[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7489-7499]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3, NORTHERN ROUTE APPROVAL ACT

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 228 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 228

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3) to approve the construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill

[[Page 7490]]

     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally 
     divided among and controlled by the respective chairs and 
     ranking minority members of the Committees on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure, Energy and Commerce, and Natural 
     Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and 
     Commerce, and Natural Resources now printed in the bill, it 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 113-11. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1240

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such 
time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
rule and the underlying bill.
  House Resolution 228 provides a structured rule for consideration of 
H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act. The rule makes 10 of the 25 
amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order, nine of which 
were sponsored by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and it 
provides for a robust debate in the House of Representatives.
  The underlying bill was marked up by three committees of 
jurisdiction, and each committee reported the bill favorably with a 
bipartisan vote.
  Additionally, the U.S. Senate, on March 22, 2013, voted to approve 
the pipeline by a vote of 62-37.
  Mr. Speaker, there are four simple reasons this bill has garnered 
bipartisan support: it creates American jobs; it increases our energy 
independence; it strengthens our national security; and it will 
contribute to lower gas prices.
  This bill leads where the President has wavered, and finally approves 
the northern route of the Keystone XL pipeline, which has been studied 
for over 1,700 days by 10 Federal agencies and several State 
environmental agencies.
  The U.S. Department of State has issued four environmental impact 
statements, at a total length of 15,500 pages. These studies prove that 
the vast majority of the project will not result in a significant 
environmental impact, and mitigation efforts will be undertaken to 
reduce any environmental impact.
  Additionally, the project includes 57 project-specific special 
conditions to ensure the maximum level of safety. Due to these 
conditions, the U.S. State Department's Environmental Impact Statement 
found that the pipeline will have ``a degree of safety over any other 
typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system.''
  For 4 long years, multiple studies and well over 15,000 pages of 
environmental analysis, the administration claims that the XL pipeline 
still cannot be approved. We all hear the echo of the President chiding 
Congress with his slogan, ``We can't wait.''
  I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if not now, when?
  This bill answers that question, and the answer is today. It is clear 
that this pipeline will create jobs, increase national security, and 
contribute to lower gas prices. For this reason, H.R. 3 breaks the 
Presidential logjam and approves this worthwhile project.
  On December 23, 2011, both the U.S. House and the Senate unanimously 
approved, and the President signed into law, a bill that required the 
President to approve the pipeline unless the President determined that 
the project did not serve national interests.
  On January 18, 2012, the President said ``no'' to the pipeline, 
claiming that it did not serve national interests.
  By preventing this project from moving forward, he said ``no'' to 
42,100 construction and manufacturing jobs at a time when Americans 
need work. He said ``no'' to cheaper gas prices for goods and services 
which could result in reduced energy cost.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, lower energy costs lead to lower 
manufacturing and shipping costs which, in turn, contribute to less 
grocery, gas and utility bills for the average American family.
  He said ``no'' to increased diversification of America's oil supply. 
He said ``no'' to reduced dependence on foreign oil. All these benefits 
this generation could pass on to future generations.
  By this inaction, the President said ``yes'' to more oil from barges 
from the Middle East. When the pipeline is finalized, it will transfer 
830,000 barrels of oil each day, which totals nearly half of our 
current daily imports from the Middle East.
  The President said ``yes'' to our ally, Canada, taking its business 
elsewhere, to China, rather than the United States. The oil from the 
tar sands of Canada will go on the market somewhere, whether we approve 
the XL pipeline or not. This is our chance to ensure Americans will 
have the opportunity to benefit from the energy supply, not China.
  The State Department acknowledged that the United States would be 
more secure if we relied more heavily on a non-OPEC source, such as 
Canada, for our energy needs.
  According to the State Department, and I quote:

       Non-OPEC Canadian crude oil supplies advance the energy 
     security of the United States, given Canada's close 
     proximity, our free trade agreements, and our close bilateral 
     relationship with a stable democracy.

  Canada is a more reliable and cost-efficient source of energy than 
the foreign oil that we depend on from the Middle East, Africa, and 
other regions of the world.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and 
the underlying legislation. The relevant committees of jurisdiction 
have provided us with a bipartisan bill that will create American jobs, 
ensure energy independence, increase our national security, and 
contribute to the lower gas prices.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill, the Northern Route Approval Act.
  In the words of Yogi Berra, it's deja vu all over again here in the 
House of Representatives.
  Last week, the House of Representatives repealed the Affordable Care 
Act for the 37th time. This week, for the

[[Page 7491]]

eighth time in 2\1/2\ years, we're voting yet again on another Keystone 
pipeline measure that will never become law.
  The very decision to sign this law would lie with the same President 
upon whose desk this decision is currently awaiting approval; and, 
therefore, this is yet another waste of taxpayer time, taxpayer money, 
when we have pressing national issues we should be discussing--how to 
address our budget deficit, how to get our economy moving, how to renew 
affordable college and low-interest rates for students.
  There are so many issues that my constituents are crying out for. Yet 
another symbolic issue that has nothing to do with whether the Keystone 
pipeline is approved or not is the last thing we should be spending our 
time here on the floor of the people's House debating.
  Rather than creating a bill that's more viable, instead this bill, by 
far, is the worst iteration of the bill that we've seen, worst of the 
eight.
  Even my colleagues who support construction of the 875-mile pipeline 
are having trouble supporting this bill because of its thinly veiled 
messaging that guts important laws and waives judicial review.
  In short, this Northern Route Approval Act is a regulatory earmark, a 
specific earmark which this House of Representatives has purported to 
eliminate. Not only is it an earmark; it's an earmark that has a far 
greater dollar value than any of the earmarks that have been much 
maligned by Members of both parties and are no longer part of this 
deliberative body.
  At a time where we should be advancing on renewable energy policy, on 
an all-of-the-above energy policy, this bill would bypass the very 
system that this Congress has set up under the law for consideration of 
a project.

