congress is interested in where a particular approval 
process is,

[[Page H7954]]

we would hold hearings, and we would ask the relevant questions--what 
are the current sticking points, are there issues that are still 
pending--rather than bypass any legitimate issues that might still be 
there around the routing.
  As many of you know, the routing has already been changed so as not 
to impact the Ogallala aquifer, and there could very well be other 
important issues that affect residents of the States through which the 
Keystone pipeline would pass.
  Clearly, this project is a great favor to our friendly neighbors to 
the north, the great nation of Canada. The question that we need to 
figure out as a country is: Does it benefit America? Does it benefit 
Americans?
  There are pros and cons. Obviously, if it goes in your neighborhood, 
it is not a particular benefit to you--or through your farm--and that 
was some of the issues that we heard from in the impact statements that 
are currently being reviewed by the administration.
  There is a review process underway. We all wish that review process 
went faster. We all wish that NEPA would go faster. We all wish that a 
wide variety of review policies would go faster, but we don't know how 
that is going to be concluded, and I think it is important that, while 
they get through it as soon as possible, they are able to do so and 
take all factors into account.
  If Congress wants to change the approval process for these kinds of 
projects, I think that is a legitimate discussion to have. If Congress 
determines it needs to reconfigure a review process for a project like 
this, maybe we would go into the statute and we alter the different 
agencies or we assign different responsibility or criteria.
  That would be a relevant discussion to have, not bypassing something 
that Congress set up in statute. The President is doing what Congress 
told him to do in reviewing this process--not this Congress, but the 
underlying statute when it was passed.
  Now, of course, there are a lot of issues around Keystone XL, and 
rather than interrupting the State Department's ongoing review process, 
Congress should allow all the relevant issues to be properly addressed 
around this issue.
  I want to emphasize that the Republicans brought this tar sands bill 
forward just one day after China and the U.S. came to a landmark 
agreement to address climate change. Tar sands are a high-polluting 
fuel that, on a life-cycle basis, tar sands crude produces about 20 
percent more carbon pollution than conventional crudes.
  In addition, we have a study from Cornell University with regard to 
the effect of the XL pipeline on gasoline for American citizens, and 
top energy economists in this Cornell study said that if the XL 
pipeline is built, consumers in our country may end up paying 10 to 20 
cents more per gallon for gas as a result of tar sands being diverted.
  That is millions of dollars a year out of the pockets of Americans 
and perhaps into the pockets of wherever all this oil is going. But, 
again, of what benefit to America is this project?
  There is also the simple matter of how a bill becomes a law, okay, so 
we have a House bill, a Senate bill, and let's take a wild presumption, 
maybe both Chambers will pass this bill. What happens next? It goes to 
the President. The President can sign a bill or veto a bill.
  Essentially, the President can sign a bill approving the Keystone 
pipeline, which is something that he can do now without this bill. He 
can approve the pipeline, and if Congress goes through all this 
deliberative effort at taxpayer expense, talk, and votes and all this 
stuff, the President still has a decision.
  Now, again, obviously, if there are two-thirds in both Chambers, 
Congress can seize power on a particular issue and exert its own will, 
but that hasn't been the case on these Keystone pipeline votes, and I 
don't expect it to be the case on this one.
  So it is just an exercise in senseless hot air being thrown around 
the Chamber where we can pass bills and the same situation prevails if 
it passes or not; namely, the President can decide whether they want 
