Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 23 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H947-H960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE APPROVAL ACT

General Leave

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on S. 1.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 100, I call
up the bill (S. 1) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 100, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

S. 1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Keystone XL Pipeline
Approval Act''.

SEC. 2. KEYSTONE XL APPROVAL.

(a) In General.--TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. may
construct, connect, operate, and maintain the pipeline and
cross-border facilities described in the application filed on
May 4, 2012, by TransCanada Corporation to the Department of
State (including any subsequent revision to the pipeline
route within the State of Nebraska required or authorized by
the State of Nebraska).
(b) Environmental Impact Statement.--The Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Secretary of
State in January 2014, regarding the pipeline referred to in
subsection (a), and the environmental analysis, consultation,
and review described in that document (including appendices)
shall be considered to fully satisfy--
(1) all requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(2) any other provision of law that requires Federal agency
consultation or review (including the consultation or review
required under section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a))) with respect to the pipeline and
facilities referred to in subsection (a).
(c) Permits.--Any Federal permit or authorization issued
before the date of enactment of this Act for the pipeline and
cross-border facilities referred to in subsection (a) shall
remain in effect.
(d) Judicial Review.--Except for review in the Supreme
Court of the United States, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for
the review of an order or action of a Federal agency
regarding the pipeline and cross-border facilities described
in subsection (a), and the related facilities in the United
States, that are approved by this Act (including any order
granting a permit or right-of-way, or any other agency action
taken to construct or complete the project pursuant to
Federal law).
(e) Private Property Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act
alters any Federal, State, or local process or condition in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is necessary
to secure access from an owner of private property to
construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities described
in subsection (a).
(f) Private Property Protection.--Land or an interest in
land for the pipeline and cross-border facilities described
in subsection (a) may only be acquired consistently with the
Constitution.

SEC. 3. COORDINATION OF ENERGY RETROFITTING ASSISTANCE FOR
SCHOOLS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) School.--The term ``school'' means--
(A) an elementary school or secondary school (as defined in
section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801));
(B) an institution of higher education (as defined in
section 102(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1002(a));
(C) a school of the defense dependents' education system
under the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (20
U.S.C. 921 et seq.) or established under section 2164 of
title 10, United States Code;
(D) a school operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
(E) a tribally controlled school (as defined in section
5212 of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25
U.S.C. 2511)); and
(F) a Tribal College or University (as defined in section
316(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1059c(b))).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(b) Designation of Lead Agency.--The Secretary, acting
through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
shall act as the lead Federal agency for coordinating and
disseminating information on existing Federal programs and
assistance that may be used to help initiate, develop, and
finance energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy
retrofitting projects for schools.
(c) Requirements.--In carrying out coordination and
outreach under subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
(1) in consultation and coordination with the appropriate
Federal agencies, carry out a review of existing programs and
financing mechanisms (including revolving loan funds and loan
guarantees) available in or from the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of
Education, the Department of the Treasury, the Internal
Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
other appropriate Federal agencies with jurisdiction over
energy financing and facilitation that are currently used or
may be used to help initiate, develop, and finance energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting
projects for schools;
(2) establish a Federal cross-departmental collaborative
coordination, education, and outreach effort to streamline
communication and promote available Federal opportunities and
assistance described in paragraph (1) for energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects that
enables States, local educational agencies, and schools--
(A) to use existing Federal opportunities more effectively;
and
(B) to form partnerships with Governors, State energy
programs, local educational, financial, and energy officials,
State and local government officials, nonprofit
organizations, and other appropriate entities to support the
initiation of the projects;
(3) provide technical assistance for States, local
educational agencies, and schools to help develop and finance
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting
projects--
(A) to increase the energy efficiency of buildings or
facilities;
(B) to install systems that individually generate energy
from renewable energy resources;
(C) to establish partnerships to leverage economies of
scale and additional financing mechanisms available to larger
clean energy initiatives; or
(D) to promote--
(i) the maintenance of health, environmental quality, and
safety in schools, including the ambient air quality, through
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofit
projects; and

[[Page H948]]

(ii) the achievement of expected energy savings and
renewable energy production through proper operations and
maintenance practices;
(4) develop and maintain a single online resource website
with contact information for relevant technical assistance
and support staff in the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy for States, local educational agencies, and
schools to effectively access and use Federal opportunities
and assistance described in paragraph (1) to develop energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting
projects; and
(5) establish a process for recognition of schools that--
(A) have successfully implemented energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects; and
(B) are willing to serve as resources for other local
educational agencies and schools to assist initiation of
similar efforts.
(d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the implementation of this section.

SEC. 4. CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBES.

Nothing in this Act relieves the United States of its
responsibility to consult with Indian nations as required
under executive order 13175 (67 Fed. Reg. 67249) (November 6,
2000).

SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE.

It is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real
and not a hoax.

SEC. 6. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING THE OIL SPILL LIABILITY
TRUST FUND.

It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) Congress should approve a bill to ensure that all forms
of bitumen or synthetic crude oil derived from bitumen are
subject to the per-barrel excise tax associated with the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund established by section 9509 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(2) it is necessary for Congress to approve a bill
described in paragraph (1) because the Internal Revenue
Service determined in 2011 that certain forms of petroleum
are not subject to the per-barrel excise tax;
(3) under article I, section 7, clause 1 of the
Constitution, the Senate may not originate a bill to raise
new revenue, and thus may not originate a bill to close the
legitimate and unintended loophole described in paragraph
(2);
(4) if the Senate attempts to originate a bill described in
paragraph (1), it would provide a substantive basis for a
``blue slip'' from the House of Representatives, which would
prevent advancement of the bill; and
(5) the House of Representatives, consistent with article
I, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution, should consider
and refer to the Senate a bill to ensure that all forms of
bitumen or synthetic crude oil derived from bitumen are
subject to the per-barrel excise tax associated with the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund established by section 9509 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

DIVISION B--ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This division may be cited as the ``Energy Efficiency
Improvement Act of 2015''.

TITLE I--BETTER BUILDINGS

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Better Buildings Act of
2015''.

SEC. 102. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN FEDERAL AND OTHER BUILDINGS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of General Services.
(2) Cost-effective energy efficiency measure.--The term
``cost-effective energy efficiency measure'' means any
building product, material, equipment, or service, and the
installing, implementing, or operating thereof, that provides
energy savings in an amount that is not less than the cost of
such installing, implementing, or operating.
(3) Cost-effective water efficiency measure.--The term
``cost-effective water efficiency measure'' means any
building product, material, equipment, or service, and the
installing, implementing, or operating thereof, that provides
water savings in an amount that is not less than the cost of
such installing, implementing, or operating.
(b) Model Provisions, Policies, and Best Practices.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy and after providing the public
with an opportunity for notice and comment, shall develop
model commercial leasing provisions and best practices in
accordance with this subsection.
(2) Commercial leasing.--
(A) In general.--The model commercial leasing provisions
developed under this subsection shall, at a minimum, align
the interests of building owners and tenants with regard to
investments in cost-effective energy efficiency measures and
cost-effective water efficiency measures to encourage
building owners and tenants to collaborate to invest in such
measures.
(B) Use of model provisions.--The Administrator may use the
model commercial leasing provisions developed under this
subsection in any standard leasing document that designates a
Federal agency (or other client of the Administrator) as a
landlord or tenant.
(C) Publication.--The Administrator shall periodically
publish the model commercial leasing provisions developed
under this subsection, along with explanatory materials, to
encourage building owners and tenants in the private sector
to use such provisions and materials.
(3) Realty services.--The Administrator shall develop
policies and practices to implement cost-effective energy
efficiency measures and cost-effective water efficiency
measures for the realty services provided by the
Administrator to Federal agencies (or other clients of the
Administrator), including periodic training of appropriate
Federal employees and contractors on how to identify and
evaluate those measures.
(4) State and local assistance.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall make
available model commercial leasing provisions and best
practices developed under this subsection to State, county,
and municipal governments for use in managing owned and
leased building space in accordance with the goal of
encouraging investment in all cost-effective energy
efficiency measures and cost-effective water efficiency
measures.

SEC. 103. SEPARATE SPACES WITH HIGH-PERFORMANCE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY MEASURES.