                              {time}  1250

  This project has nothing to do with gas prices. In the analysis from 
the Department of State, there is absolutely no indication this would 
have anything to do with gas prices. This is for the global market. 
Let's debate it for what it is. Is it a favor to Canada if we do it? 
Absolutely. Does it have an environmental and health impact on 
Americans? Absolutely. Weigh the two. Let's look at a cost benefit.
  This has nothing to do with lower gas prices. If we want to talk 
about lower gas prices, let's do it. Let's increase fuel efficiency 
standards to lower gas prices. Let's look at what we're doing 
nationally. Let's look at our processing capacity. Let's look at 
alternative and public transportation. There's a lot of things we could 
be doing that actually would reduce gas prices. There is no analysis in 
the Department of State's thorough vetting of this that this would have 
any impact on price at the pump. This is 5 to 10 years from now, 
exporting a majority for the global market.
  Instead of voting on this act, there's a number of other great 
bipartisan bills we could be talking about which would reduce gas 
prices. Let me give an example.
  The Public Lands Renewable Energy Act that I helped coauthor with 
Representatives Gosar, Thompson, and Heck of Nevada would expand 
renewable energy development and create jobs while protecting our 
Nation's public health and environmental resources. And yes, because we 
expand our renewable energy development portfolio, it would apply 
downward pressure on gas prices.
  This bill is talking about a review process that's already well 
underway for the Keystone XL pipeline. Congress, itself, set up the 
process whereby each administration--and the country has the 
opportunity every 4 years to elect a President. Congress set up the 
process where each administration has the criteria for approving 
projects like Keystone. If we don't like the criteria, let's talk about 
changing those criteria in statute. That's the proper way to do it, not 
just shortcut the very process that Congress set up.
  Until then, we need to keep this process in place. No matter what the 
administration does, some Members of Congress aren't going to like the 
outcome; but we establish the ground rules, and the executive branch is 
administering the law that we created. Rather than interrupting the 
State Department's review process with this bill, we should allow the 
Department to take the necessary time to address the impacts, the 
concerns, the costs, and the benefits of this controversial pipeline.
  Although there's many issues that need to be better understood as 
part of the Keystone XL process, it's critical that we address pipeline 
safety issues to make sure that tar sands don't spill into our 
communities. It's not a Republican or Democratic issue. Everybody wants 
to make sure that America is safe, even if we do a major favor for 
Canada. There are indications that this pipeline could be more 
susceptible to oil spills because of the higher pressure that this type 
of pipeline uses compared to conventional crude. In fact, in the public 
comment period, many Americans expressed their concern that a spill 
could impact their property value, their health, their safety, access 
to clean drinking water, and quality of life. These are the types of 
things the administration is rightfully weighing in determining the 
outcome.
  While others argue the pipelines are the safest way to transport tar 
sands crude oil, the 150,000-gallon oil spill in Mayflower, Arkansas, 2 
months ago shows an example about the inadequacy of some of our current 
pipeline safety regulations. I've heard arguments that the pipeline 
could create economic benefit. Well, communities like Mayflower 
certainly won't see the benefits of Keystone when their yards, homes, 
and businesses are buried in the thick black layer of tar sands crude 
oil, threatening agriculture and local economic development.
  I think that we should make sure that tar sands developers adhere to 
pipeline safety standards that protect the health of Americans and 
protect our economy and protect jobs to ensure that any project that 
goes forward doesn't destroy jobs rather than create them.
  To address pipeline safety issues, Mr. Tonko of New York has offered 
a commonsense amendment. He'll be here to speak about that. It would 
require the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether current 
pipeline regulations are sufficient to address the special safety 
concerns that are particular to transporting tar sands crude oil. 
Unfortunately, however, this rule, which I strongly oppose, as well as 
the underlying bill, does not allow for the discussion or even the 
debate about Mr. Tonko's amendment, which I think is a commonsense 
requirement.
  Since this bill doesn't require the pipeline regulations which were 
requested by Mr. Tonko, I'm pleased that at least an amendment that I 
offer with Ms. Chu of California and Mr. Connolly of Virginia was made 
in order. This amendment would require the Government Accountability 
Office to evaluate the true cost of a potential spill from the Keystone 
XL pipeline in our communities. The GAO study would look at the impact 
of tar sands spills on public health, the environment, and the quantity 
and quality of water available for agriculture to farmers and to 
municipalities for drinking.
  It's inevitable that the Keystone pipeline will have spills and 
leaks. That much we know. These spills and leaks are not only costly to 
clean up--and we need to know and understand those costs--but they also 
take a toll on our communities. Accidents happen. Understanding the 
cost of spills is also important because the Keystone pipeline is 
slated to cross over the Ogallala Aquifer. The Ogallala Aquifer lies 
beneath 8 States, including my home State of Colorado, and supplies 
drinking water to about 2 million Americans and supplies 30 percent of 
the irrigation water for our Nation's farmers.
  TransCanada stated that it will provide alternative water supplies to 
affected communities if an oil spill impacts surface or groundwater. 
But TransCanada's promise to provide alternative water supplies in case 
of an oil spill is not enough insurance for millions of Americans who 
rely on the Ogallala Aquifer for drinking water and for farming. We 
simply need more information about the potential impact

[[Page 7492]]

and the range of impact that an oil spill would have on the Ogallala 
Aquifer.
  Mr. Speaker, even if my colleagues support the President if he 
chooses to move forward with the Keystone XL pipeline, there are many 
reasons not to vote for H.R. 3. Rather than ensuring that we have the 
proper protections in place for our environment and our citizens, the 
Northern Route Approval Act mandates approval of the pipeline while 
waiving nearly all other Federal permitting requirements.
  It doesn't even allow a discussion of amendments like Mr. Tonko's 
that were brought forward in good faith that at least deserve 10 
minutes on the floor of the House when, by the way, we're debating a 
bill that's never going to become law, won't be brought up in the 
Senate, and goes to the very same President for signature who's 
considering this project. So the least we can do is spend 10 minutes 
debating Mr. Tonko's meaningful amendment if we're spending time 
debating everything else that isn't going to become law.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule, support a more open 
and transparent process here on the floor of the House, and then move 
forward with legislation that deals with critical national priorities 
that all of our constituents are calling upon this Congress to act 
upon.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank my friend from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. 
It's very interesting that our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle claim that more oil production doesn't affect the price of oil or 
gasoline. Well, that's the same thing as saying that gravity doesn't 
exist and the Earth is still flat. Neither one of those are true.
  We all know that it's a marketplace, it's a commodity, and the more 
you produce, the lower the price. How well do I know that? In my own 
district in Louisiana, we produce more natural gas than we can use, and 
the price now is so low that we can hardly produce it because of the 
low reimbursement for the cost. But that will come up over time.
  Two cents a gallon in 1 day is how much gasoline prices have recently 
increased. It has increased 7 cents a gallon just in the last week. It 
may not sound like much, but the price of gas is going up once again. 
One headline says, ``Gas Prices Spike Ahead of Memorial Day.'' That's 
hitting just about every American in the wallet, and yet the President 
continues to play games with a project that will carry an estimated 830 
barrels of oil per day from Canada to the gulf coast for processing.
  So what are we waiting for? More studies? This project has been 
studied to death. Every State that it would go through has already sent 
its approval. It's been 1,700 days since TransCanada first applied to 
the State Department for permission to build the Keystone XL pipeline. 
TransCanada says pipeline construction will create about 20,000 jobs. 
And our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, Why aren't we 
talking about jobs? Twenty-thousand good-paying jobs, plus lower prices 
to the consumer.

