[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15662-15670]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  APPROVAL OF THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on H.R. 5682.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 748, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 5682) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 748, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5682

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

     SECTION 1. 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) Federal Judicial Review.--Any legal challenge to a 
     Federal agency action 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, and any permit, right-of-way, or other action taken to 
     construct or complete the project pursuant to Federal law, 
     shall only be subject to judicial review on direct appeal to 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit.
       (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).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 5682, to approve the Keystone XL 
Pipeline.
  Pipelines are the energy lifelines that power nearly all of our daily 
activities. Pipelines are a very safe and cost-effective means to 
transport the products that fuel our economy. In fact, pipelines today 
supply more than two-thirds of the energy used in the United States. 
The Keystone XL project will be a critical addition to this extensive 
network, increasing our Nation's supply of oil and, thus, helping to 
reduce the cost of oil.
  H.R. 5682 closely follows H.R. 3 that this House passed last year. 
Since the passage of H.R. 3, the State Department completed its Final 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on January 31 of 2014. 
However, there has still been no action by the administration on the 
pipeline. There have been excuses, the most recent of which is pending 
litigation in the State of Nebraska. However, H.R. 5682 takes that into 
account and allows for the rerouting in that State. There is simply no 
further reason to delay this important project, especially given the 
numerous benefits it will provide our Nation.
  This pipeline will be a boon to economic development. Of particular 
interest to taxpayers, this pipeline doesn't require one Federal dollar 
to build. Further, the very nature of infrastructure creates jobs, and 
the Keystone XL is no exception. The U.S. State Department reconfirmed 
all of this last January. The State estimated that the Keystone XL will 
produce 42,000 jobs and $2 billion in employee earnings. This project 
will have a significant positive economic impact, including an 
estimated $3.1 billion in construction contracts, materials, and 
support services. Furthermore, the State confirmed that the estimated 
total property taxes for the project will be over $55 million spread 
across 27 counties. The State Department called this impact 
``substantial for many counties.''
  The Keystone XL pipeline is the most extensively studied and vetted 
pipeline project in the history of this country. The project will 
include 95 special mitigation measures, including 59 recommended by 
PHMSA, to prevent spills and to make this the safest pipeline ever 
built. In fact, I would argue that we are facing a manufactured 
stalemate, one that could be described as ``paralysis by analysis.''
  The majority of Americans knows this is the right thing to do, so the 
Congress, through this bill, will lead where the President has refused. 
This project will create jobs, improve the Nation's economy, strengthen 
our transportation system, and help improve the Nation's economic 
security.
  I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman mentioned taxpayers. I think taxpayers might be 
concerned that this foreign entity which will ship our oil over 1,700 
miles across America will be exempt from a fee that all of the American 
companies and others using our current pipelines have to pay because of 
a bizarre ruling from the IRS, which often makes bizarre rulings. Tar 
sands oil will not be required to contribute toward the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund.
  I think U.S. taxpayers might be concerned that a foreign entity which 
is going to ship tar sands oil 1,700 miles through the United States to 
an export zone, in all probability to be processed and exported in a 
tax-exempt area, won't be paying much, if any, taxes in the U.S. except 
some property taxes, and it won't have to contribute toward this trust 
fund. In case there is a spill with this line, the U.S. taxpayers and 
other entities in the U.S.--mostly U.S. companies--will be liable to 
pay for their mess. So I have a concern about taxpayers.
  Another part of this is three citizens of the State of Nebraska 
brought litigation because this bill would give a foreign entity the 
right to take their private property in the United States of America--
in Nebraska--by eminent domain. I don't know. I am not aware of any 
other time we have given a foreign entity the right to take the private 
property of U.S. citizens. These same citizens won a case in district 
court, and this bill would essentially nullify the ruling that they 
won, which is still under appeal to the Supreme Court in that State.