this to go forward or not. If Congress wants to alter that approval 
process, let's look at the statutory rules around how projects are 
reviewed for future projects and see if we can reach a bipartisan 
consensus about that.
  I wish that this had been an emergency piece of legislation. I wish 
that we were tackling a potential public health crisis. I wish that we 
were tackling terrorism. I wish we were tackling balancing the budget, 
and I wish we were tackling securing our borders. But we are not.
  We are tackling something that isn't going anywhere and, even if 
passed, will give the President the same choice that he has today, much 
to do about nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, just so we really are a little bit clear, 
the President indicated last week what he might do on this exact issue 
of Keystone pipeline. He said that he would consider signing the bill 
if it creates jobs.
  So, Mr. President, the study from your own State Department said that 
construction on Keystone would create over 42,000 jobs, so there is one 
answer to our President.
  Another one, the President said he would consider signing the bill if 
it was good for the American people, good for their pocketbooks, if it 
were to reduce gas prices. Now, that is what the President said.
  Once again, I have good news. Good news. Keystone pipeline will move 
up to 830,000 barrels of oil a day through an efficient process. 
Instead of it coming from halfway around the world, which adds cost to 
the transportation, it will come through a pipeline and be here real 
efficiently, so I think we are in good stead there to meet the test for 
the President.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to let you know that I have 
got five or six speakers that are here who are excited about this 
opportunity for jobs, a jobs bill that is on the floor today and the 
creation of legislation to have the XL pipeline.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Raleigh, North Carolina, 
Congressman Holding.
  Mr. HOLDING. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of American jobs and increased 
and efficient energy production. For too long, approval of the Keystone 
pipeline has been delayed, delaying thousands of new jobs--42,000 new 
jobs--and our struggling economy a much-needed boost.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans, both Democrat and Republican 
alike, support building the Keystone pipeline. Why? Because it is 
common sense. But for 6 years, it has been delayed. The Keystone 
pipeline will create jobs, grow our economy, and help our Nation 
provide a secure source of energy that does not have to come from 
halfway around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I am focused on building a stronger economy for American 
families, and job creation is a top priority to accomplish that. 
Approving the Keystone pipeline advances all of these goals. I urge my 
colleagues in the strongest terms to support this rule and support the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Polis. I appreciate the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the passage of the rule 
and H.R. 5682, the underlying bill. You first have to consider the 
opinion of the world's undisputed foremost climatologist, former NASA 
scientist Dr. James Hansen, the guru on this subject, Betty Crocker, 
Good Housekeeping Seal, one of the first scientists to warn of the 
dangers of burning carbon fuel.
  Dr. Hansen is a member of the prestigious National Academy of 
Sciences, and he has likened the building and the use of the Keystone 
XL pipeline to the lighting of ``the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on 
the planet'' and nothing less.
  ``The fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet,'' that is Dr. 
Hansen. Dr. Hansen has warned the completion of this pipeline will only 
reinforce our dependence on fossil fuels, not strengthen our Nation's 
energy independence, as has been argued by some of my friends on the 
other side.
  When you brush aside the studies funded by TransCanada and other oil 
companies and you analyze the pure scientific studies that have no 
political motivation, every analysis clearly