                              {time}  1300

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman.
  But the Obama administration's State Department has politicized this 
project and stalled it in order to kowtow to the far-left environmental 
fringe.
  We need the jobs and we need the energy benefits. We need the lower 
costs for consumers and for manufacturing.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, of course quantity affects price--Economics 
101. The disconnect here and the failure in the argument from the other 
side is this quantity is a rounding error in the global supply and the 
global demand. This has no impact on price. We're not talking about 
anything that actually moves the bar of reducing gas prices for 
consumers.
  With that, it's my honor to yield 1 minute to my colleague from 
Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS of Michigan. I rise to urge my colleagues to reject this 
rule and reject H.R. 3.
  We've already seen the impact of tar sands oil in my district. Piles 
of petroleum coke three stories tall and a city block wide are sitting 
on the banks of the Detroit River. Pet coke, a byproduct of refining 
tar sands oil, is much dirtier than coal and is often sold to China. In 
Detroit, it sits uncovered and uncontained, waiting to blow into the 
air and water. These piles of petroleum coke are a blight on our 
communities and could pose a threat to the environment and public 
health.
  I offered an amendment to require a study on the environmental 
impacts of petroleum coke and other byproducts. This amendment was 
rejected by the Rules Committee despite the study's potential benefits 
to communities who may become host to their own piles of Pet coke.
  The bill--and the rule--is taking us in the wrong direction. Instead 
of selling dirty energy to China, we should be developing clean energy 
technology here at home.
  For these reasons, I cannot support the rule. And urge my colleagues 
to reject H.R. 3.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. I rise in support of the rule because I think that this 
illusion of energy independence has, in any case, been postponed by the 
very actions that work against this rule would represent because we're 
talking here about 5 years of postponement. And I think to have real 
energy solutions here in the United States means, first off, using the 
energy solutions that are represented in this continent.
  I think it is by no means a fix, it's by no means a cure--in 
deference to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--but it is an 
important step in the right direction. I think as well it represents a 
step toward energy independence, which is also about national security.
  I think it's a step toward jobs, which are vital in this country and 
needed at this time--more than 20,000. And I think ultimately it's a 
pocketbook issue. Where, as you think about driving time coming this 
summer and the number of people who will be filling up their tanks, 
this is a step in the right direction toward energy independence, 
energy security, and ultimately jobs. For that reason, I rise in 
support of the rule.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), whose amendment under this rule 
was also shut out from even a debate here on the floor of the House.
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  I oppose the rule and the underlying legislation.
  I submitted two amendments to the committee; I regret that neither 
was made in order. One--rejected by the Republican majority--would have 
protected private property owners along the pipeline route from being 
bullied by TransCanada into giving up their land. The other amendment 
would have required the Secretary of Transportation to provide 
assurance that current pipeline safety regulations are sufficient to 
prevent spills of diluted bitumen. I have represented communities that 
have been impacted by pipeline explosions. I know the price they pay.
  Much of this pipeline is going to cross private lands, not public 
lands. Protection of private property rights is something we hear a lot 
about whenever government makes a decision to protect unique and 
valuable public resources. But apparently, if a foreign company wants 
to build a pipeline to transport oil for export, private property 
rights can be sacrificed.
  What is the rush? There is existing pipeline capacity to deliver this 
oil. The tar sands are not going to disappear. Our citizens should 
receive a fair chance to defend their property in State courts. This 
legislation deprives them of that opportunity.

[[Page 7493]]

  Ms. Julia Trigg Crawford testified last month before the Committee on 
the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice in 
favor of limiting the power of eminent domain and in strong opposition 
to granting an exemption to TransCanada. I will include her testimony 
with my statement. She is only one of a number of landowners who were 
bullied by TransCanada, and she is now seeking a remedy in State court.
  Ms. Crawford and all other property owners who have gone to the 
courts should have the opportunity to make their cases. If TransCanada 
wants access to our land, they should follow our laws--laws put in 
place to safeguard our resources and our rights.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and this ill-conceived and 
unnecessary legislation.

 Testimony submitted to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on 
  the Constitution and Civil Justice Hearing on the Private Property 
                         Rights Protection Act