(a) In General.--Subtitle B of title IV of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17081 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 424. SEPARATE SPACES WITH HIGH-PERFORMANCE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY MEASURES.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) High-performance energy efficiency measure.--The term
`high-performance energy efficiency measure' means a
technology, product, or practice that will result in
substantial operational cost savings by reducing energy
consumption and utility costs.
``(2) Separate spaces.--The term `separate spaces' means
areas within a commercial building that are leased or
otherwise occupied by a tenant or other occupant for a period
of time pursuant to the terms of a written agreement.
``(b) Study.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, shall complete a study on the feasibility of--
``(A) significantly improving energy efficiency in
commercial buildings through the design and construction, by
owners and tenants, of separate spaces with high-performance
energy efficiency measures; and
``(B) encouraging owners and tenants to implement high-
performance energy efficiency measures in separate spaces.
``(2) Scope.--The study shall, at a minimum, include--
``(A) descriptions of--
``(i) high-performance energy efficiency measures that
should be considered as part of the initial design and
construction of separate spaces;
``(ii) processes that owners, tenants, architects, and
engineers may replicate when designing and constructing
separate spaces with high-performance energy efficiency
measures;
``(iii) policies and best practices to achieve reductions
in energy intensities for lighting, plug loads, heating,
cooling, cooking, laundry, and other systems to satisfy the
needs of the commercial building tenant;
``(iv) return on investment and payback analyses of the
incremental cost and projected energy savings of the proposed
set of high-performance energy efficiency measures, including
consideration of available incentives;
``(v) models and simulation methods that predict the
quantity of energy used by separate spaces with high-
performance energy efficiency measures and that compare that
predicted quantity to the quantity of energy used by separate
spaces without high-performance energy efficiency measures
but that otherwise comply with applicable building code
requirements;
``(vi) measurement and verification platforms demonstrating
actual energy use of high-performance energy efficiency
measures installed in separate spaces, and whether such
measures generate the savings intended in the initial design
and construction of the separate spaces;
``(vii) best practices that encourage an integrated
approach to designing and constructing separate spaces to
perform at optimum energy efficiency in conjunction with the
central systems of a commercial building; and
``(viii) any impact on employment resulting from the design
and construction of separate spaces with high-performance
energy efficiency measures; and
``(B) case studies reporting economic and energy savings
returns in the design and construction of separate spaces
with high-performance energy efficiency measures.
``(3) Public participation.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary
shall publish a notice in the Federal Register requesting
public comments regarding effective methods, measures, and
practices for the design and construction of separate spaces
with high-performance energy efficiency measures.
``(4) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish the study
on the website of the Department of Energy.''.

[[Page H949]]

(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 423
the following new item:

``Sec. 424. Separate spaces with high-performance energy efficiency
measures.''.

SEC. 104. TENANT STAR PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Subtitle B of title IV of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17081 et
seq.) (as amended by section 103) is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``SEC. 425. TENANT STAR PROGRAM.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) High-performance energy efficiency measure.--The term
`high-performance energy efficiency measure' has the meaning
given the term in section 424.
``(2) Separate spaces.--The term `separate spaces' has the
meaning given the term in section 424.
``(b) Tenant Star.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of
Energy, shall develop a voluntary program within the Energy
Star program established by section 324A of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294a), which may be known as
`Tenant Star', to promote energy efficiency in separate
spaces leased by tenants or otherwise occupied within
commercial buildings.
``(c) Expanding Survey Data.--The Secretary of Energy,
acting through the Administrator of the Energy Information
Administration, shall--
``(1) collect, through each Commercial Buildings Energy
Consumption Survey of the Energy Information Administration
that is conducted after the date of enactment of this
section, data on--
``(A) categories of building occupancy that are known to
consume significant quantities of energy, such as occupancy
by data centers, trading floors, and restaurants; and
``(B) other aspects of the property, building operation, or
building occupancy determined by the Administrator of the
Energy Information Administration, in consultation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to be
relevant in lowering energy consumption;
``(2) with respect to the first Commercial Buildings Energy
Consumption Survey conducted after the date of enactment of
this section, to the extent full compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (1) is not feasible, conduct
activities to develop the capability to collect such data and
begin to collect such data; and
``(3) make data collected under paragraphs (1) and (2)
available to the public in aggregated form and provide such
data, and any associated results, to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency for use in accordance with
subsection (d).
``(d) Recognition of Owners and Tenants.--
``(1) Occupancy-based recognition.--Not later than 1 year
after the date on which sufficient data is received pursuant
to subsection (c), the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall, following an opportunity for public
notice and comment--
``(A) in a manner similar to the Energy Star rating system
for commercial buildings, develop policies and procedures to
recognize tenants in commercial buildings that voluntarily
achieve high levels of energy efficiency in separate spaces;
``(B) establish building occupancy categories eligible for
Tenant Star recognition based on the data collected under
subsection (c) and any other appropriate data sources; and
``(C) consider other forms of recognition for commercial
building tenants or other occupants that lower energy
consumption in separate spaces.
``(2) Design- and construction-based recognition.--After
the study required by section 424(b) is completed, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in
consultation with the Secretary and following an opportunity
for public notice and comment, may develop a voluntary
program to recognize commercial building owners and tenants
that use high-performance energy efficiency measures in the
design and construction of separate spaces.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 424
(as added by section 103(b)) the following new item:

``Sec. 425. Tenant Star program.''.

TITLE II--GRID-ENABLED WATER HEATERS

SEC. 201. GRID-ENABLED WATER HEATERS.

Part B of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act is amended--
(1) in section 325(e) (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)), by adding at the
end the following:
``(6) Additional standards for grid-enabled water
heaters.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Activation lock.--The term `activation lock' means a
control mechanism (either a physical device directly on the
water heater or a control system integrated into the water
heater) that is locked by default and contains a physical,
software, or digital communication that must be activated
with an activation key to enable the product to operate at
its designed specifications and capabilities and without
which activation the product will provide not greater than 50
percent of the rated first hour delivery of hot water
certified by the manufacturer.
``(ii) Grid-enabled water heater.--The term `grid-enabled
water heater' means an electric resistance water heater
that--

``(I) has a rated storage tank volume of more than 75
gallons;
``(II) is manufactured on or after April 16, 2015;
``(III) has--

``(aa) an energy factor of not less than 1.061 minus the
product obtained by multiplying--
``(AA) the rated storage volume of the tank, expressed in
gallons; and
``(BB) 0.00168; or
``(bb) an equivalent alternative standard prescribed by the
Secretary and developed pursuant to paragraph (5)(E);

``(IV) is equipped at the point of manufacture with an
activation lock; and
``(V) bears a permanent label applied by the manufacturer
that--

``(aa) is made of material not adversely affected by water;
``(bb) is attached by means of non-water-soluble adhesive;
and
``(cc) advises purchasers and end-users of the intended and
appropriate use of the product with the following notice
printed in 16.5 point Arial Narrow Bold font:

`` `IMPORTANT INFORMATION: This water heater is intended only
for use as part of an electric thermal storage or demand
response program. It will not provide adequate hot water
unless enrolled in such a program and activated by your
utility company or another program operator. Confirm the
availability of a program in your local area before
purchasing or installing this product.'.
``(B) Requirement.--The manufacturer or private labeler
shall provide the activation key for a grid-enabled water
heater only to a utility or other company that operates an
electric thermal storage or demand response program that uses
such a grid-enabled water heater.
``(C) Reports.--
``(i) Manufacturers.--The Secretary shall require each
manufacturer of grid-enabled water heaters to report to the
Secretary annually the quantity of grid-enabled water heaters
that the manufacturer ships each year.
``(ii) Operators.--The Secretary shall require utilities
and other demand response and thermal storage program
operators to report annually the quantity of grid-enabled
water heaters activated for their programs using forms of the
Energy Information Agency or using such other mechanism that
the Secretary determines appropriate after an opportunity for
notice and comment.
``(iii) Confidentiality requirements.--The Secretary shall
treat shipment data reported by manufacturers as confidential
business information.
``(D) Publication of information.--
``(i) In general.--In 2017 and 2019, the Secretary shall
publish an analysis of the data collected under subparagraph
(C) to assess the extent to which shipped products are put
into use in demand response and thermal storage programs.
``(ii) Prevention of product diversion.--If the Secretary
determines that sales of grid-enabled water heaters exceed by
15 percent or greater the quantity of such products activated
for use in demand response and thermal storage programs
annually, the Secretary shall, after opportunity for notice
and comment, establish procedures to prevent product
diversion for non-program purposes.
``(E) Compliance.--
``(i) In general.--Subparagraphs (A) through (D) shall
remain in effect until the Secretary determines under this
section that--

``(I) grid-enabled water heaters do not require a separate
efficiency requirement; or
``(II) sales of grid-enabled water heaters exceed by 15
percent or greater the quantity of such products activated
for use in demand response and thermal storage programs
annually and procedures to prevent product diversion for non-
program purposes would not be adequate to prevent such
product diversion.

``(ii) Effective date.--If the Secretary exercises the
authority described in clause (i) or amends the efficiency
requirement for grid-enabled water heaters, that action will
take effect on the date described in subsection
(m)(4)(A)(ii).
``(iii) Consideration.--In carrying out this section with
respect to electric water heaters, the Secretary shall
consider the impact on thermal storage and demand response
programs, including any impact on energy savings, electric
bills, peak load reduction, electric reliability, integration
of renewable resources, and the environment.
``(iv) Requirements.--In carrying out this paragraph, the
Secretary shall require that grid-enabled water heaters be
equipped with communication capability to enable the grid-
enabled water heaters to participate in ancillary services
programs if the Secretary determines that the technology is
available, practical, and cost-effective.'';
(2) in section 332(a) (42 U.S.C. 6302(a))--
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in the first paragraph (6), by striking the period at
the end and inserting a semicolon;
(C) by redesignating the second paragraph (6) as paragraph
(7);
(D) in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (7) (as so
redesignated), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) for any person--

[[Page H950]]

``(A) to activate an activation lock for a grid-enabled
water heater with knowledge that such water heater is not
used as part of an electric thermal storage or demand
response program;
``(B) to distribute an activation key for a grid-enabled
water heater with knowledge that such activation key will be
used to activate a grid-enabled water heater that is not used
as part of an electric thermal storage or demand response
program;
``(C) to otherwise enable a grid-enabled water heater to
operate at its designed specification and capabilities with
knowledge that such water heater is not used as part of an
electric thermal storage or demand response program; or
``(D) to knowingly remove or render illegible the label of
a grid-enabled water heater described in section
325(e)(6)(A)(ii)(V).'';
(3) in section 333(a) (42 U.S.C. 6303(a))--
(A) by striking ``section 332(a)(5)'' and inserting
``paragraph (5), (6), (7), or (8) of section 332(a)''; and
(B) by striking ``paragraph (1), (2), or (5) of section
332(a)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1), (2), (5), (6), (7),
or (8) of section 332(a)''; and
(4) in section 334 (42 U.S.C. 6304)--
(A) by striking ``section 332(a)(5)'' and inserting
``paragraph (5), (6), (7), or (8) of section 332(a)''; and
(B) by striking ``section 332(a)(6)'' and inserting
``section 332(a)(7)''.