[[Page H7955]]

demonstrates that the Keystone XL pipeline poses major threats at every 
turn, in extraction, in transportation, in refining, and in 
consumption.
  Nationwide, about 3.2 million gallons of oil spill from pipelines 
every year. Spills such as those pollute drinking water, ruin American 
farmland, potentially destroy sacred tribal grounds, and create an 
uninhabitable environment for our own homeowners.
  In fact, in Kalamazoo, Michigan, there was a spill in 2010 of tar 
sands oil that cost $1.2 billion and years and years and years to clean 
up. That is where the permanent jobs are going to be created, in 
cleaning up the spillage, and that is not the kind of jobs the American 
people want.
  Building the pipeline carries the dirtiest oil from Canada to the 
Gulf of Mexico and is exactly the opposite of addressing climate 
change, which is what we should be doing today, and most of this oil 
will not go to America, but will go through America, endangering mid-
America, and be exported overseas. There are no export restrictions on 
nondomestic crudes.
  H.R. 5682 is a special interest earmark that will make the U.S. a 
permanent conduit to international markets for one of the dirtiest fuel 
sources on the planet.
  My colleague and friend says that we are going to be helping our 
friend. Yes, Canada is our friend. We play hockey with them, 
basketball, whatever; but this oil is going to go to our other friend, 
China. This is about Canada shipping oil through America and 
endangering American lands to supply the Chinese with oil.
  The Keystone XL proponents like to talk about these jobs it would 
create, but the vast majority are temporary. The permanent jobs measure 
but 35, and as I said, the permanent jobs will really be cleanup.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has 
expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 45 seconds.
  Mr. COHEN. As was mentioned by Mr. Polis, these jobs are important if 
they are in transportation infrastructure. That creates real jobs in 
this country, getting goods to market, and my friends on the other side 
have resisted transportation infrastructure jobs.
  Clean energy is permanent jobs. Wind and solar are permanent jobs. 
The only permanent jobs are the cleanups. When the U.S. and China have 
come together in historic agreement is not the time to light the fuse 
to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.
  For these and other countless reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.'' It is time to return our focus to an issue that centers on true 
energy independence through renewable sources and greener, domestic 
energy production.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I think we are seeing the same heresy take 
place here on the floor, and that is trying to scare people. It is 
Republicans who are trying to move a job bill, and jobs, the American 
people understand. Let's keep this thing right in the center of the 
table.
  It is about jobs. It is about energy independence. It is about a 
working relationship with our friends. It is about lessening our 
dependence upon giving people in other countries in foreign lands our 
money that they don't always use in our best interest. It is about 
national security, and it is about a lot of things that make common 
sense. What makes common sense is not to scare people, but give them 
the facts of the case.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota, Kevin Cramer. He served on the commission up in North 
Dakota before he came to Congress, and he is a great young man.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. It seems 
it should be so unnecessary to have something that makes so much common 
sense become so historic, and yet, here, we find ourselves at a 
historic moment.
  After years of debate and accommodation, the most environmentally 
studied and accommodated pipeline in the history of the world has been 
stranded on the President's desk, held hostage by Hollywood advisers 
and liberals, donors to politicians who either don't understand the 
issue or don't care.