[[Page 15663]]

  So here we have a foreign entity that won't pay taxes that other oil 
companies and others who ship by pipelines will be required to pay, a 
foreign entity that will be given the right to take the private 
property of U.S. taxpayers and residents--and for what? Yes, there will 
be construction jobs, and jobs are good, but those are fairly 
ephemeral, and there is a lot of other construction going on, 
particularly in the fracking area and with some proposed liquid natural 
gas export facilities that will help provide employment in the 
construction trades. In this case, there will be 35 permanent jobs for 
this tax-exempt sludge that will be shipped to a zone in Texas where it 
is most likely to be exported.

                              {time}  1800

  Do we need to export more oil, gas, and diesel from the United States 
of America? Is that going to help lower the price at the pump for 
Americans? I don't think so.
  And, in fact, we are today exporting 422,000 barrels of gasoline a 
day, 1.3 million barrels of diesel every day, and yet truckers are 
still being pretty well extorted at the pump. That is 54.6 million 
gallons of diesel, and yet our truckers are still being gouged at the 
pump because there is a diesel shortage.
  Well, wait a minute. We are exporting that, and now we are going to 
take this tar sand goop, process it in the U.S., and export it. That is 
not going to help the truckers. It is not going to help the American 
consumers.
  And then there are some minor environmental issues. You know, tar 
sands do create 81 percent more greenhouse gas than most other forms of 
fossil fuel extraction. They are going to destroy forever large 
portions of boreal forest. Now, sure, that is a Canadian issue. If I 
lived in Canada, I would be protesting this. I don't. But we don't need 
to facilitate it in the United States of America by building a pipeline 
there.
  They will use precious water resources, create huge waste pits that 
will be polluted with the extract, except for the part which is shipped 
south to be processed and shipped overseas.
  So I really don't see this as something where we should preempt the 
laws of the United States. There were 2.5 million comments. Apparently 
the Republicans don't care much about the public comments. There are 
2.5 million comments that are still being meaningfully evaluated that 
are raising concerns about various aspects of this project.
  But here I will say, bad legislation; good politics. We are trying to 
help someone get elected to the Senate who is currently a Member of the 
House. The Senate is moving potentially ahead with this bill. So the 
House, with very little notice, decided they would bring up this bill 
which we have passed in one version or another eight previous times. So 
this is nothing but bare, naked politics and the use of the House to 
promote someone's candidacy to the United States Senate, which I think 
is really a disgrace to this institution.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
  Mr. DENHAM. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as was duly noted, this bill is about jobs. This will 
create jobs, tens of thousands of American jobs, which are long 
overdue, to enhance our energy independence and strengthen our national 
security.
  However, today I want to simply talk about the safety of this 
pipeline. As the chairman noted, TransCanada has agreed to a number of 
additional mitigation measures to make the Keystone XL pipeline the 
safest ever built. These 59 special conditions were recommended by the 
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and go above and 
beyond current regulations.
  Several conditions will help ensure the use of high-quality steel 
welds, both of which will reduce the chance of a pipeline release. The 
pipeline will also include automatic shutoff valves and increase the 
depth of coverage.
  In many places, the pipeline will be buried a foot deeper than the 
regulations require. Furthermore, TransCanada will provide enhanced 
right-of-way inspections and greater transparency.
  I believe in an all-of-the-above energy solution which includes this 
important pipeline that will not only create jobs but will help us to 
be energy independent. This project will create private sector jobs 
while being the safest pipeline ever built.
  This project, again, has been bipartisan. It passed out of three 
committees with bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support 
this critical legislation at a very important time, when we need those 
American jobs.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, would you tell me the time remaining, 
please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 10 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from Oregon.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. We have heard about 
the nature of this very dirty material that is dug, rather than pumped, 
and the fact that it will go through America, not to America.
  Now, we might ask, on a day when U.S. oil production was announced to 
reach a 30-year high of more than 9 million barrels, why we would be 
even considering this. Well, it is not because this fits into our 
energy picture.
  We will risk oil spills that are a mess to clean up. And we hear, oh, 
but oil spills won't occur. Well, the TransCanada pipeline, also known 
as Keystone, had 12 separate oil spills in its first year of operation, 
tens of thousands of gallons. It is hard to clean up. And, as you have 
also heard from my friend, this doesn't count as petroleum, and, 
therefore, they don't pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. So 
taxpayers are on the hook for this difficult cleanup.
  But the real problem is none of these points. It is that it is taking 
us down the road where we should not be going. This is the most carbon-
intensive liquid fuel--if you want to call it liquid--that we could 
possibly use. It is changing our very climate in ways that are deadly 
and costly. We shouldn't be going in this direction. It is that simple.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, it is baffling to me that after 6 years, the 
Keystone pipeline debate is still going on.
  We have an opportunity to provide jobs, reduce our dependency on 
overseas oil, and spur real economic development, yet many would rather 
play political gamesmanship.
  I am especially frustrated because I see the benefits the southern 
leg has already had on my district, and I know this approval will 
enhance those effects. This pipeline would provide high-paying jobs 
that are well above minimum wage--exactly the types of jobs this body 
likes to talk about. Yet despite the economic benefits this pipeline 
would provide, there has been zero action by this President and his 
administration.
  So today I stand in support of H.R. 5682 as a call to this President 
and the Senate that it is time to approve the Keystone pipeline. If 
they truly want to help the American people, they will join us in 
moving this legislation forward.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Huffman).
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I thank the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. Speaker, we are considering today yet another bill to force 
approval of the Keystone XL pipeline outside of the regular order 
required for all other international energy infrastructure projects.
  This is a very early Christmas present from the United States 
Congress to one specific Canadian company. The vote effectively exempts 
TransCanada from the rigorous analysis and the permitting standards 
that