                                                   April 18, 2013.
       My name is Julia Trigg Crawford. I am the third-generation 
     manager of the farm my grandfather bought in 1948. As a 
     landowner along TransCanada's conveniently uncoupled Keystone 
     Gulf Coast Project, I absolutely support measures to limit 
     eminent domain. But I strongly oppose an exemption for 
     TransCanada, its Keystone XL, and any other foreign or 
     domestic for-profit entity that cannot provide proof that 
     their projects are for public benefit.
       I believe, as do countless others following my family's 
     legal case, that TransCanada has abused the power of eminent 
     domain in taking our land. When another pipeline asked to 
     come across our place, we said we did not want them here and 
     asked they would find a different route through a willing 
     neighbor. That pipeline company did just that--and eminent 
     domain was never mentioned.
       When they came knocking in 2008 we told TransCanada the 
     same thing: we don't want a pipeline here, and asked them to 
     find another route. They said no, then exploited a flawed 
     permitting process in Texas, and used eminent domain to take 
     the easement they wanted across our land.
       There are a host of reasons why we don't want a pipeline 
     across our property. First, we don't believe a foreign 
     corporation should have more of a right to our land than we 
     do. Secondly, we need to protect its Caddo Indian heritage, 
     specifically the 145 artifacts TransCanada's archeologists 
     recently found within the proposed pipeline easement. How 
     curious that TransCanada and the Texas Historical Commission 
     concur that my entire 30-acre pasture qualifies for National 
     Registry of Historic Places recognition, EXCEPT for the one 
     sliver of land TransCanada must have on our place to connect 
     the two sections of pipeline they've already build adjacent 
     to our land
       We don't want them horizontally drilling under the Bois 
     d'Arc Creek where we have State-given water rights. We 
     irrigate 400 acres of cropland from this creek, and the 
     pipeline would be just a couple hundred yards upstream from 
     our pumps. Any leak from that pipeline would contaminate our 
     equipment, and then our crops in minutes.
       Furthermore, the neighbor directly to the west of us owns 
     thousands of acres, and had granted TransCanada an easement 
     anyway. When we politely asked them to seek a way around us, 
     TransCanada could have slightly altered their route and 
     traversed that neighboring land differently, avoiding our 
     property altogether. But instead they just pulled out the 
     club of eminent domain, telling a reporter later it was just 
     too late to make any changes.
       As some of you may know, in 2011 the Texas Supreme Court 
     ruled in Denbury Green that private property rights are far 
     too precious to be taken by simply checking a box on a form. 
     Furthermore, the Supreme Court said that when challenged by a 
     landowner, the burden falls on the pipeline to present 
     reasonable proof it meets the requirements of a common 
     carrier. So we did just that, we asked for the proof.
       In challenging TransCanada, we asked them to provide proof 
     they met the qualifications as a common carrier and had the 
     right of eminent domain. And once again they hid behind the 
     skirts of the Texas Railroad Commission, saying in essence, 
     The Railroad Commission believes us, you should too. The 
     embattled Railroad Commission has proven to be nothing more 
     than a rubber stamp, they have never denied anyone common 
     carrier status. So, when we asked for another element of 
     proof, their tariff schedule, TransCanada said in court they 
     would not have that tariff schedule until about the time 
     product started flowing. In other words, they could not 
     produce this particular proof they were entitled to take my 
     land until after my land was condemned, handed over to them, 
     construction was completed and tarsands, the product for 
     which Keystone is being built, was flowing. This is wrong, 
     and is precisely why the Keystone XL should not be granted an 
     exemption from this bill's much needed eminent domain 
     restrictions.
       If I read it correctly, this bill's exemptions for 
     pipelines already under construction allow current eminent 
     domain abuses to go unpunished. The bill addresses the 
     problems, and outlines important solutions, yet allows those 
     who exploited the process up until a certain date on a 
     calendar to get off ``scot-free''. And as someone who has 
     lost part of her family farm to this abuse, that's leaves me, 
     and lots of people like me out in the cold. And add insult to 
     injury: our land was taken through abusive means, and the 
     abusers could get off without even a hand-slap.
       Two years ago when our family first began our stand against 
     eminent domain abuse, TransCanada was flying below the radar 
     screen. No one seemed to know much about the Keystone XL 
     Pipeline. But now the light is blindingly bright on 
     TransCanada, the tarsands, and the threat to everyone's land 
     and water. People around the world see that TransCanada 
     represents eminent domain gone unchecked and horribly wrong. 
     Why else would there be so much pushback, by so many people, 
     from so many backgrounds, in so many ways, to the Keystone XL 
     project?
       If we allow an exception for TransCanada and the Keystone 
     XL, we will be setting a dangerous precedent, leaving the 
     door open for even further misuse of our legal system and 
     more abuse of landowners unwilling to risk their property for 
     foreign profits. The same system that enabled the judge in 
     our case to issue a 15-word ruling from his iPhone would 
     enable TransCanada and other pipeline companies to use the 
     incredible legal and psychological leverage of eminent domain 
     to continue stealing property from American citizens.
       We have appealed that iPhone ruling, and look forward to 
     our day in court with an experienced panel of judges in the 
     6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Texarkana, Texas. And if our 
     legal defense fund holds out, we may take it to the Texas 
     Supreme Court.
       Eminent domain abuse at the hands of one greedy corporation 
     is unforgivable, but it is part of something even bigger. 
     While all land is invaluable to its owners, farmland holds a 
     particularly unique position. Rural property rights, like 
     mine, are the ``fundamental building blocks for our Nation's 
     agricultural industry.'' ``The use of eminent domain to take 
     farmland and other rural property for economic development 
     threatens liberty, rural economies, and the economy of the 
     United States.'' And TransCanada is at the heart of these 
     issues right now. Their advertisements in my local newspaper 
     say ``We want to be more than just a pipeline company: we 
     want to be a trusted neighbor''. They've given me no reason 
     to trust them.
       I do not believe there has been even one shred of 
     documentation that proves that one single drop of the 
     products transported through TransCanada's pipeline will be 
     refined for use in the U.S. Yet we are supposed to relinquish 
     our family's tradition and the cultural heritage of the 
     families who lived on our land before us, just because 
     TransCanada says, without proof, that their pipeline is for 
     the public good. How can this pipeline be for the public good 
     when so much information about it is not even in the public 
     record? Diluted bitumen, tarsands, whatever you want to call 
     it, is a product we should fully understand before we start 
     pumping it through major waterways, sometimes through 70-
     year-old pipelines built before tarsands extraction was 
     economically viable. TransCanada has called this product 
     proprietary, refusing to provide specifics. How can we ensure 
     the safety of a substance when we don't even know its 
     ingredients?
       Pipeline companies do not deserve a free ride, especially 
     when they can't clean up their own messes, and especially 
     when we taxpayers are subsidizing the cleanup attempts. Look 
     at Enbridge in Michigan. Look at Exxon in Arkansas. This is a 
     spill I went to see for myself. Standing at a culvert, I saw 
     the 5 foot high imprint of the oil rush to the local 
     wetlands. The thought of seeing the equivalent on my creek 
     bank is disheartening. America already subsidizes the oil 
     industry at a monumental disproportion to other industries. 
     Are we to further subsidize pipelines with our safety, our 
     security, and our human dignity?
       Corporations may be considered to be people, but dollars do 
     not yet count as votes. TransCanada's money never sleeps, but 
     neither do landowners like me, faced with the threat of 
     losing our property, or seeing our land and identities torn 
     apart.
       This bill brings much needed reform to a sometimes flawed 
     system, and a platform where wrong can be made right. But 
     with this exception that includes TransCanada, it is turning 
     a blind eye to the most flagrant abuser of eminent domain 
     today. I urge you to remove that exclusion, and let those who 
     have abused be exposed, and suffer the consequences. 
     TransCanada stole land that has been in my family for 6 
     decades, and all for a project that will line their pockets. 
     To allow them to walk away from past abuses without penalty 
     is egregious. I will continue to fight these injustices 
     because life, as we know it, depends on it. And I am not 
     alone.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                             Julia Trigg Crawford.