                              {time}  1645

  But as signals of a possible vote in the United States Senate are 
being transmitted, the American people ought to find comfort in the 
fact that politics works, that when the American people speak, even the 
United States Senate listens.
  So I am grateful that Congressman Cassidy has brought this bill to 
the people's House, a bill that originated with my Senator, Senator 
Hoeven in the Senate, so that we can tee it up for them this week so 
that next week they can do what they should have done a long time ago 
and pass this bill.
  You know, I am a big part of the Keystone pipeline. When I was on the 
North Dakota Public Service Commission years ago, I carried the 
pipeline portfolio. I happened to oversee the siting of the original 
Keystone pipeline that goes through North Dakota and goes down to 
Cushing, Oklahoma. It crosses the border in North Dakota. It crosses 
eight counties in my State, 600 landowners' land. It crosses farms of 
farmers who know how to work the land and know the value of the topsoil 
and understand the value of the minerals underneath it. It crosses two 
scenic rivers and includes five pumping stations and runs 217 miles 
through my State.
  I am proud to say that while not universally loved, not one inch of 
that pipeline through North Dakota required condemnation proceedings, 
not because I am a great regulator, but because North Dakotans 
understand value--the value of domestic energy, the value it has to job 
creation. And I want to talk about jobs in a little bit.
  As vast reserves of oil are discovered and new technologies unlocked, 
energy security is within our reach this decade. The amount of oil that 
would flow to U.S. refineries in the Keystone XL represents 36 percent 
of what we import today from the Persian Gulf alone. The fact of the 
matter is that, today, over 71 percent of the Bakken shale crude that 
is produced in North Dakota is shipped by rail. Now, I have nothing 
against trains--I thank God that we have a robust rail system--but 
railing oil costs more. It is a little more dangerous. It is not as 
efficient as pipelines. It also requires trucks to get the oil to the 
rail facilities. Again, trucks are good--they are not bad at all--but 
they are not as safe or as efficient as pipelines, and they take a toll 
on our highway infrastructure.
  According to the director of the North Dakota Department of Mineral 
Resources, Lynn Helms, approval of the Keystone XL will cause two 
things to happen, and listen carefully: 300 to 500 truckloads per day 
will be taken off of North Dakota highways, and there will be 10 fewer 
trains every week leaving the State. He also calculates that greenhouse 
gas emissions from rail are 1.8 times that of a pipeline and 2.9 times 
the emissions from pipeline transportation, and spills from truck 
transportation occurs at three to four times the rate of spills from 
pipelines. So yes, sometimes accidents happen, but they happen far more 
frequently with trucks.
  Approval of the XL will result in 450,00 to 950,000 kilograms per day 
less greenhouse gas emissions in North Dakota alone, as well as 
significant decreases in dust and 60 to 80 fewer spills per year.
  America's national security, Mr. Speaker, and America's economic 
security are tied directly to America's energy security. We can do a 
lot better, and we need to.
  Now, the environmental safeguards in the Keystone pipeline--I said it 
is the most studied pipeline in the history of the world--they are 
rigorous and they are appropriate. They have been tested and they work. 
I can attest to that. I toured the Keystone during construction, and I 
met many of the men and women who worked on the line. Those, Mr. 
Speaker, are real jobs. Those pipe layers are real workers doing real 
jobs. The restaurant owners, the hotel owners, the retailers, the 
subcontractors, those are real jobs, and they should not be diminished 
by considering them something other than real jobs. We have the lowest 
workforce participation rate since 1978 in this country. Let's put 
people back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to stand here and support this 
rule and ask my colleagues to do the same. Support final passage. Put 
people back to work and make America more energy