[[Page 15664]]

all American companies are held to. Worse yet, TransCanada will be 
exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that all 
conventional crude companies are supposed to pay into. So merry 
Christmas, TransCanada.
  And what gift can we expect in return? Well, carbon pollution and 
heavy crude shipped through our country to export terminals and higher 
gas prices. Let's remember: TransCanada is on record saying that the 
Keystone XL pipeline would increase the price of oil in the United 
States.
  So instead of rigorous, deliberative process, the GOP majority is 
rushing to raise gas prices in this country. This Christmas present to 
TransCanada is actually like a lump of coal for U.S. consumers at the 
pump. It is certainly a lump of coal for communities who are sure to be 
impacted by this pipeline when something goes wrong. And it is 
absolutely a huge lump of coal for our global climate.
  Congress should reject this massive corporate giveaway. We still have 
another 41 shopping days until Christmas. There is no need for us to 
play Santa for TransCanada today.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
western Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a jobs bill. It is a jobs bill not only in the 
House of Representatives, but it is a job bill in the Senate.
  Now, in the House of Representatives, Dr. Cassidy's bill is about 
creating tens of thousands of jobs for hardworking Americans. It is 
about an $8 billion private investment that will not cost the American 
taxpayer one cent. It is about energy independence, and it is about 
America taking the lead in energy.
  For 6 years, this House has passed pieces of legislation that would 
have created the Keystone pipeline. Every one of those pieces of 
legislation died in the Senate. Now, miraculously--and I will call it a 
job bill--the Senate now is entertaining this because of one job.
  The tens of thousands of jobs of all these Americans, who you turned 
a deaf ear and a blind eye to, are now being answered by the Senate 
because of one job, one Senator who has the possibility of losing her 
seat because of the Keystone pipeline not being able to go through the 
Senate.
  Isn't it ironic that we sit here today and we try to spin this into 
something it is not? It is truly a jobs bill. It is an American bill. 
It is a bill that is going to create billions of dollars in revenue.
  And I would just ask my friends on the other side: Please look no 
further than last Tuesday. Last Tuesday's vote was a referendum on 
incompetency, not on incumbents.
  I would like you to please open your eyes and your ears to the 
American people and let them rise. Let us create jobs. Let us reach the 
energy independence that we need to succeed in the global economy.
  This is tomfoolery, what is going on tonight. Is it really about one 
job in the Senate or is it about thousands of Americans who have been 
held hostage by an administration that refuses to move forward a jobs 
bill in a time when they said we have created thousands or saved jobs?
  The one job they are trying to save right now is in the Senate, 
ladies and gentlemen. It has nothing to do with policy. It is all 
politics.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. McAllister).
  Mr. McALLISTER. Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 6 years since the 
application was filed for the Keystone pipeline.
  This is my background. This is where I made my living to come up. 
Despite the opposition from environmental groups, the benefits of the 
pipeline will far outweigh any potential negative impacts. Approval of 
this should be a no-brainer.
  Construction will lead to thousands of jobs, well paying jobs at a 
time when Americans are struggling to find work. Importing an 
efficient, reliable source of energy has the potential to decrease gas 
prices in the future, expand oil refineries along the gulf coast, and 
lessens our dependence on foreign energy sources.
  In addition to the economic upsurge, this pipeline signifies a secure 
source of energy for our country, if needed. It is not merely an 
economic issue but a security issue as well. And each day that it is 
delayed is another day thousands of Americans are out of work.
  I challenge you, Mr. Speaker: for those that say these are temporary 
jobs, talk to the men and women where I come from who have bought cars, 
bought houses, put children through college with these temporary jobs, 
as you call them. What, are they temporary legacies? Are they temporary 
retirements? Because that is what our community is built on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. McALLISTER. I commend the gentleman from Louisiana, Congressman 
Cassidy, for introducing this bill, which not only fulfills the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 but also 
protects the rights of private property owners should they be affected 
by the pipeline route.
  With my past experience in pipeline construction, I can say that this 
project is no different from the thousands of other pipelines we lay 
each year--with one exception: it crosses national borders, giving 
President Obama the ability to delay it. The President is making 
political promises when it should be deemed practical.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, let's just sum up.
  We have the most carbon-intensive way of creating ultimately diesel 
and gasoline by extracting these tar sands. They contribute 81 percent 
more greenhouse gases. Of course many on the other side believe that 
greenhouse gases are potentially beneficial or aren't a problem.
  We have a foreign entity here that will be exempt from paying taxes, 
like U.S. entities do, into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And 
U.S. taxpayers will be stuck with the bill should a spill occur.
  We have a foreign entity--granted, they are our friends and neighbors 
in Canada--but still, a foreign private corporation being given the 
right of eminent domain over citizens of the State of Nebraska.