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

[[Page 7494]]


  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Let's be honest: this permit is 5 years old. The average time for 
authorizing permits in these types of projects is 18 to 24 months. 
Enough paralysis by analysis.
  Now, some may say during this discussion that we're being impatient 
and we're rushing this through--1,700 days? This delay has taken longer 
than it took the Greatest Generation to win World War II on both 
fronts. It's longer than it took Lewis and Clark to do their 
exploration of the Louisiana Purchase to Oregon and back.
  The Keystone XL is a private infrastructure project with no 
government funds that will create nongovernment jobs--by the way, a $7 
billion infrastructure project, 20,000 direct jobs along this route 
over a 2-year period.
  I want to make a very important point. Those who oppose this 
legislation argue that it's unprecedented. This is not the first time 
Congress has had to intervene to build a pipeline. Like-minded 
legislation to this one was necessary 40 years ago to achieve 
construction of the game-changing trans-Alaska pipeline. That 
legislation that was passed and signed into law deemed that the 
environmental studies--NEPA--were sufficient, as this one does; that 
rights of way across Federal lands--not State, but Federal lands--were 
processed; and judicial review was also included.
  Then again, in 2004, Congress had to act to pass legislation to build 
the Alaska natural gas pipeline. That legislation was passed and signed 
into law with a 60-day judicial review. The pipeline was deemed to be 
in the national interest and, unlike today, it expedited the NEPA. 
Here, the NEPA process has been finished--complete. The only way you 
can get more studies is to have amendments requiring more studies 
because all of the legal requirements have been filled.
  Today, we just heard about mistreatment. And there was some 
misinformation from the last speaker regarding what this bill does. It 
gives a streamlined judicial process in regard to the Federal permits 
issued. It has nothing to do with States' eminent domain. But let's 
hear some facts.
  Today, TransCanada has agreements with 60,000 landowners over 32,000 
miles of pipeline. Under the original Keystone pipeline that goes 
through Nebraska, there were over 300 landowners involved in 
negotiations, four of whom objected. Three of those settled, one went 
to court; 300 versus four that were upset. And they got their day in 
court in the State of Nebraska, just like this bill preserves. If there 
are verifiable crop deficiencies, it's TransCanada's policy to make 
them whole.
  Now, what will compel the State Department to complete this process? 
They've had it for 5 years. The studies have been completed--the 
original NEPA, a supplemental, a Nebraska supplemental.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the most studied pipeline in the history of 
mankind.

                              {time}  1310

  History is our greatest educator.
  In 1973, Congress passed and President Nixon signed the Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline Act to ``ensure that because of the extensive governmental 
studies already made of this project and the national interest in early 
delivery of North Slope oil to domestic markets, the trans-Alaska 
pipeline be constructed promptly without further administrative or 
judicial delay or impediment.''
  That was 40 years ago we had the same problems; 2004 we have the same 
problems. And it took Congress to act to resolve them.
  This will be the newest, most highly engineered pipeline in our 
history to resolve some of the questions from the gentleman from 
Colorado. Again, three separate environmental studies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. TERRY. The point of those is to study the impacts, if there is a 
spill, to not only the soil, the ecosystem, but the Ogallala Aquifer as 
well. Three different studies have dealt with that. All have 
scientifically concluded that there is negligible impact on the 
ecosystem, or in the artistic term ``not significant.''
  The most celebrated geologist in the State of Nebraska has said that 
it is impossible for the oil to get to the Ogallala Aquifer; but if it 
did, the water is still and won't move out of that and can be easily 
remedied.
  Now, I'm not being impatient; the Republicans aren't being impatient. 
Our Nation of builders needs this pipeline, and I urge approval of both 
the rule and the bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman cited studies that apparently 
addressed his concerns about environmental impact. I would draw his 
attention to the fact that there were three draft studies--one that was 
actually finalized. All of them were on the old routing. The project 
itself has been revised. There have been zero studies, environmental 
studies for health and water, with regard to the new routing of the 
pipeline.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Whether 
or not you support the pipeline, you should oppose this legislation. 
H.R. 3 is a reckless attempt to sideline environmental review and limit 
public input.
  The majority claims that Keystone XL is the most studied pipeline in 
the history of pipelines. Shouldn't a pipeline that is going to run the 
length of our country be exhaustively studied? We need to know the 
environmental impacts and truly weigh all the consequences, intended or 
not, of H.R. 3; and H.R. 3 would deny the American people and this 
Congress that opportunity.
  Over 1 million Americans commented on the Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement. The President and his administration need time to 
analyze these comments and evaluate the impacts of this massive 
project. H.R. 3 shuts that process down and says it's ready to go.
  This can't be about making the President look bad or the bottom line 
of a Canadian corporation. This is about doing what's right for this 
country.
  This is no ordinary pipeline. It will transport dirty tar sands oil 
from Canada to Port Arthur, Texas. Tar sands oil produces 40 percent 
more carbon pollution than conventional oils.
  Pretending that this pipeline has to be done and has to be done 
immediately is to hide from the reality of the consequences of this 
pipeline. We really don't need the oil. It is oil that will be 
primarily exported out of this country.
  A recent study by Cornell University found that Keystone XL will 
divert more green jobs and contribute to more climate change than any 
other project. The claims of employment are hugely exaggerated.
  We are having the wrong conversation. We should be talking about the 
future of real energy independence and alternative and renewable 
energy.
  While I don't support H.R. 3 or Keystone XL, I think the decision 
lies with the President. That's why I am circulating a letter to the 
President to reject this lack of a Presidential permit.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, 
let me make it abundantly clear here: the pipeline is going to be 
built. The question is whether it's going to be built west to 
Vancouver, and then we're going to see the product shipped to our 
economic competitors; or will the pipeline be built south to our 
refineries in the United States.
  There's a second point. We've got the cleanest burning refineries in 
the world. That is not true in terms of our economic competitors.
  So from an environmental standpoint and from the standpoint of energy 
needs in the U.S., it makes no sense to advance the interests of our 
economic competitors.
  Now, the U.S. energy costs have been declining. China's energy costs 
have been rising. Our country is becoming a more attractive place to 
manufacture