[[Page H7956]]

secure and keep the prices low for the American consumer.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  So again, I was excited that perhaps the Rules Committee was going to 
consider emergency legislation on public health or Ebola or the war 
with ISIS or our budget. How about a deficit of half a trillion 
dollars, I call that an emergency. Instead, here we are dealing with a 
bill, something that Congress already passed that even if they passed 
again would make the decisionmaker exactly the same decisionmaker we 
have today, namely, the President of the United States.
  Rather than considering the Keystone pipeline bill--and if we weren't 
going to deal with one of the real emergencies--why not at least bring 
up bills that create new green energy jobs in our innovation and energy 
sector like the bipartisan Public Lands Renewable Energy Act that I 
offered along with Representatives Gosar, Thompson, and Heck? The 
Public Lands Renewable Energy Act would expand renewable energy 
development and create jobs while protecting our Nation's public health 
and environmental resources. It would provide the framework for a 
competitive leasing system for wind and energy, solar energy, on public 
lands. The innovative leasing process would help move our Nation 
forward with clean energy development while providing funding for 
conservation, States, and localities. How about that? Let's use some of 
our great public lands that have good solar or wind characteristics for 
solar and wind. I think that would be a great bipartisan bill to bring 
up here today.
  Another example of a bill that we could consider today that would 
create jobs and move to a renewable energy future is the Renewable 
Electricity Standard Act, H.R. 3654, which I co-introduced in order to 
boost renewable energy markets across the country. The bill would make 
sure that utilities generate 25 percent of their electricity from 
renewable energies like wind, solar, and biomass by 2025. It is a goal, 
and my great State of Colorado already has a 30 percent renewable 
energy standard. That legislation would build on the success of over 30 
State-based renewable energy standards, including the standard in the 
great State of Colorado by creating a true national market for 
renewable energy. It would create jobs and save consumers money on 
utility bills, help keep gas cheap at the pump, and provide billions in 
local tax revenues for small towns while cutting carbon pollution. 
That, to me, sounds like a better idea than spending our time debating 
a bill that, even if passed, will leave the project that it is talking 
about in the same situation it is before the bill is discussed.
  Instead, Republicans are moving forward on a bill that clings on to 
Big Oil interests and does nothing to make energy more affordable for 
American consumers, does nothing to move forward to a clean energy 
future, and does nothing at all because, even if it passes, it has to 
go to the President to sign, who is currently the person reviewing the 
applications as we speak.
  The emergency Rules Committee meeting and closed rule today does not 
allow me to bring forward the Public Lands Renewable Energy Act as an 
amendment. It doesn't allow me to bring forward the Renewable 
Electricity Standard Act as an amendment. In fact, the closed rule 
today ensures that no Member, Republican or Democratic, of this great 
body can offer an amendment to improve this bill.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to set the tone for the next Congress 
by rejecting this rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I 
will tell you, we are trying to keep the stage set that we in the 
Republican majority are leading for jobs for America. We are leading to 
help gas at the pump be less than what it has been. It doubled under 
President Obama's watch because they have not done the things that 
would allow more energy to be gotten. Sure, it is being gotten now on 
private lands, but on Federal lands, we need to do the same.
  Once again, the same old worn-out rhetoric standing in the way of 
jobs in this country. That is why Republicans are now here on the floor 
again today. Our last bill is about jobs, too, before we leave.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Gainesville, 
Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member on the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the 
Rules Committee.
  I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, 
H.R. 5682, to authorize the construction of the Keystone pipeline. You 
know, it is not every day that I come back--and we have been gone for 
awhile from debating while we have been out actually campaigning and 
listening to the American people, and the American people spoke rather 
loudly last week, and it is good to come back and begin to put into 
practice what they have said. In fact, it is amazing to me how debates 
that went on so far here and coming to the floor--in fact, from people 
that normally we never disagree on--I am actually bringing to the floor 
a little bit of bipartisanship here.
  In fact, I know that some will think there is no better argument for 
the pipeline--in fact, there is no better one that I have heard than 
one that I read in the paper today from a distinguished colleague in 
the other Chamber just across the way who does not share the Republican 
point of view. He said in regards to the Keystone pipeline:

       It would be a tremendous windfall for all of us. It is 
     something we can count on. I can't for the life of me 
     understand why we haven't, to date, been able to move this 
     piece of legislation forward.

  Well, good grief, neither do I. In fact, if I was to spend the rest 
of my 5 minutes just trying to understand why the Senate can't move 
bills, we would be here all night, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from the 
other side, the other body, the Senate, summed it up clearly. He said: 
I don't understand why we can't move stuff.
  What I have also missed, Mr. Speaker, coming back to the floor of the 
House, is things that I have never heard before, I mean, not at least 
in north Georgia where I am from. When we talk about jobs--and I have 
heard it talked about here on the floor of the House this afternoon; in 
fact, it was said that this is a waste of taxpayer money. To bring 
bills like this up, that it is a waste of taxpayer money. What is a 
waste of taxpayer money is the House Republicans passing jobs bills for 
Americans regardless of their party, jobs for them, and having them sit 
in a Senate that never woke up. That is a waste of taxpayer money. 
Where do I go to get my money back from that side of the aisle?
  You know what is another thing that is amazing to me today, I 
actually heard something, Mr. Speaker, and you may have to help me with 
this because I don't understand because it was just said here on the 
floor of the House that this bill was a special interest earmark. I 
have never heard jobs described as a special interest earmark. Are you 
telling me that the Congress, in looking to give people jobs, is a 
special interest earmark? I think that is exactly what we are supposed 
to be doing. Are you kidding? This is exactly what the election was 
about just a couple of days ago. It is exactly what the American people 
spoke of. It is exactly what they are tired of--of government standing 
in the way of jobs.
  Emergency legislation, an ``emergency rule,'' another term I have 
just heard on the House floor just a few minutes ago, that we were 
coming to the floor with an emergency rule and that we were going to do 
something special. Undoubtedly, they have never met somebody who does 
not have a job. I have been without a job. And if you were to tell me 
that I could get a job when I was looking for a job, that is emergency 
legislation. It is whatever it is, and I am looking for a job, and 
there are millions of families looking for jobs. Special interests it 
is not; it is the work of this body. And to say it is a waste of time, 
have we lost that much of our vision of what the American people sent 
us here to do?
  Are there things that we could bring up? I appreciate my friend from 
Colorado. Are there a multitude of bills we could bring up? Yes. But as 
my parents once told me, they said: Doug, that is the supper you are 
getting tonight. You either eat it or go to bed hungry.
  The bill we have before us is a jobs bill--42,000 jobs--puts millions 
of people in jobs and the economy back together again in a way that 
helps our economy and helps the world, but yet