TITLE III--ENERGY INFORMATION FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

SEC. 301. ENERGY INFORMATION FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.

(a) Requirement of Benchmarking and Disclosure for Leasing
Buildings Without Energy Star Labels.--Section 435(b)(2) of
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C.
17091(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(1)''; and
(2) by striking ``signing the contract,'' and all that
follows through the period at the end and inserting the
following:

``signing the contract, the following requirements are met:
``(A) The space is renovated for all energy efficiency and
conservation improvements that would be cost effective over
the life of the lease, including improvements in lighting,
windows, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
systems.
``(B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), the space is benchmarked
under a nationally recognized, online, free benchmarking
program, with public disclosure, unless the space is a space
for which owners cannot access whole building utility
consumption data, including spaces--
``(I) that are located in States with privacy laws that
provide that utilities shall not provide such aggregated
information to multitenant building owners; and
``(II) for which tenants do not provide energy consumption
information to the commercial building owner in response to a
request from the building owner.
``(ii) A Federal agency that is a tenant of the space shall
provide to the building owner, or authorize the owner to
obtain from the utility, the energy consumption information
of the space for the benchmarking and disclosure required by
this subparagraph.''.
(b) Study.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in
collaboration with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall complete a study--
(A) on the impact of--
(i) State and local performance benchmarking and disclosure
policies, and any associated building efficiency policies,
for commercial and multifamily buildings; and
(ii) programs and systems in which utilities provide
aggregated information regarding whole building energy
consumption and usage information to owners of multitenant
commercial, residential, and mixed-use buildings;
(B) that identifies best practice policy approaches studied
under subparagraph (A) that have resulted in the greatest
improvements in building energy efficiency; and
(C) that considers--
(i) compliance rates and the benefits and costs of the
policies and programs on building owners, utilities, tenants,
and other parties;
(ii) utility practices, programs, and systems that provide
aggregated energy consumption information to multitenant
building owners, and the impact of public utility commissions
and State privacy laws on those practices, programs, and
systems;
(iii) exceptions to compliance in existing laws where
building owners are not able to gather or access whole
building energy information from tenants or utilities;
(iv) the treatment of buildings with--

(I) multiple uses;
(II) uses for which baseline information is not available;
and
(III) uses that require high levels of energy intensities,
such as data centers, trading floors, and televisions
studios;

(v) implementation practices, including disclosure methods
and phase-in of compliance;
(vi) the safety and security of benchmarking tools offered
by government agencies, and the resiliency of those tools
against cyber attacks; and
(vii) international experiences with regard to building
benchmarking and disclosure laws and data aggregation for
multitenant buildings.
(2) Submission to congress.--At the conclusion of the
study, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce of the House of Representatives and Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the
results of the study.
(c) Creation and Maintenance of Database.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act and following opportunity for public
notice and comment, the Secretary of Energy, in coordination
with other relevant agencies, shall maintain, and if
necessary create, a database for the purpose of storing and
making available public energy-related information on
commercial and multifamily buildings, including--
(A) data provided under Federal, State, local, and other
laws or programs regarding building benchmarking and energy
information disclosure;
(B) information on buildings that have disclosed energy
ratings and certifications; and
(C) energy-related information on buildings provided
voluntarily by the owners of the buildings, only in an
anonymous form unless the owner provides otherwise.
(2) Complementary programs.--The database maintained
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall complement and not duplicate
the functions of the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy
Star Portfolio Manager tool.
(d) Input From Stakeholders.--The Secretary of Energy shall
seek input from stakeholders to maximize the effectiveness of
the actions taken under this section.
(e) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce of the House of Representatives and Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the
progress made in complying with this section.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster),
and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1, the Keystone XL
Pipeline Approval Act. S. 1 passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of
62-36. This bill is based on H.R. 3 which, last month, the House passed
by a bipartisan vote of 266-153. S. 1 does not change any of the House
provisions regarding the Keystone pipeline.
Here we are again on the floor with a bill that has been approved on
a bipartisan basis three times in the last 4 months. It is time for the
President to approve the Keystone pipeline.
His own administration has found the pipeline would have minimal
impact on the environment. Congress has shown that there is Republican
and Democrat support for the pipeline. The last remaining excuse for
delay--pending litigation in Nebraska--has been resolved. I hope the
President reconsiders his veto threat on this bill.
I think he should sign this bill because we all agree we need to
invest in our Nation's infrastructure, and pipelines are critical to
the economy. America's pipeline network is immense--2.6 million miles
of pipe transporting natural gas, oil, and other hazardous materials.
Pipelines transport more energy product than any other mode of
transportation in this country. Keystone will be a critical addition to
the pipeline network, increasing our Nation's supply of oil and
enhancing our energy independence.
This project will create good-paying American jobs. As the President
has stated, ``First-class infrastructure attracts first-class jobs.''
Indeed, six unions representing over 3 million workers support this
project, including the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters,
the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers'
International Union of North America, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, the building and construction trade, and the
Teamsters.
It is simply time to move forward on this project, so I urge all my
colleagues

[[Page H951]]

on both sides of the aisle to vote for S. 1, and I urge the President
to sign this bill and allow infrastructure to be built in this country.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, for anyone watching this debate for the 11th time who
isn't familiar with the substantive reasons to oppose this legislation,
I would refer them to my earlier remarks numerous times on the floor of
the House because, in the interest of time, I am not going to repeat
them.
I am going to say that I am pleased that this is actually a big step
forward for the other side of the aisle in the House because there are
two critical changes that the Senate made which go to a raging debate
on the Republican side of the aisle here in the House, and that is
whether or not climate change is real or a hoax.
By voting for this bill today, you are going to endorse language
saying that climate change is real and not a hoax. I think that is
tremendous progress for the Republican side of the aisle, who I expect
will be supporting this bill to accept the reality of climate change. I
am thrilled that that is in there, and their votes will be reflected in
the Record as endorsing that language.
Secondly, Madam Speaker, one of the other substantive issues we have
raised numerous times is that this foreign corporation will not--
because of a bizarre ruling by the Internal Revenue Service--will not
be paying into the trust fund which goes to mitigate pipeline spills,
breaks, and cleanups: the oil spill liability trust fund.
We have offered that as a motion to recommit numerous times here on
the floor, thinking it would be a reasonable thing to level the playing
field between U.S. producers shipping oil and a Canadian company
shipping oil which is going to be exported from the United States
perhaps after it is refined.
Again, this will be a shift on the Republican side of the aisle
because you will be voting for language that says, ``Congress should
approve a bill to ensure that all forms of bitumen or synthetic crude
oil derived from bitumen are subject to the per-barrel excise tax
associated with the oil spill liability trust fund,'' which would be I
think the first time the Republican side has endorsed any sort--well,
no, there was a tax increase for inland waterways users buried in that
bill in December--but this will be only the second time that
Republicans here have voted to increase a tax.
I am really thrilled to see that and the fact that we will be
righting that inequity, and essentially, the Republicans will be
endorsing something that we have offered numerous times on the floor.
The third thing--which really isn't an improvement--is some Senators
stuck in language saying that when this foreign corporation takes
American citizens' private property against their will, they have to
follow the Constitution.
Well, unfortunately, because of the Kelo decision--which we did try a
number of years ago to clarify and overturn--the Supreme Court, in its
wisdom, has ruled that you can yield the right, for economic
development purposes, to a private entity to take peoples' private
property.
We are going one step--or you are going one step further here by
actually giving that authority to a foreign corporation. As far as I
know, this is the first time in the history of the United States of
America that a foreign corporation will have the right to take private
property from an American citizen against their will. That isn't an
improvement, just saying ``follow the Constitution,'' because of the
ruling by the Supreme Court.
But the other two are great. Climate change exists. You are endorsing
that implicitly by voting for this bill. We should increase taxes and
impose taxes on this tar sands oil.
Again, I think this is a big breakthrough for the other side. I still
won't be voting for the bill. I stand on the previous concerns I have
raised. Those are all still extant, but these things will be worthy of
noticing.
With that, Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) be allowed to control the balance of my
time in addition to the time controlled by the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Denham), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.