[[Page 7495]]

goods. We are also becoming more competitive, both with Europe and with 
Asia.
  U.S. gasoline prices right now are 30 percent lower than China's, and 
U.S. electricity prices are 50 percent lower than Europe's. For those 
of us that have been involved in manufacturing in the past, we 
understand how important that is. We want energy prices lower here in 
the United States than they are overseas, not the other way around.
  A reliable and efficient energy supply is, frankly, vital to our 
economic competitiveness; and unless we reverse course, we could 
squander the advantage we have right now. The Keystone pipeline will 
have a major positive impact on the economy at a time when millions of 
hard-pressed Americans are searching for work. Keystone will create an 
estimated 20,000 new direct jobs and we know hundreds of thousands of 
indirect jobs, not only in the States where the pipelines will be built 
and operated, but throughout the entire country.
  Keystone is going to enhance our national security. Think about this 
for a minute. And, frankly, our Foreign Affairs Committee members, 24 
of our Republican Members, wrote to the President in February saying 
that by providing secure access to petroleum from Canada, we would 
reduce our reliance on energy imports from countries in the OPEC 
cartel. The U.S. would be less vulnerable to political and security-
related disruptions of our energy supply.
  Well, that's the point. That's the objective here. And in the same 
vein, energy from Canada will enable us to reduce our dependence on 
unstable and unfriendly oil exporters. For example, while the 
Venezuelan regime remains openly hostile to the U.S., the country is 
our fourth largest source of oil. By contrast, Canada has long been one 
of our closest allies.
  Our economies are joined together with Canada and our energy sectors 
are already integrated. We want to spend the money in Canada and have 
it circulated back over that border. Ninety percent of what Canada buys 
is made in the United States. We could have no better partner in our 
effort to ensure our energy security.
  By obstructing the approval process, the administration not only 
prevents the benefits of the pipeline from materializing; it also 
chills the development for new projects. Think about this. At the 
present time, Canada and Mexico are major sources of American energy 
and offer enormous potential for the development of new oil and gas 
fields and greatly expanded cross-border energy trade.
  Yet if our existing Federal bureaucracy is willing to impose 
excessive costs and continued delays on a project as sound as Keystone, 
what reasonable business will want to assume similar risks going 
forward? I tell you what will happen: that pipeline will be built 
instead to Vancouver, British Columbia, and instead of the imports 
coming into the United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ROYCE. The role of the State Department in the approval process 
is to determine whether the project serves the national interest. No 
one familiar with the facts would deny that it does, but the delays 
continue based on unfounded claims.
  The State Department's own draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement on Keystone concluded that, in effect, there was no 
environmental reason not to approve the pipeline; yet still no action 
has been taken.
  But it appears that not everyone in the administration got the 
message to slow this project down. This month, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service concluded that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would 
have no negative impact on a wide range of threatened species--from the 
gray wolf, to the whooping crane, to the prairie fringed orchid. While 
it found that the project was likely to affect the American burying 
beetle, ABB, it concluded that Keystone XL's conservation measures 
``would likely result in a net increase in protected ABB habitat.'' So 
the one animal affected will actually be better off after the Keystone 
pipeline.
  It is time to stop this charade. All reasonable objections to the 
pipeline have been fully addressed. Please pass the legislation.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to one of 
our leaders on energy policy, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson 
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman from Colorado for his 
leadership, and I hope that we will continue this debate with my good 
friends on the other side of the aisle on this issue.
  It is just very challenging to have a structure of legislation that 
deems approval and does not do what I think all of us want it to do, 
which is to get moving to provide these jobs and to do what America is 
uniquely noted for--that we cross the T's and dot the I's, that we make 
sure that the environmental concerns are answered. I rise on this rule 
to make several points.
  Mr. Rush and I offered an amendment to strike section 4. In this 
bill, it does not allow for judicial review. It allows for people in 
Kentucky or in Arizona or in Texas to come to the District of Columbia 
to file their cases in the Court of Appeals. As a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, I raised concerns about that. My bill struck the 
provision that eliminated judicial review so that some burdened 
individual citizen couldn't just go into his Federal district court.
  I had another amendment that is very near and dear to me that wants 
to give new life to the jobs and businesses in the energy industry, 
which is to create a report to ensure that women, small businesses, 
minority-owned businesses get their fair shake and that we have an 
overall commitment to hiring the new young graduates who are coming 
out, many of them from the diverse community, which we see the energy 
industry is still seeking to outreach because there is a great need for 
increased diversity in many of these fields. Amendment No. 2 would have 
added a nonseverability clause so that, if anything were found to be 
unconstitutional, we would go back to the drawing board for this entire 
bill.
  Again, to have a major initiative be deemed approved, the Secretary 
of State authority deemed approved, the Presidential authority deemed 
approved, this is something that, my colleagues, we should work 
together on.
  I would finally suggest that I hope my colleagues will support my 
amendment on extending to 1 year the period for filing. Let's work 
together and make sure we've got something that will create jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Sessions and the Members of the Rules 
Committee for making in order my amendment that extends the time period 
for filing a claim arising under the Act from 60 days to 1 year.
  Mr. Speaker, the Keystone XL Pipeline project raises several issues 
important to every Member of this House:
  Energy production and independence.
  Environmental protection and preservation.
  Job creation.
  Separation of powers and checks and balances.
  Given the importance of these issues, I believe the House would have 
benefitted from a rule that provided for even more extensive and wide-
ranging debate and that made more amendments in order.
  For example, an amendment I offered jointly with Congressman Rush, 
Jackson Lee Amendment #4, would have struck Section 4 of the bill and 
restored the right to full judicial review to aggrieved parties.
  Another amendment I offered, Jackson Lee Amendment #3, would have 
required the Secretary of Transportation to submit within 90 days of 
enactment a report to Congress identifying the procedures and policies 
adopted to ensure that women and minority business enterprises are 
afforded the opportunity to participate on an equitable basis in the 
construction and operation of the Keystone equitable basis in the 
construction and operation of the Keystone Pipeline. Had this amendment 
been made in order and adopted Congress would have been provided with 
helpful information needed to conduct appropriate oversight.
  Another amendment I offered, Jackson Lee Amendment #2 Amendment, 
would have added a non-severability clause to the bill, which states 
that: ``if any provision or application of the legislation is held to 
be invalid, the entire act shall be rendered void.''

[[Page 7496]]

  This non-severability clause simply would have made explicit that the 
component parts of this bill all fit together, in pari materia, so to 
speak, such that removing any one part would defeat the intended 
purpose of the bill.
  My amendment would make very clear the Congressional intent that this 
bill is so delicately crafted, that it is ``all or nothing.''
  Each of these provisions would be rendered meaningless if any of the 
remaining parts is invalidated.
  This has been a long standing principle of statutory construction, 
going back at least to 1936, when the Supreme Court stated in Carter v. 
Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 312 (1936):

       ``[T]he presumption is that the Legislature intends an act 
     to be effective as an entirety--that is to say, the rule is 
     against the mutilation of a statute; and if any provision be 
     unconstitutional, the presumption is that the remaining 
     provisions fall with it.''