[[Page H7957]]

all we are worried about is what could be. Well, what could be is not 
good enough for somebody who can't pay their house payment, who can't 
send their kids to school. It is bad.
  If you are watching and if you want to think about this right now, 
there is a clear difference. And the clear difference is that the 
Republicans have listened to the folks at the ball fields, have 
listened to the folks at the churches and the synagogues, who have 
heard ``I need a job.''
  I want to work together for good jobs, and we will get to better 
jobs; but what is before us right now, Mr. Speaker, is this bill. This 
is the bill that is before us, and there is bipartisan support for 
this. And we can claim what is not in it. We can claim what it is. But 
I would never ever want to come to this podium, Mr. Speaker, and ever 
say that a jobs bill is an earmark, that a jobs bill is something that 
we shouldn't be taking up or that it is a waste of time, because when 
we say that bills like this are a waste of time, then we might as well 
say to people on the unemployment line, ``You are a waste of time,'' 
and this Republican will never do that because the American people 
expect better from us. That is why this rule needs to pass; that is why 
this bill needs to pass; and that is why this Republican majority will 
do what it is sent here to do--govern.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the other side here is arguing like somehow passing this 
bill would lead to this pipeline being built. That simply isn't the 
case. The current review process, the decision lies with the President 
and the Secretary of State. If this bill, in identical form, were to 
pass both Chambers, the President of the United States will have a 
choice--approve it or not approve it--the same choice he has now.

                              {time}  1700

  So in no way would this Republican bill that we are considering here 
today make a decision for the President. The President is elected by 
the people in the country. Congress itself gave the President the 
authority to review this bill. It only becomes law if he chooses to 
sign it.
  I should point out that this bill exempts TransCanada from multiple 
environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act or the 
Endangered Species Act. If the President were to approve the Keystone 
project, it probably wouldn't even be by signing this bill. He would 
probably approve it without waiving those laws or perhaps different 
areas, or perhaps there are other issues that this body doesn't know 
about because Mr. Whitfield hasn't consulted the President on what the 
pending issues are in 6 months.
  So again, as a Member of this body who is not on the committee of 
jurisdiction, I can't say that I have been briefed by the 
administration on what the pending issues are. Apparently, Mr. 
Whitfield hasn't either. So let's find out what they are and are there 
additional areas that have to be rerouted, are there precautions that 
have to be made because of the high temperature of the tar sands as 
they race across our country.
  Approving this Keystone XL pipeline, which this bill, again, would 
not do--it would simply go to the President who could choose whether he 
wants to move forward or not, just as he can now--but it would simply 
benefit foreign oil interests. The real issue is where are the benefits 
for the American people--the health and safety of the American people, 
the integrity of agriculture-based economies in the areas that would be 
affected. Does Congress really want to give TransCanada special 
benefits and exemptions or should they be held to the same standard as 
other important energy projects?
  We need to help America grow renewable energy to wean ourselves off 
of our reliance on fossil fuels. If Congress wants to weigh in on how 
large energy projects should be approved, by all means, let's do it. 
But, quite frankly, you don't do it by presenting a bill to the 
President which gives him the exact same options that he has today. It 
doesn't move the ball down the road one way or the other.
  I share the desire that my colleagues have that hopefully the process 
is nearing its completion. Whether that is a week or a month or 6 
months, I don't know. Apparently, the committee doesn't know either, 
because they haven't asked the Executive. But I do trust that they are 
taking the factors that Congress wrote into law into consideration and, 
hopefully, will come to the conclusion one way or the other regardless 
of whether this bill is passed or not.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton). As the former chairman of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, he knows about as much as anybody in the 
United States Congress about not just the needs of jobs and energy in 
this country, but, as the distinguished former chairman of the 
committee, he led this fight for many, many years.
  (Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Rules Committee.
  First of all, let's try to define what this bill actually does. We 
have had a lot of rhetoric on the House floor the last 30 minutes or 
so. It is a pretty simple bill. It removes the President from the 
decisionmaking authority. He can sign the bill and it would become law; 
he cannot sign it after so many days and it can become law; or he can 
veto it--but he doesn't have to make the decision whether to build the 
pipeline or not. That is the first thing. It takes the President out of 
the decisionmaking loop, except for the fact that he has the option as 
the President of the United States to sign the bill into law, veto it, 
or to let it become law without his signature.
  Secondly, it says that if the bill does become law and the 
environmental groups still want to contest it, you get expedited 
judicial review so that we immediately get a decision. That is what the 
bill does. It is a simple bill.
  A lot of the Keystone pipeline has already been built. From some of 
the rhetoric on the floor, you would think that it hadn't even been 
started yet. The reason the State Department and the President are even 
in the loop is because it is an international pipeline. Having said 
that, the international part of it has been built. The connection 
between Canada and the United States has been built and is operational. 
The part that is in question is within the interior of the United 
States of America.
  If you were building a pipeline that wasn't connected to the Keystone 
pipeline as it exists, you wouldn't have to have the State Department 
review it and you wouldn't have to have the President make a decision. 
But because it is the continuation or in addition to an existing 
international pipeline, the State Department has to make a decision 
and, in this case, the President right now has to make a decision.
  It is an 800,000-barrel-a-day pipeline if we make it operational. 
That brings oil from Canada into the United States where it can go to 
any number of domestic refineries, or it could actually, as has been 
said, it could be exported potentially. But in all probability, they 
will get a better market price in the United States down on the Gulf 
Coast and they would prefer to sell it here. But the market would make 
that decision, Mr. Speaker.
  So, if at first you don't succeed, try, try, and try again. The House 
leadership, on a bipartisan basis, is going to send another bill on the 
Keystone pipeline to the other body. My understanding is that they are 
going to vote on it next week if it passes the House tomorrow, and then 
we will send it to the President. This would be a great Thanksgiving 
present for the American people, as has been pointed out: more job 
creation, more options for domestic refineries, potentially lower 
gasoline prices than they even are today for motorists and our 
consumers. It is a win-win-win.
  There is no group in America that opposes it. Republicans support it; 
Democrats support it; labor unions support it. The only group is the 
radical environmentalists that probably make up 2 or 3 percent of the 
population. I just don't understand it.
  I want to thank the committee of jurisdiction for bringing the bill 
to the floor, for the Rules Committee reporting out the rule. I urge a 
strong ``yes'' vote on the rule, and tomorrow I urge a strong ``yes'' 
vote on the bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H7958]]