{time} 1530

Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1, the Keystone XL
Pipeline Approval Act, which passed bipartisan not only in the House
with 266 votes, but also bipartisan in the Senate with 62 votes. As
Chairman Shuster noted, this is a jobs bill that will create jobs,
enhance our energy independence, and strengthen our national economy.
This pipeline will transport over 800,000 barrels of oil per day.
That is according to the Department of Energy. It will also help create
good paying jobs, over 40,000 jobs, according to the State Department.
We held a hearing in our subcommittee last week regarding the need
for more transportation infrastructure for energy projects. One witness
testified we will need 12,000 to 15,000 miles of new pipeline over the
next 5 to 10 years. Keystone XL is just one of those new projects.
This is the most studied pipeline in our history. This is no reason
to continue to stall this project. This is a safe project. America has
2.6 million miles of pipeline, providing an extremely safe way to
transport energy products. The Keystone pipeline will be built the
safest pipeline ever with 95 special mitigation measures, including
nearly 60 recommended by the Department of Transportation, the most
extensively studied and vetted pipeline project in the history of our
country.
Finally, as amended in the Senate, this bill will make important
strides towards greater energy efficiency. In conclusion, the Keystone
XL has been under review for over 6 years and debated and voted on in
the House and Senate numerous times. We need these jobs. We need this
energy. We need it now.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today we are voting once again to grant special treatment to
TransCanada's Keystone tar sands pipeline. It is the 11th time we are
voting on a special deal for the Canadian company's pipeline since
Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. This Congress
has much work to do on energy. Our situation is changing rapidly, and
each energy-related decision we make can have long-term consequences
for our environment, our economy, and our national security. But the
President has made clear that he will veto this legislation, so we
should stop wasting our time on it.
The Senate added many provisions to this version of the Keystone
bill. Some of the provisions on energy efficiency are provisions that I
and many of my colleagues can support and have supported in the past,
but those provisions should be considered separately, preferably as
stand-alone bills in the House and Senate. They should not be held
hostage by another doomed Keystone approval bill, and they in no way
come close to offsetting the harm that would be caused by Congress
deeming Keystone pipeline approved.
We don't need this Canadian tar sands oil. Worldwide crude oil prices
are at their lowest level in 5 years, and gasoline prices are down,
too. Domestic oil production is up. Last week EPA noted that low oil
prices means approval of the Keystone pipeline could be a critical
factor in the economic viability of Canadian tar sands expansion. And
tar sands are among the dirtiest and carbon intensive of all fossil
fuels. The Keystone pipeline will create a dependence on tar sands
crude, reversing the carbon pollution reductions that we need.
This pipeline is a terrible deal for America. We get all of the risks
while the oil companies reap the rewards. If this pipeline spills, like
Enbridge pipeline in Michigan, the heavy tar sands that flow onto the
ground and into our waters, our groundwater and our surface water, will
be even harder to clean up than regular oil.

[[Page H952]]

Unfortunately, if there is such a spill, it will be cleaned up at
U.S. taxpayer expense and the polluter won't have to pay. Why is that?
Because tar sands are not considered crude oil for purposes of
contributing to the oil spill liability trust fund. We have repeatedly
pointed out this egregious and unjustified loophole to the majority,
and we have repeatedly received assurances that it will be addressed--
yet it has still not been addressed. In fact, three times in this
Chamber alone, we have offered amendments to solve this problem, but
the Republican majority voted each one of them down.
Now there is this new ``sense of the Senate'' language that was put
into the bill by the Senate that promises further action on this issue,
but it is no substitute for real legislation to protect the American
taxpayer from the financial consequences of a tar sands spill. Make no
mistake, this language, this sense of Congress or sense of the Senate,
does nothing to change the equation and end the tar sands oil subsidy.
Recently, the President stood in this Chamber and noted that 21st
century businesses need 21st century infrastructure. He said that we
should ``set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline.'' Yet here
we are again voting on that single oil pipeline.
It is my hope that we are nearing the end of this long cycle of
futile votes to grant special treatment to this single pipeline; and it
is my hope that sooner rather than later we can get back to trying to
find agreement on a moderate energy policy, one that is sustainable,
one that helps the U.S. economy, and one that moves us forward, not
backward, in the fight against climate change. In the meantime, I urge
my colleagues once again to vote ``no'' on this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Madam Speaker, it was 2008 when
TransCanada first submitted an application to construct the Keystone XL
pipeline. Six years later, the Keystone pipeline is still awaiting
approval.
What does construction of the Keystone pipeline mean for our Nation?
Over 40,000 jobs, energy security, and increased economic growth.
Furthermore, the State Department found that construction of the
Keystone pipeline would pose little environmental risk. In fact, there
would be greater environmental and safety risks from not building the
pipeline.
Despite the obvious benefits and bipartisan support, the President
has continued to block Keystone's approval. Now he threatens to veto
the bill, effectively killing the entire Keystone program. After 6-plus
years, the President has run out of excuses. It is clear that the
construction of the Keystone pipeline is in our Nation's best
interests, and we cannot afford to delay any longer.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I wanted to reference again this provision in the bill that the
Senate put in. The Senate bill contains a provision boldly stating that
``climate change is real and not a hoax.'' I couldn't agree more with
that, Madam Speaker, but let's be clear: the Senate Republican majority
in the same breath rejected another amendment stating that climate
change is caused by human activity.
Senators who voted against those amendments are out of step with the
American people, including many Republicans. In a recent poll, an
overwhelming majority of Americans, including almost half of
Republicans, stated support for government action to fight climate
change and disagreed with those who question that climate change is
caused by human activity.
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have become fond
of saying that they are not scientists, and I think that we can
generally agree that is true. But even though they admit they are not
scientists, it doesn't stop them from questioning the science. Now, I
am not a scientist either, but when actual scientists speak and say
there is an overwhelming body of evidence that man-made climate change
is real and happening now, I listen to the actual scientists. And
saying that you are not a scientist is, in my opinion, just a way of
dodging the facts.

I have to say, Madam Speaker, when I go home to New Jersey, and my
district was probably more impacted by Superstorm Sandy than any other
district, I don't see any disagreement between Democrats and
Republicans in my district. It doesn't matter whether they are State
legislators or county legislators or mayors or on the council. And I
have almost as many Republican mayors and councilmen and councilwomen
as I do Democrats, but all of them agree that climate change is real
and caused by human activity because they are listening to the
scientists and they understand that science is important and that we
should pay attention to it.
In any event, the ``sense of the Senate'' language affirming that
climate change is not a hoax does not fix any of the problems with the
bill before us, and its inclusion doesn't mean that voting ``yes''
today will help us in the fight against climate change. In fact, voting
``yes'' today will move us backward in that fight because one of the
major concerns that I have and opponents have of Keystone is because it
will exploit tar sands, it will actually increase greenhouse gas
significantly. And it is very possible that, without the pipeline,
those tar sands will simply not be developed or exploited.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Madam Speaker, it is time to build the Keystone
pipeline. Building Keystone will create jobs, expand economic
opportunity, and provide our country with energy from a reliable
trading partner. It is estimated that the pipeline will carry more than
30 million gallons of oil per day, and the State Department has
concluded the pipeline is the safest way to transport it to market.
Keystone will support job creation by moving oil to American refineries
where American workers will process it. Thousands of products using
refined oil are manufactured and purchased by Americans every day, and
this pipeline has the potential to make those products less expensive.
The House has passed Keystone policy time and again. Ten times, in
fact, the House has stood with American workers and consumers. Today,
we stand with hardworking Americans looking for good-paying jobs.
Today, we stand with American consumers who will see more of their
hard-earned money go further at the gas pump.
Keystone helps secure our country's energy independence, lowers
energy costs for every American, and supports jobs without raising
taxes or adding to our debt.
It is time to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, I want to make this point about the impact of low oil prices
on Keystone and on exploitation of tar sands. The price of oil has
dropped precipitously in the past few months and is expected to stay in
the $65 to $75 per barrel range for the foreseeable future. Just last
month, the price of oil actually dipped below $50 per barrel, and gas
prices have fallen below $2 per gallon in some areas. Obviously, this
is good news for the American consumer but bad news for tar sands
producers who are struggling to remain profitable in the face of rising
production costs and limited transportation options.
In a scenario where tar sands are less profitable due to low oil
prices and transportation constraints, the State Department concluded
that the construction of Keystone will play a pivotal role in future
tar sands development and increased carbon pollution that comes from
it. So just last week, EPA made clear that low oil prices mean that the
pipeline's impact on future tar sands production could be substantial,
with significant implications for climate change.
Now, when I was at Rules, some of my colleagues on the Republican
side said: Well, if you don't build the pipeline, this tar sands oil is
going to be transported by rail or by some other means, and so what is
the difference if we build Keystone?
Well, the bottom line is that it is very likely that, with low oil
prices, there wouldn't be the investment in tar

[[Page H953]]

sands. If tar sands had to be transported by means other than the
pipeline, investment would not be there. Therefore, the argument is
made, obviously, that without Keystone, you might not be exploiting
these tar sands and you wouldn't increase the greenhouse gases and
force the major change in climate that would result from it.
So again, the point that the EPA is making that with low oil prices,
a decision to approve the pipeline could be a significant factor in
increased tar sands production and increased greenhouse gas emissions,
and the President and the Congress need to look at this development
carefully and assess its impact.
One of the reasons--and there are others, like the impact of the
pipeline if there was a spill on groundwater and other things. This is
one of the reasons why the President has said that the decision of
whether this is in the national interest still has to be weighed, and
it shouldn't be dictated to by Congress and just deemed approved
because the Canadian company or others think this is appropriate. This
is something that the President needs to continue to review, as he has
said. That is why he is vetoing the bill. And that is, again, Madam
Speaker, why we are wasting our time today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).
Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Madam Speaker, on a variety of issues,
from the Environmental Protection Agency's war on coal jobs in West
Virginia to the designation of ANWR in Alaska as permanent wilderness,
the President has used unilateral executive action to stifle domestic
energy production. It is time for the President to stop pandering to
radical environmentalists and do what is right for hardworking American
families.