  This presumption becomes conclusive when Congress makes its intention 
clear, see Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. at 312, by including a 
non-severability clause in the statute.
  My amendment would have done just that.
  For these reasons, I am opposed to the rule and cannot support it.
  We can do better to create jobs, build the pipeline, and protect the 
environment. I will consider how to move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk. It is Jackson Lee 
Amendment No. 1.
  I thank the Members of the Rules Committee for making the amendment 
in order.
  My amendment is simple and straightforward. It extends the time 
period for filing a claim arising under the Act from 60 days to 1 year 
after the date of the decision or action giving rise to the claim.
  This amendment is especially needed because H.R. 3, the underlying 
bill, vests exclusive jurisdiction over any and all claims arising 
under the Act in a single court--the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia.
  Think about that. The Keystone Pipeline is proposed to run from 
Alberta, Canada through the great States of North Dakota, South Dakota, 
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and my State of Texas all the way to the 
Gulf of Mexico.
  And the only court in the country authorized to hear the claims of 
any resident of any of these States who seeks justice for a legally 
cognizable injury is located more than 1,000 miles away from their 
homes.
  This will impose undue hardship and financial burdens on ordinary 
Americans seeking justice. Instead, the bill requires them to find and 
retain a high-priced D.C. lawyer that they don't know and may have 
never met to represent their interests in a court in a far away land.
  Another reason for extending the time period in which to file a claim 
from 60 days to 1 year is because by lodging jurisdiction in the D.C. 
Court of Appeals, the burden of proof and persuasion is shifted from 
the governmental and corporate actors involved to the homeowners, small 
businesses, and individuals bringing the legal action.
  This is because the burden that must be shouldered by a plaintiff is 
very steep. To challenge factual and evidentiary determinations made in 
an Environmental Impact Statement, for example, a plaintiff must 
demonstrate that they are ``not supported by substantial evidence in 
the record considered as a whole.''
  To meet that standard, plaintiffs will have to retain experts, locate 
and prepare witnesses, and gather and review documentary materials.
  That takes time. And that is why my amendment is necessary.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I just want to say that I know there is a 
desire to have more T's crossed and I's dotted. There are over 450,000 
T's and I's in those 15,000 pages. We've done enough. It's time to 
build this pipeline. Keystone XL will help lower gas prices and will 
help protect against supply disruptions by putting downward pressure on 
oil prices by increasing supply to domestic markets.
  In a memo from the Department of Energy regarding Keystone XL, it 
asserted that gasoline prices in all markets served by refiners on the 
east coast and gulf would decrease, including in the Midwest. Yes, it 
does do that. There are four things we said. One of them is the major 
one, which is that it creates jobs immediately; 42,100 were estimated 
by the Department of State in one of their four studies on this 
particular bill. I mean, we could go study after study after study with 
10 different agencies looking over and over and over. There are no more 
studies to be done. It's time to make the decision. When should it be 
made? Now.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise in opposition 
to the rule and the underlying bill. I lament that fact because I'm one 
of those who supports the Keystone pipeline for the many reasons that 
have been stated here.
  I know people have concerns about oil sands, tar sands or oil 
production processes, but that's a Canadian decision. The fact is that 
these oils are going to be moved by tens of thousands of railroad cars 
or trucks through the States or through a pipeline to the west. 
Pipelines are a proven environmentally safe and sound way to move oil 
around North America and the country.
  I am in opposition to the bill because, in committee, it became 
apparent that the bill relieves a foreign corporation from all of the 
same obligations that domestic corporations are expected to honor. They 
are exempted from having to comply with the EPA, with the Army Corps 
permits for construction and maintenance. They are relieved of the 
responsibility to pay taxes on the oil flowing through those pipelines. 
They are relieved of responsibility for cleanup in the event of 
accidents. That is a prescription for nothing but trouble and disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, those are the reasons that I speak in opposition to this 
rule and to this bill.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado has 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time in order to 
close.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he has any 
remaining speakers.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. No.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to inform the gentleman that I have possibly 
one who, if he comes, I would like to yield to. Other than that, I am 
prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Look, it has been talked about as to the impact on gas prices in the 
Midwest. There is no TAPS on this pipeline in the Midwest. It goes from 
Canada to the Gulf of Mexico to China and everywhere else. There can't 
even be TAPS on it in the Midwest because we're talking about 
unprocessed tar sands crude, which needs to be processed. It's a drop 
in the bucket in the global supply and has no impact on gas prices.
  There are dozens of meaningful policies that we can talk about to 
reduce gas prices. Let's get to it rather than taking this important 
decision out of the context of the administration and out of the 
context of the process that Congress, itself, set up to co-op that very 
process for purely political purposes.
  The Northern Route Approval Act exempts TransCanada from multiple 
loss, including treaty acts that we've passed, the Clean Water Act, and 
many others that my colleague Mr. Nolan pointed out that American 
companies are subjected to. Yes, it's giving foreign companies 
preferential treatment over American companies.
  Even though we don't know the cost of potential Keystone tar sands 
spills, we do know that American taxpayers will likely be stuck paying 
the bill for cleaning up and for the economic costs of these spills. 
Tar sands developers are exempt from paying into the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund. Let me repeat that. Tar sands developers are 
exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. That's a 
fund that normally collects an 8-cent per barrel excise tax on 
domestically produced crude oil to pay for spill prevention and 
mitigation efforts.
  So they are exempt. They're not paying in. Like any oil that's pulled 
out of the ground in Texas or across our country, they're paying in 
because we know that oil spills happen; we know they have real economic 
and health costs; we know they affect agriculture and water--but oh, 
no, this project is exempt. Since tar sands are not considered 
conventional oil, TransCanada is

