[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.''
____________________