{time} 1545

The business community, organized labor, partisan majorities in
Congress, and a clear majority of the American people support
construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
The President's own State Department concluded that the project is in
the best economic interest of our Nation and that the project would
have no impact on carbon emissions and no negative impact on the
environment.
Mr. President, enough is enough. It is time to create 42,000 jobs and
reduce energy prices for hardworking families. Sign this bill into law.
It is time to build the Keystone XL pipeline. I ask that you do this
not only for the hardworking taxpayers I represent in West Virginia but
for all Americans struggling in this economy.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I, again, yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, I listened to the previous speaker on the Republican side and
I don't understand how he can say that the President is trying to
prevent domestic production. Domestic oil production is at a 29-year
high. Whether it is oil or it is natural gas, we have never seen
production of this magnitude.
Under this administration, there has been such an increase in both
oil and natural gas production in comparison to any previous
administration for as long as I have been here. To suggest otherwise
boggles the mind, in my opinion.
I wanted to go back to another issue that we are concerned about in
terms of the environment and why Keystone needs to continue to be
reviewed by the President and not just be deemed approved, and that has
to do, again, with oil spills and the impact on aquifers.
Again, our first priority, Madam Speaker, must be to ensure public
safety. The proposed Keystone pipeline is a massive project that would
carry tar sand sludge throughout the middle of America. Even supporters
agree that it should not be built until we have some assurance that it
will be safe.
Keystone poses real risks. Over the last few years, a litany of
tragic failures have reinforced the need for strong pipeline safety
standards.
In 2011, another ExxonMobil pipeline ruptured in Montana, spilling
crude oil into the Yellowstone River. The oil was carried hundreds of
miles down the river, threatening the livelihoods of ranchers.
In July 2010, a pipeline carrying tar sands oil ruptured near
Marshall, Michigan. Over 800,000 gallons of oil spilled into the
Talmadge Creek and then flowed into the Kalamazoo River. The cleanup
will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Because the diluted bitumen
is heavier than water and sinks to the bottom of the river, it has
proven harder to clean up than conventional crude oil.
TransCanada and its supporters have repeatedly assured the public and
the Congress that we shouldn't worry about this pipeline carrying tar
sand sludge through the middle of America and across the Ogallala
Aquifer. They say it will be an ultra-safe state-of-the-art pipeline.
The problem, though, is that we have heard this before. TransCanada's
first Keystone pipeline, which brings Canadian tar sands oil to
refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma, shouldn't inspire confidence. This
was a brand-new, supposedly state-of-the-art pipeline. It was predicted
to spill no more than once every 7 years. But in its first year of
operation, it reported 14 separate oil spills.
The largest spill occurred on May 7, 2011, when approximately 20,000
gallons of oil erupted from the pipeline in North Dakota. There was
literally a 64-high geyser of oil. Amazingly, this spill was not
detected by TransCanada but was reported by a local farmer.
In response to this spill and others, the pipeline safety agency
issued a corrective action order temporarily shutting down the original
Keystone pipeline. The agency based this action on a finding that the
continued operation of the pipeline without corrective action would be
hazardous to life, property, and the environment.
With this track record, we need a thorough review of whether the
standards necessary to safely transport tar sands oil are in place. The
proposed route of this tar sands pipeline would cross the Ogallala
Aquifer.
Millions of Americans depend on this aquifer for their drinking water
and for their livelihoods. If there is an oil spill, the consequences
would be devastating to the Americans who depend on this precious water
resource.
Again, this is another reason why we shouldn't be approving this and
deem this pipeline approved.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my soon-to-
be-friend from New Jersey for bringing up the oil spill issue.
In my home State of Louisiana, we actually have hundreds of thousands
of barrels of oil that are unaccounted for as a result of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. We have tens of miles of shoreline that remain oiled
as a result of an oil spill that happened over 4 years ago, and this
administration is doing absolutely nothing to hold the responsible
parties accountable for removing that oil.
To hide behind some of these issues, such as the threat of oil
spills, is absolutely absurd when at the same time they are not doing
anything to protect the environment and hold responsible parties
accountable.
Secondly, there is nothing that this pipeline project is going to do
to further threaten the environment. In fact, it is going to make it
worse if we don't build it because the oil will be transported by
barge, by rail, and other less safe means of transportation.
We saw recently where the EPA released a letter contrary to what the
State Department's EIS found, stating that this was going to cause a
greater impact to climate change. Whatever the reality is, this
pipeline does nothing to address consumption of oil. It does nothing to
increase consumption. It is an absurd approach.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. And lastly, Madam Speaker, I will just say
that this President for years has embraced an all-of-the-above energy
strategy, all-of-the-above. This pipeline fits that criteria--it is all
of the above. Perhaps I misunderstood and they were talking
geographically above. It is coming from Canada. It fits that one too.
Madam Speaker, this project needs to move forward. It has been
delayed far

[[Page H954]]

too long. All it is going to do by not building this project is cause
us to rely upon Venezuela and other non-allies for energy to power this
Nation's economy.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the
Energy and Power Subcommittee.
Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, this is deja vu all over again, as for the
umpteenth time the majority party is trying to jam the Keystone XL
pipeline through this Congress despite the fact that President Obama
has made it pretty clear to all who will listen that this bill is
headed to a veto if it ever reaches his desk.

Madam Speaker, instead of going through regular order and the
committee process and working on bipartisan legislation that would
ultimately create hundreds of thousands of good-paying American jobs,
such as building up our infrastructure, fixing our roads and bridges,
and modernizing our energy grid, instead of looking at the interests,
the real interests of the American people, and working to provide the
American people much-needed jobs, my friends on the other side of the
aisle have repeatedly spent valuable time, time that this Congress will
never, ever see again, trying to grant a regulatory earmark to the
TransCanada Corporation by short-circuiting the normal permitting
process and forcing President Obama's hand.
This is not a jobs bill. Madam Speaker, we need a jobs bill. But
where are the jobs in this bill? Every time we talk about jobs, every
time jobs develop on the floor of this House, the Republicans all run
to one place: that all we need is to build the Keystone XL pipeline and
that will solve America's job problem. I beg to differ with my friends
on the other side of the aisle.
The State Department--our State Department--consulted with
TransCanada and found out that the construction of this pipeline would
directly result in about 4,000 jobs in the early stages just to build
the pipeline. These jobs, Madam Speaker, will last no more than 12
months--365 days of work provided to the American people. What kind of
jobs bill are we trying to perpetrate on the American people?
In addition, Madam Speaker, by building the pipeline, 42,100 1-year
jobs will be created indirectly across the United States.
After the Keystone XL pipeline is completed, operation, where the
permanent jobs are, the real operation where the lasting jobs are, the
jobs that will provide a future for American families--college
education, mortgages to pay for their home, put dinner on the table--
these jobs would only amount to about 35 permanent jobs in this
Nation--35. A franchise burger joint on the corner will provide more
permanent jobs than this whole Keystone XL pipeline is purported to do.
Let's put these figures into perspective.
In 2014, the U.S. economy created nearly 50,000 jobs per week--50,000
per week in 2014; 230,000 jobs per month. So even taking the most
favorable estimates for all the indirect and direct jobs, the Keystone
XL pipeline will produce fewer jobs than the economy is already
creating on its own in just 7 days--in just one week.
Taking the lowest estimate for the 35 permanent jobs again, the
Keystone XL pipeline will produce even fewer jobs, in all of its
massiveness, in all of the hyperbole that comes from the other side,
than the economy is already creating in just 1 hour. In the next hour,
Mr. Speaker, the American economy will produce more jobs than the
entire Keystone XL pipeline in all of its duration--in just the next
hour.
This is not a jobs bill. Where are the priorities for the other side?
Why are we wasting time on this?
Let me remind my friends on the other side, in just 2 weeks--just 2
weeks--the Homeland Security Department will run out of money, putting
all of the American people, our entire Nation, at risk, in just 2
weeks.
Where are your priorities? Doesn't that make more sense than wasting
our time on creating 35 jobs--35 permanent jobs? We are going to be out
of this place at the end of the week. Where is the priority for
American security? Where is the priority for us to spend our time? What
are the priorities of the majority if we are going to waste our time?
Here we go again, valuable time. Homeland Security running out of
money, folks being laid off, our borders are being compromised,
terrorists are going to have or could have a field day because we have
not funded Homeland Security.