  What we have here is Congress trying to interfere with a highly 
technical review process that has already resulted in the rerouting of 
the proposed pipeline to ensure that the integrity of the Ogallala 
aquifer is preserved and that there are potentially other important 
issues to Americans that live in the affected areas where the pipeline 
would be built. Instead of hearing what those issues are or talking to 
the administration about what pending issues remain or are standing in 
the way of approval, Congress is seeking to shortcut that 
process, exempt the XL pipeline from the National Environmental Policy 
Act and the Endangered Species Act to immediately order it to be built 
regardless of the legitimate issues that should be waived.

  When my colleague says, oh, somehow it is only 2 percent of the 
American people that oppose it, that is not the discussion we are 
having here today. It is not about who supports it or who opposes it. 
There needs to be the studies that are done to make sure that the 
routing of it maintains the health and safety of the American people, 
doesn't jeopardize the economy in the affected areas. Those are the 
issues that have already resulted in several changes of the plan and 
could result in additional changes to the plan of where and how the 
pipeline could be built. For Congress to somehow say we are just tired 
of dealing with the technical issues and we just want it done puts 
American lives at risk, puts America's health at risk.
  We all wish that this process could have been completed 6 months ago, 
3 months ago. We hope it is completed a month from now, 6 months from 
now. But giving the President the same choice he has today by passing 
this bill doesn't move the process forward. We should be taking 
advantage of our last few precious weeks before the end of the year to 
address some of the important pieces of legislation that the Senate has 
sent over, but somehow what we are debating, repealing the Affordable 
Care Act for the 53rd time or the Keystone pipeline again and again, 
somehow this body hasn't had time to even consider or debate or allow a 
vote on important pieces of legislation like the bipartisan immigration 
reform package that received more than two-thirds support in the United 
States Senate. There is a companion bill that is bipartisan that has 
been introduced in the House. There is a discharge petition at the desk 
for Members to sign to demand a simple up-or-down vote to fix our 
broken immigration system, secure our borders, reduce our budget 
deficit by over $200 billion.
  There is a discussion of jobs with the Keystone project. Well, let me 
tell you, this bill on immigration reform that if this body allows a 
vote on would create over 250,000 jobs for American citizens.
  Or how about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? The Senate has 
acted on a bill that would prevent an employer from firing somebody 
just because they are gay or lesbian. It shouldn't be any of your boss' 
business who you date or who you love after work. The Senate passed 
that. More than three-quarters of the American people support it. We 
filed a discharge petition on that bill. We would love to be acting on 
that bill here today instead of yet again shortcutting the process with 
regard to an oil project.
  This Congress has been a frustrating Congress. Unfortunately, here in 
our final weeks, I hope we are not setting the tone for an equally 
ineffective and inefficient 114th Congress. The American people deserve 
better. It is time to move forward with the renewable energy agenda, 
with balancing our budget, with fixing our broken immigration system, 
with making college more affordable, rather than talking in circles 
about projects that are already under review and won't be any more or 
less under review if the bill passes because it requires the signature 
of the same President who is currently charged with making this 
decision under current law in statutes passed by the United States 
Congress. Let's not waste our limited time on bills that won't go 
anywhere and won't do anything.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring H.R. 15, comprehensive 
immigration reform, to the floor of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas yield for that 
purpose?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
  Mr. POLIS. Well, unfortunately, yet again, we have been stymied in 
our efforts to address a critical issue facing the American people with 
a bill that would create over 250,000 jobs for American citizens, would 
secure our border, restore the rule of law, and unite American 
families. That is what the work of Congress should be; that is what the 
American people want Congress to do. If the 113th Congress can't do it, 
I sure hope that the President moves forward with the powers that have 
been granted to him by Congress and that the 114th Congress proves to 
be better than this Congress is in its waning days.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, we heard our friends on the Democrat side 
talk about special interest money. They were talking about green 
energy: $18 billion a year is spent, money that would be spent like 
what was spent on Solyndra, sole-source contracts to companies that 
have gone belly up. Those are the ideas of the Democrat Party and the 
ideas of this President. The ideas of this President are they have 
taken over 6 years--2,246 days--the President of the United States, 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State Kerry, an 
administration that stands in the way of the operation of getting 
people jobs, of doing the things that the American people want and 
need. That is why what happened this first Tuesday in November, the 
American people said: We have had enough.

                              {time}  1715

  I, as a Republican, don't take it that we are just outstanding and 
they elected us. What they said is: We are sick and tired of the 
direction we're headed. We want serious things to happen.
  We have a brand new Governor in Maryland and a brand new Governor in 
Illinois. There is a lot of information that is out there, ready for 
us. We Republicans came right back to work. The Senate is doing the 
same. They are trying to pass this. We are trying to take the exact 
same bill that we were asked to do, with the expectation and 
understanding it can pass this body.
  It is a well-understood bill. It hasn't taken us 6 years--2,246 
days--to figure it out. If this administration can't figure the dang 
thing out, they need to admit they do not know how to read or lead. And 
I don't know which one it is, but either they can't read or they cannot 
lead. They need to know that the American people expect us to go get 
the work done. That is what you heard Mr. Collins say. The Republican 
Party is up to the task. The Republican Party, through the leadership 
of John A. Boehner and the leadership of what will be Mitch McConnell, 
the Senate majority leader, is going to do exactly that.
  We are going to take all the issues, including the one the gentleman 
talks about all day and every day--and that is immigration--and we are 
going to have an immigration bill. And we are going to do the right 
thing.
  But today we are talking about jobs: jobs and opportunities for 
people that need them. We need competition for the price of energy. We 
need to make sure we don't depend as much on the Middle East and that 
we work with our friends from Canada. And it does not take the 
Republican Party 6 years, or 2,246 days, to try and make a decision. 
The Republican Party is here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 185, not voting 16, as follows:

[[Page H7959]]

                             [Roll No. 517]

                               YEAS--233

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--185

     Adams
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Barletta
     Blumenauer
     Campbell
     Costa
     Duckworth
     Enyart
     Hall
     Hinojosa
     Issa
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Negrete McLeod
     Perry
     Runyan
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1745

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 517, I was detained en route 
from National Airport. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________