[[Page 7497]]

not required to pay into the trust fund for the oil it transports, 
while the data indicates that the tar sands crude can actually have a 
worse economic and environmental impact when spilled than conventional 
oil. We can't subject more communities like Mayflower to oil spills and 
then burden the U.S. taxpayers at a time of record deficits with paying 
for the cleanup.
  Approving the Keystone XL pipeline through this bill would simply 
benefit foreign oil companies at the expense of the health and safety 
of the American people. There is a process in place to protect the 
health and safety of the American people, the economic welfare of the 
American people, jobs. This bill circumvents that process that Congress 
set up. If we want to change the process, let's have a debate about the 
process for approval and the statutory framework and work with the 
administration to come up with a better way to do it. Let's not go 
around our own process just because we may or may not like what we may 
or may not think is the outcome.
  I urge the majority to stop wasting the American people's time with 
bills that are going nowhere and to turn towards addressing so many 
challenges we can agree on--reducing the deficit, improving the 
economy, improving the efficiency of the delivery of health care. Let's 
talk about reducing gas prices, the bipartisan bill that I've 
introduced with Mr. Gosar and Mr. Heck and others.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'll offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2070, Representative Tim 
Bishop's bill to protect consumers from price gouging at the pump.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment into the Record along with the extraneous material 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and 
the underlying bill.
  This rule doesn't even allow for 10 minutes of debate or 5 minutes of 
debate or 1 minute of debate on the very commonsense amendments that 
have been brought forward by my colleagues like Mr. Peters of Michigan 
and Mr. Tonko of New York.
  Don't we have 1 minute to debate these important amendments? What are 
we doing that's so important? We didn't even go into session until noon 
today. Why didn't we go into session at 11:59 a.m. and have 1 minute 
for debate on these amendments? What are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? We 
have the time to get it right. Let's do it.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First of all, the amendments that were talked about are amendments 
that would add to a process that we have said is very sacred. We don't 
want to change the process. We don't want to circumvent it.
  We're not circumventing any process. Because this crosses a national 
boundary, there's only one thing left to do: we need the President to 
okay it. Every study that could be done--this started in 2008 and 
continued in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, and now here we are in 2013. 
It's out of opportunities to be studied. It's time.
  This rule provides for ample and open debate and makes in order 
proposals from both sides of the aisle.
  As I stated before, this bill represents so much more than the 
approval of an 875-mile long pipeline. It represents 42,100 jobs, 
greater energy independence, and will benefit our Nation for 
generations to come.
  The Keystone XL pipeline will allow 830,000 barrels of oil to flow 
each day to domestic refineries that employ hardworking Americans. This 
number represents half of our current daily crude oil imports from the 
Middle East. This will not only diversify our energy sources, but it 
will reduce our dependence on foreign oil from countries that in many 
ways do not share or respect our freedom and democracy.
  As we speak, the southern gulf coast segment of the Keystone XL 
pipeline is being constructed. It didn't require Presidential approval 
for one reason: it didn't cross a national border. It was studied by 
the requisite State and Federal environmental agencies, it was 
approved, and now it's approximately 50 percent complete.
  Four years and 15,000 pages represent more than enough time and paper 
to study this pipeline. Any more paper and we'll need an environmental 
impact statement to study the effects of the environmental impact 
statement.
  Our Nation is crying out for job creation, energy independence, and 
lower gas prices. Today, we have the opportunity to answer that call 
and to remove the few remaining barriers that stand between Americans 
and the relief they desperately need.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this rule and 
passage of the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 228 Offered By Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2070) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and 
     other fuels, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 2070.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend

[[Page 7498]]

     the rule because the majority Member controlling the time 
     will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the 
     same result may be achieved by voting down the previous 
     question on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous 
     question is defeated, control of the time passes to the 
     Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous 
     question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may 
     offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. With that, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 194, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 167]

                               YEAS--223

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

                               NAYS--194

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Clyburn
     Cole
     Diaz-Balart
     Garcia
     Hastings (FL)
     Herrera Beutler
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sarbanes
     Titus
     Woodall
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. McNERNEY and Ms. JACKSON LEE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lucas was allowed to speak out of order.)


     Moment of Silence in Remembrance of Victims of Recent Tornados

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, as you're all well aware, it's been a tough 
week in the Southwest. In particular, it's been a tough few days in the 
Fourth District of Oklahoma.
  Today, I rise to first thank you for your prayers and your thoughts 
and your good will, but I note also the tornado that rolled through 
Congressman Tom Cole's district in Oklahoma, from Newcastle through 
Moore and across the southern part of Oklahoma City. Congressman Cole 
is not with us today because he is still in Oklahoma, addressing the 
needs of and working with his fellow citizens and community members as 
they try to put themselves back together after this strike by an F-5 
tornado.
  Moore is particularly important to our colleague, Congressman Cole, 
because not only does he represent the community, but he was raised 
there, two generations of his family buried in the cemetery there. So 
it's a community that's important to him in many, many ways.
  That said, the good folks in Moore and the other communities will, 
over the coming days, pull themselves back together. They'll finish 
sifting through every pile of rubble; they'll have made a determination 
that there's no one left to be saved, as they work frantically to try 
to do that; and they'll begin the process of laying to rest those who 
were lost and put their entire community back together.

[[Page 7499]]

  While many folks are well aware of the importance of FEMA and the 
Federal response, Moore is a classic example--and this could be any 
community in the United States--of where, in the greatest tragedy, the 
most tragic loss of life, city government, county government, and State 
government come together to work seamlessly to help those in need and 
to recover those beyond help.
  We in the Oklahoma delegation and our friends in the Texas delegation 
appreciate everything that you have and you will help do in this 
effort.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield to the gentleman who represents part 
of that area and just to the north, Oklahoma City, the great Fifth 
District of Oklahoma, Congressman Lankford.
  Mr. LANKFORD. In the past week, Texas and Oklahoma have experienced a 
storm. We lost 6 in Lake Granbury, Texas; 2 in Shawnee, Oklahoma, on 
Sunday; and 24 in Moore, Oklahoma, including 10 children and 14 adults. 
We have been overwhelmed with the number of people that have come to us 
to say, ``We're praying for you.''
  I would like to make a request that this body take a moment to pause 
and pray and experience a moment of silence in honor of those that have 
been lost and the recovery efforts ahead.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). Members will rise and the House 
will observe a moment of silence.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas was allowed 
to speak out of order.)


       Expressing Sympathy for the Victims of the Recent Tornados

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. As the Democratic side of the 
Texas delegation, I want to join the other Republicans that came up 
with the Oklahoma delegation and simply say that this is not a partisan 
issue. We stand ready to be of assistance to those people in Oklahoma.
  I represent Dallas. That is closer to Oklahoma City than it is to 
Houston. No matter where tragedies may occur, we stand ready as 
American people to stand by those people who have been affected, 
notwithstanding party.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 185, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 168]

                               AYES--228

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

                               NOES--185

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

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Clyburn
     Cole
     Diaz-Balart
     Farr
     Garcia
     Hastings (FL)
     Herrera Beutler
     Issa
     Jones
     Kirkpatrick
     Lummis
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Nugent
     Poe (TX)
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sarbanes
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1413

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

                          ____________________