{time} 1600

Yet we are here, wasting valuable time. Let's use this time to fund
the Department of Homeland Security, and let's get off some of this
nonsense that makes no sense at all.
I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that the American people have sent us
here to work on behalf of TransCanada and to ignore the Department of
Homeland Security. I can't in my wildest imagination believe that they
didn't even know, that they didn't even imagine, that they didn't even
think that we are here with the Department of Homeland Security on one
side and the Keystone XL on the other side. Go figure. Where are their
priorities?
Mr. Speaker, this bill is unnecessary. This bill will be vetoed by
President Obama, and it will be sent back here DOA. We have far more
important work that we should be doing on behalf of the American
people.
I urge all of my colleagues to turn down this unnecessary, ill-timed,
ill-conceived notion that we should be spending our valuable time on
the Keystone XL and ignoring the funding for the Department of Homeland
Security.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my friend from
Chicago that all infrastructure jobs are temporary. Based on that
argument, we shouldn't build roads, bridges, highways, or pipelines.
All infrastructure jobs--construction jobs--are temporary. Second, I
would like to remind my colleague that he voted against the
appropriations bill to fund Homeland Security.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Keystone XL Pipeline
Approval Act.
It comes into my district, by the way. It comes into my district on
the gulf coast of Texas. Over 6 years has passed since the permit was
applied for. The iPad was not even introduced at that time. That is how
long it has been. In contrast, this Congress is acting in less than 2
months to approve the most studied pipeline in the Nation's history.
The President is creating jobs all right. It is called studying
pipelines so you can deny the permit.
The State Department has concluded that this pipeline will be safe
and environmentally sound. Indeed, that was the first amendment I got
passed on the floor of this House in Lee Terry's bill--the State
Department's own language.
The pipeline strengthens our relationship with an important ally, and
it creates thousands of jobs for the American people.
The other side is saying some funny things:
They say that drilling and oil production is at a 29-year high.
Great. Let's continue this process. Let's make it better. Let's make it
longer. I didn't even think about that. You are right. Energy
independence is right around the corner. You are onto something here,
so let's continue that;
The other side says there is danger from oil spills. The truth is
that the pipeline industry has a 99 percent safety rating. You cannot
say that about trucking. You cannot say that about rail. You cannot say
that about barge;
They say this is the umpteenth time the Republicans have passed this
bill. On November 4, as I recall, the Americans elected some umpteen
new Republicans. I think they are sending a message that they want
energy independence, that they want a change. They understand that the
Keystone pipeline means energy independence.
Yes, this House will pass this bill. We will send it to the
President. A little over a year ago, the President said, if Congress
wouldn't act, he had a phone and a pen, and he would. Now Congress is
acting, and he is saying: I have got a pen, and I am going to veto.
Which way is it, Mr. President? You can't have it both ways.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

[[Page H955]]

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Maybe, if the people on the other side of the
aisle don't vote for this bill, we will get it passed, and the
President will veto it. Then maybe Americans will elect some umpteen
more Republicans.
It is time to move this bill and get it done.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both
sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 4 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 15 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I want to thank our ranking member for
allowing me to have 2 minutes to talk about how I support the Keystone
pipeline. We have a little diversity on our side.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline
Approval Act.
I represent a refinery and chemical plant community in Houston, east
Harris County, Texas. We have five refineries in my area alone, which
would use that Keystone crude oil. In fact, Congressman Weber has the
eastern leg of it, and I have the western leg that actually stops in
our district. We have two, big, old, huge tanks in Channelview, Texas,
which are ready to get that oil and distribute it to our refineries. We
have refineries, literally, from Corpus Christi over to Pascagoula in
the Gulf of Mexico, on the gulf coast, that could use that crude oil.
They are already using heavier crude from other parts of the world.
It has taken 6 years to get this permit for the pipeline's
development. This is the longest study of any cross-border pipeline
that I have ever seen. Unfortunately, because of the backlog, we have
11 other cross-border projects that have not moved through the process.
Some of these are just a simple name change, and that is the problem.
The Presidential permitting process has broken down. That is why
Congress needs to act. The State Department has studied the project
four different times. Each time, they have come back and have said that
the environmental and climate impacts would be negligible.
Let me talk about the jobs issue.
We will have a year of high-paid pipefitters, teamsters, laborers,
electrical workers--you name it. Those are great jobs, and they are
high paying for a year. Construction jobs are temporary. Then they will
go on to another job, and, frankly, in Texas, we have no shortage of
need for pipelines even though I have never not lived on a pipeline
easement in Houston, Texas.
The bill is not as perfect as I would like, but we need to send this
bill to the President--it got out of the Senate--and give the President
a chance to do it. We need cross-border pipelines whether it is Canada
to the United States, Texas to Mexico, or the United States to Mexico,
or back.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.1, the Keystone XL Pipeline
Approval Act. I represent a refinery/chemical plants. The refineries on
the Gulf Coast will use the crude oil.
I rise in support of this bill because I support North American
energy development.
The pipeline has been in development and waiting for approval for six
years. This is the longest study of any cross-border pipeline that I
have ever seen.
Unfortunately, because of this backlog, there are now 11 other cross-
border projects that have not moved through the process.
Some of these projects are as simple as a name change.
The Presidential Permitting Process has become nothing more than a
political game.
Opponents of domestic infrastructure projects use the process to
delay projects endlessly in an attempt to raise money under the guise
of environmental protection.
The State Department has studied this project four different times.
Each time, the Department reported back that the environmental and
climate impacts would be negligible.
However, opponents of the project do not like that answer so they
continue their attack until the project is deferred.
Opponents of the project now decry that because oil prices are low,
more studies should be conducted.
Opponents cite low oil prices as a reason the federal government
shouldn't approve the project.
Last time I checked, the federal government wasn't involved in
private business decisions.
If oil prices remain low, the market will dictate which projects
remain viable and which do not.
The federal government has one job to do and should complete its work
in a timely fashion.
Further, opponents claim that Keystone XL will only result in 35
permanent jobs.
What they fail to address is that Keystone XL, along with the
majority of other cross-border facilities, will create thousands of
construction jobs.
Those who oppose the project say, those are only temporary jobs.
Well, to my friends who oppose the project, construction jobs by
their very nature are temporary jobs.
But I can tell you this, the pipefitters, operating engineers,
electrical and Teamster laborers that work on their segment of the
pipeline are darn happy to have that job.
That is a large paycheck to help support his or her family.
I continue to urge support for the Keystone XL pipeline.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again, I ask my colleagues to support this bill, this pipeline,
that is said to have been the most studied and will be the safest
pipeline. It will help out one of our great allies, and it will help us
keep energy costs down in this country. It will create over 40,000
infrastructure jobs. Yes, they are temporary, but as we all know, those
jobs will go to helping the families of the construction workers. They
will move on to other jobs, and these will also be a spinoff to other
jobs to help keep this pipeline viable for years to come.
Let me finish with a final quote from a well-known American--an
American respected by the other side of the aisle, an American trusted
by the other side of the aisle, an American listened to by the other
side of the aisle. He says:

The pipeline increases the diversity of available supplies
among the United States' worldwide crude oil sources in a
time of considerable political tension in other major oil
producing countries and regions; it shortens the
transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and it
increases crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable
and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States
with which we have free trade agreements which augment the
security of this energy supply.
The approval of the permit sends a positive economic
signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future
reliability and availability of a portion of the United
States' energy imports, and in the immediate term, this
shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for
workers in the United States.

That American, ladies and gentlemen, is President Barack Obama. He
said that in 2009, but he was talking about the Enbridge Alberta
Clipper. I don't know what has changed, but this quote could go right
towards this pipeline. It does all of the same things, and it has all
of the positive impact that that pipeline has. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill, to send it to the President, and to ask the
President to reconsider his veto threat.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Upton) control the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 16\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Here we are, once again, to debate legislation on the Keystone XL
pipeline. For the past 6 years, this project has been thoroughly vetted
by the Congress and the administration. There is no question in my mind
that the Keystone XL is in the national interest, so let's look again
at the facts:
It is a jobs project. The President's own State Department has
confirmed that Keystone is going to support 42,000 jobs across the
country;
Keystone is going to be safe. Yes, it is. Pipelines remain one of the
very safest and most efficient ways to transport energy, and Keystone
is going to rank at the top of the class when it comes to safety. The
pipeline, in fact, is going to incorporate some 59 additional safety
standards proposed by

[[Page H956]]

PHMSA, and it will adhere to the rigorous new pipeline safety standards
on which I worked with John Dingell to get signed into law in the last
Congress;
Keystone is better for the environment. Yes, it is. We know that
Canada is going to continue to develop its rich oil sands regardless of
whether we build the pipeline. If we don't build it, that oil is going
to continue to get to the marketplace through other, more carbon-
intensive means;
Keystone is going to enhance our energy security and help energy
prices stay stable and affordable. We know this respite from high gas
prices won't last forever, and prices have already begun to tick back
up. By bringing more North American energy to the market, the pipeline
can help protect us against future price spikes and overseas
disruptions. We want as much certainty in the marketplace as we can.
The President said last week that, again, another reason he is
against this is that gas prices are low. Yesterday's Wall Street
Journal headline above the fold reads: ``Oil-Price Rebound Predicted.''
That is right. They are going to go up. Americans understand supply and
demand. The Keystone pipeline is very positive for us in the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter that we
received just an hour or so ago from the Canadian Embassy.

Canadian Embassy,

February 10, 2015.
Dear Mr. Secretary, I was quite disappointed to read the
comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with
respect to the Keystone XL (KXL) application.
The EPA derives its greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs)
calculations from a study using data from 2005, two years
before iPhones existed, completely neglecting the innovation
and emissions reductions that have since occurred in the oil
sands.
Just as communication technology has advanced in the last
ten years, so too has scientific analysis of the oil sands.
There are more recent credible scientific numbers on oil
sands emissions reductions. Canadian government data show
that per barrel emissions have fallen 28% from 1990 to 2012.
In 2014, both IHS-CERA (Dan Yergin's consultancy) and the
California Air Resources Board data showed that average oil
sands GHG emissions are in the same range as Venezuelan and
Californian heavy oil and lower than several types of
Venezuelan and Californian crudes. Furthermore, IHS-CERA has
determined that 45% of the crude oils consumed in the United
States are within the same GHG intensity range as those of
the oil sands.
The EPA selected the highest GHG value among four studies
considered by the State Department, and then assumed that KXL
flows at capacity over fifty years, that KXL transports only
oil sands crude, and most egregiously that the only crude
displaced is Saudi light. By contrast, the State Department
reported oil sands incremental emissions as a range from 1.3
to 27.4 megatonnes annually. The lower figure compared oil
sands to Venezuelan and Mexican heavy crudes that would be
displaced. The higher figure compared oil sands to Saudi
light crude, an international benchmark, which your
Department noted, is not a direct competitor for heavy crude
oil refineries. Clearly, the correct comparison is to the
lower figure, not the higher figure.
In its April 22nd, 2013 comments on the same data, the EPA
calculated an oil sands incremental GHG value some 46% lower
than it is now claiming, and made no effort to explain why
its calculation has now increased by 46%.
The EPA chose to ignore that the oil sands are produced in
the only jurisdiction supplying oil to the United States that
has imposed a carbon fee which is used to fund clean energy
technologies.
The EPA questions the State Department's finding that,
absent KXL, incremental volumes of Canadian oil will move to
the U.S. Gulf Coast by rail. The EPA chose rather
conveniently not to examine data for the last two years.
Since the KXL application was first delayed in November 2011,
crude oil by rail exports from Canada to the U.S. have jumped
ten-fold, and continue to expand.
The EPA neither discusses nor disputes the State
Department's findings that rail represents 28-42% higher GHG
emissions than KXL.
The EPA neither discusses nor disputes the State
Department's findings on safety. The State Department
originally reported that KXL would represent one injury and
no fatalities annually, as compared to 49 injuries and six
fatalities for rail, then revised the rail figures from 49 to
189 injuries, and from six to 28 fatalities.
The EPA chose to ignore that Canada, an ally, has committed
to an absolute reduction in our GHG emissions. No other major
oil supplier to the United States can make this statement. In
2012, Canada's GHG emissions were down 5.1%, with more work
ahead of us.
One is left with the conclusion that there has been
significant distortion and omission to arrive at the EPA's
conclusions.
There is no significant difference between the GHG
emissions from oil sands crude oil and from other heavy crude
oils that would be displaced at the U.S. Gulf Coast. As
compared to rail. KXL represents lower GHG emissions, as well
as lower environmental and public safety risks.
We would be pleased to discuss the gap between the EPA
comments and the scientific analysis of the State Department.
Thank you for the opportunity to raise this issue with you.
Sincerely,
Gary Doer,
Ambassador.

Mr. UPTON. In the letter from the Ambassador of Canada, he makes a
number of good points, but he concludes by saying this:
``There is no significant difference between the GHG emissions from
oil sands crude oil and from other heavy crude oils that would be
displaced at the U.S. Gulf Coast. As compared to rail, KXL represents
lower GHG emissions, as well as lower environmental and public safety
risks.''
The evidence is in. The case ought to be closed. There is no good
reason for President Obama not to join with Republicans and Democrats
to say, yes, it is time to build.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, how much time is now on the Republican
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the sponsor of the House-passed bill.
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I spent several minutes articulating the details of the
benefits of this bill. I am grateful to Senator Hoeven, my Senator from
North Dakota, for introducing it in the Senate.
I want to answer just a couple of the questions because I think there
are legitimate concerns being raised by my friends on the other side.
With regard to the price of oil being about $50 and being low and
that it, therefore, somehow negates the need for the pipeline, there
are two things I would say. 2,336 days ago, the price of oil was
approaching $50, and TransCanada still applied for the pipeline. In
fact, at low prices, the cost of transportation is an even more
important consideration, and oil transported by rail costs about $10 a
barrel more than it does by pipeline. The pipeline is even more
important in this environment.

{time} 1615

With regard to the pump station spill in North Dakota, on the
original pipeline, I know it well. I sited that line. The good news was
that everything worked. The alarms went off. The bells shut down. The
farmer even called the company. There was a spill. It was corrected.
There was no negative environmental impact.
With regard to the types of jobs, I saw them firsthand. These are
permanent jobs. Yes, they are temporary on that particular job, but 88
percent of the steel used in the Keystone XL pipeline has been sourced
from North Carolina. That is 88 percent.
I want to finish by reading this quote from Danny Hendrix. Danny says
this with regard to what kind of jobs will be created by the XL:

They've got health care for another year. They've got a
pension credit for when they retire. It means that those
families have got health care, dental care--so it means a
lot. It means they can make a house payment. It means they
can send their kids to college.

Danny Hendrix is a business manager for Pipeliners Local 798 in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
These are real jobs, and to belittle them in any way, Mr. Speaker, to
degrade them in any way, is intellectually dishonest and disrespectful.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Keystone XL pipeline. It
is going to create 42,000 jobs. By the way, those jobs that you are
talking about that will be part-time, I guarantee you the Department of
Labor will include them in their numbers when they talk about how great
we are becoming.
This is the most federally reviewed pipeline in U.S. history--it is 6
years--

[[Page H957]]

and the thing about this that is most impressive is it doesn't cost the
American taxpayer one single penny. It is privately funded. And I would
guarantee you that along that pipeline, as it is constructed, all those
communities are going to benefit from the fact they have people working
there, staying in their hotels, buying their food, enhancing their
local economy.
How many more times do we have to talk about this? This is not a
Republican issue, by the way. This is an American issue. A majority of
the American people support this, and Democrats and Republicans in both
the House and the Senate. It is bipartisan and bicameral. My goodness,
how rare is that? Business groups and labor unions. You know what? Even
President Bill Clinton and President Bush agree this is something that
needs to be done.
News outlets from Bloomberg to The Washington Post to USA Today all
say: Build it.
USA Today gets it right. They say:

On the merits, the Obama administration should long ago
have said yes . . . but the White House seems to have been
paralyzed by its fear of angering our ally Canada if it says
no or infuriating Democratic environmentalists if it says yes
. . . It is long past time to say yes.

President Obama must say ``yes'' to new jobs, he must say ``yes'' to
bipartisanship, he must say ``yes'' to good government, he must say
``yes'' to America, and he must say ``yes'' to the Keystone pipeline.
It is long past due, my friends.
Let's move American forward, let's become energy self-sustaining, and
let's be the leader in the world when it comes to energy. This debate
is way past time, and the thought that we shouldn't do it now because
the oil market is down, my goodness, nothing could be further from the
truth.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I am having kind of a deja vu moment and a
holy cow moment both at the same time. It is deja vu because we already
passed a Homeland Security funding bill. So that bill has shifted to
the Senate. Somebody apparently didn't get that memo. I am having this
holy cow moment because I can't believe I am standing up here in
support of the Senate-passed Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act.
Mr. Speaker, the broad support for building the Keystone XL pipeline
is truly remarkable. This bill is bipartisan. It is bicameral. In fact,
it commanded a supermajority in the Senate. A majority of the American
people want to see the pipeline constructed. The pipeline has been
studied and studied and studied again, in fact, way up to the State
Department, which approved the pipeline more than a year ago.
This kind of support for a piece of legislation is a rarity in
Washington. It doesn't get any better than this. And that is because
the pipeline has unquestionable merit. It directly creates jobs. It is
a shot in the arm for our energy economy. It will make America more
energy secure, an aspiration of Presidents and Congresses for decades.
And it is now within our grasp if we choose to seize it. Why our
President would choose to veto this bill is beyond rational
explanation. Its economic benefits could not be more evident.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope the President reconsiders his threat to
veto this so American workers can finally start to construct and reap
the benefits for the American people.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of approving the
Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline is widely supported by Americans and
by a bipartisan majority in this House and in the Senate.
In the more than 6 years since the application to build the pipeline,
the President has refused to authorize it, citing two reasons. Number
one, environmental challenges. But, Mr. Speaker, the pipeline has
undergone numerous environmental assessments, and the U.S. State
Department's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement confirms
the minimal impact of the pipeline on the environment.
Number two, legal challenges. But, Mr. Speaker, on January 9, 2015,
the Nebraska Supreme Court approved the pathway of the pipeline.
The President has no more excuses to deny the completion of the
Keystone XL, and I urge him to rescind his veto threat of this critical
energy and infrastructure bill.
Americans want a true all-of-the-above energy policy that boosts our
goal of North American energy independence, benefits consumers, creates
jobs, protects our environment, and preserves our natural resources.
This bill accomplishes all of those goals. However, Mr. Speaker, the
President continues to block this essential energy and infrastructure
project and the jobs it would provide to our hardworking American
families.
Further, due to the bureaucratic delays of the past 6 years, this
project is now costing 50 percent more than its original announcement.
In my district alone, the pipeline has supported over 600 jobs at
Welspun Tubular, headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, where 700
miles of this pipe are stacked up at the rail head ready to put in the
ground.
Mr. Speaker, if approved, this project will provide thousands more
jobs and over $3.4 billion for our Nation's economy. The President is
out of excuses. It is time to approve this project.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said this is the time to pass
it. It is not the time to pass it. The time to pass it is after all the
reports and studies are in. The State Department hasn't completed its
study.
It is kind of like what we are doing in this Congress. We are not
going by our regular procedures. We are not having bills in committee
and opportunities for amendments on the floor because we bring things
up here to make it the political issue du jour.
This is not the time for the bill, just like it is not the time for
the Prime Minister to come and speak from that well. It should be after
his election and after the negotiations with Iran are over. This should
be after the State Department has told us what their opinion is, and
then let the President make his decision.
We should go back to regular order. I hope the House will return to
regular order.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Keystone XL
Pipeline Approval Act.
I think on both sides all we talk about is creating jobs. For 6
years, this project has been studied. We hear that over and over again.
Every environmental report has been favorable. In fact, the President's
own State Department says that the construction of this pipeline will
create tens of thousands of jobs.
At a time when millions of Americans are struggling, this is a
project that is ready to go. As we said, we have pipeline stacked up
and ready to put in the ground.
The Keystone pipeline is not just important to growing our economy.
This project is critical to securing North American energy independence
and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Congress has taken action with bipartisan support, and finally we
will put this priority on the President's desk. I urge the President to
listen to the American people who support this project and reconsider
his threat to veto this critical legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding time and
the work you have done on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1 to approve the Keystone
XL pipeline after what has turned out to be an unacceptable 6-year
delay by the Obama administration.
Many have stated that this bill is about creating jobs. And guess
what? They are right. The pipeline would create over 40,000 jobs
without a dime of taxpayer funding, helping to pull eager American
workers out of the unemployment line.
Approval of the pipeline would also bring down energy costs here at
home, lifting a huge burden on hardworking families, small businesses,
and farmers.

[[Page H958]]

Moreover, clearing the construction of the Keystone pipeline puts us
closer to North American energy independence to reduce our dependence
on oil from foreign sources that are all too often at odds with
America's interests and our national security.
So the bill we debate today is about jobs. It is about making energy
more affordable. But it is also about making our country safer. This
bill will help us stop funding both sides of the war on terror.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on both
sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has
4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that we have any further
speakers. I am willing to close, if the gentleman goes first.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The bill grants a regulatory earmark to TransCanada Corporation,
effectively exempting TransCanada's Keystone tar sands pipeline from
all Federal permitting requirements, including requirements that apply
to every other construction project in the country.
Keystone will increase carbon pollution and threaten critical water
resources. Tar sands are a dirty, high-polluting fuel. On a lifecycle
basis, tar sands crude produces up to 40 percent more carbon pollution
than conventional oil. And even with the current proposed route, leaks
from the highly corrosive crude in the pipeline would still threaten
the aquifer, a critical resource for drinking water and irrigation.
Mr. Speaker, we don't need this dirty oil. Since Keystone was
proposed, we have cut U.S. oil demand. We have dramatically boosted
less-polluting U.S. oil production. In fact, much of the tar sands oil
will not go to America but will go through America and be exported
overseas. This leaves the United States with all the risk and no
reward.
I would urge my colleagues once again to vote ``no'' on this
legislation. It is not good for this country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is not new science. We have got existing oil and
gas pipelines that cross the border. We have got a million miles of
pipeline or so within the United States. Safety standards, rightly so,
are a lot higher than they used to be, and we will continue to oversee
this.
Canada is our friend. We get oil and gas from Canada today. We have
expanded many of our refineries by billions of dollars trying to get
prepared for new pipeline commodities coming from the north.
It is time to build this. It has been 6 years. I remember well
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a number of years ago saying that
they would be ready before the end of that year to complete their
studies to get this thing done. Well, 6 years has now come, and it is
time for us to act.
The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled the way that they did in support
of this. We know that the carbon footprint is less by putting it in a
pipeline, and we know that it is safer than other means of
transportation.
Again, we know that Canada is going to sell this oil somewhere. And
if they don't get it in a pipeline here to the U.S., that pipeline is
going to go 2,000 miles to the east and get on a boat or a barge--a
higher carbon footprint. Isn't it better to do it here, to build it,
put it in a pipeline here in the U.S.?

{time} 1630

This bill, we were accepting the Senate bill. Yes, they finally
passed this bill. Let's pass this bill this afternoon. Let's send it to
the President. Let's hope that he might reconsider a proposed veto on
this bill, and let's deal with the issue, and let's get it done.
There is a reason why better than 65 percent of Americans support
this. They understand it. They understand supply and demand. We want
gas prices to stay stable. We know that this oil that we get from
Canada will displace oil coming either from the Middle East or from
Venezuela. Why is that not a good thing?
Please vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 100, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time and was read the third
time.

Motion to Commit

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. CAPPS. Yes, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. Capps moves to commit the bill S. 1 to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report the same
back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
After section 2, insert the following (and redesignate
subsequent sections accordingly):

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT THAT TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, L.P.
PAY FOR ANY OIL SPILL CLEANUP ON AMERICAN SOIL.

In the approval process authorized under section 2,
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. shall certify to the
President that diluted bitumen and other materials derived
from tar sands or oil sands that are transported through the
Keystone XL pipeline will be treated as crude oil for the
purposes of determining contributions that fund the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund.

Mr. UPTON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of
order against the motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the final amendment to
this bill.
Passage of this amendment will not prevent passage of the underlying
bill. If it is adopted, my amendment will simply be incorporated into
the bill, and the bill would be immediately voted upon.
Mr. Speaker, no matter if you support or oppose Keystone XL, we can
all agree that extracting and transporting oil has some serious risks.
It only takes one small crack, one small mistake, to cause a major oil
spill and a catastrophe, irreparable damage to the surrounding
communities and to the environment.
History has shown us that there is simply no such thing as a
spillproof well or pipeline. Accidents happen, and they will continue
to happen, regardless of what we are told by the oil companies building
and maintaining the pipelines.
In fact, accidents have already happened 14 times on the existing
section of the Keystone pipeline, and these oil spills don't just
devastate the surrounding environment. They harm lives and livelihoods
as well.
In 1969, my home district in California experienced one of the worst
oil spills in American history. I saw, firsthand, the devastating
damage to our local economy, to human health, to property, to natural
resources. We have sadly seen this happen far too many times since then
in communities all around this country.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster cost 11 lives, billions of dollars in
economic damages, and untold devastation to the delicate ecosystem of
the gulf. That very same year, we saw as well a terrible spill in
Kalamazoo, Michigan. This spill was particularly noteworthy because it
involved tar sands oil, which is the same type of oil that would flow
through the Keystone pipeline.
Tar sands oil is much harder to clean up than standard crude, which
is one of the reasons the spill took nearly $1 billion and several
years to clean up.
Mr. Speaker, despite numerous assurances that Keystone XL will be
safer and that the risk of a spill will be minimal, safer simply does
not equal safe. That is why we have the oil spill liability trust fund,
to ensure that the oil companies that create these messes will also pay
for them to clean them up.
This trust fund is financed by an 8 cents per-barrel fee on crude oil
and petroleum products, but TransCanada is currently not even required
to contribute to the trust fund for Keystone

[[Page H959]]

because tar sands oil is not considered crude oil for purposes of this
program--a loophole, if I have ever heard of one.
If there is a spill, taxpayers and local communities, not those
responsible, could be stuck paying for this cleanup. That is why I am
offering this straightforward amendment.
My amendment would simply require TransCanada to certify that it will
pay the same per-barrel fee for its tar sands oil as it does for its
regular crude. It would ensure that TransCanada--and not taxpayers--pay
to clean up its own mess in the event of a spill.
I have offered this amendment several times before, both in committee
and here on the floor, so the majority should be quite familiar with
this issue. In fact, the majority has assured us on several occasions
that they would work with us, on Ways and Means Committee as well, to
resolve this issue; yet the majority has failed to even propose a
meaningful solution, let alone bring one to the floor for a vote.
Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward issue that should have
bipartisan support. We taxpayers, if we are going to bear 100 percent
of the risk of an oil spill from this Keystone pipeline, the least we
can do is to ensure that those that are responsible for it also pay to
clean it up.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, to protect American
taxpayers, and hold oil companies accountable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is
withdrawn.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
gentlewoman's motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I might just start off by asking my dear
friend from California a quick question: If this motion was adopted,
would she be voting for the bill? Yes or no.
I yield to the gentlewoman.
Mrs. CAPPS. As I said in my opening remarks, I would not, but as we
know, the bill would still pass.
Mr. UPTON. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlelady's interest
on this, and I share her concern.
I would note, and I know that I would also speak for my colleague,
Chairman Shuster, as we did write then-chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, Dave Camp, back in 2012, May 21, I sent a letter to the Ways
and Means chair encouraging that this exemption be--loophole--be fixed.
As you know, meaningful tax reform did not emerge from the last
Congress. I remain absolutely committed to resolving this, as I know
Bill Shuster has said so on the Record.
Besides that though, it has been years that we have been debating
this, and we finally have a bill out of the Senate. They took a whole
month on the other side. They considered lots of amendments. They
adopted three. We are accepting those three amendments when this bill
passes today, as we did not go to conference.
As we know, this is a jurisdictional issue, that neither our
committee nor Transportation has jurisdiction over tax issues. That is
why we were not able to include that provision here, and that is,
frankly, why the Senate was not able to adopt it on the Senate side
either, because it would have been a blue slip issue.
We view this on our side as a procedural issue. We don't want to send
it back to the Senate. Who knows when we are going to get it back after
the last month that they had.
I would urge my colleagues on our side to vote ``no'' on this
procedural vote. To the folks on your side that are voting, just know
that we remain committed to closing this loophole.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to commit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to commit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; and the motion to
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 431.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 181,
nays 241, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 74]

YEAS--181

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu (CA)
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
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Lieu (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--241

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster

[[Page H960]]

Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--10

Cartwright
Duckworth
Fitzpatrick
Hoyer
Kaptur
Lee
Roe (TN)
Ruiz
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott, David

{time} 1704

Messrs. FINCHER, NEUGEBAUER, and MARCHANT changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. JONES, CICILLINE, POLIS, and SWALWELL of California changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 270,
nays 152, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 75]

YEAS--270

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Clyburn
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Doyle (PA)
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Hinojosa
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Veasey
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--152

Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu (CA)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Lieu (CA)
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Cartwright
Doggett
Duckworth
Fitzpatrick
Hoyer
Kaptur
Lee
Roe (TN)
Ruiz
Sanchez, Loretta

{time} 1713

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________