                              {time}  1815

  We have, in fact, this company saying that it is likely, if this 
pipeline is completed, that gasoline prices will go up in Midwestern 
areas of the United States and their production will be exported from 
the United States; so it is not going to be a direct benefit to 
Americans or deal with energy independence, which we heard earlier.
  Of course, we are cutting short the evaluation process that every 
other energy-producing entity in America has to go through in terms of 
environmental reviews, and of course, we are cutting off any meaningful 
consideration of the 2.5 million comments that have been received by 
the State Department.
  But, hey, it could help a House Member beat a Senate Member and get 
elected to the Senate, so I guess it is a bad bill whose time has come.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate the numerous 
benefits this project will bring to our country, including jobs, energy 
security, safety, efficiency, and I would argue that more supplies of 
oil generally drive prices down, not up.
  First, this pipeline safety, it is officially moved through this 
country safely. It is the safest way to move these products. There have 
been numerous additional mitigation measures. The State Department said 
it will reduce the risk of release.
  Second, the State Department has explained this project will create 
over 40,000 jobs, over $3 billion in construction contracts.
  Finally, as I said, from sourcing more crude oil from our friendly 
neighbor in the north, it will reduce our reliance

[[Page 15665]]

and most likely reduce the cost of energy to the American people.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of our Members to 
support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Bill Cassidy, the author of 
this bill, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a real leader 
in trying to bring about energy independence in America.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, it has been over 6 years since backers of 
the Keystone XL pipeline first submitted an application to the U.S. 
State Department, on September 19, 2008, to build this energy 
infrastructure project and bring jobs and greater energy security to 
America.
  Now, building the Keystone XL pipeline would create more than 40,000 
average annual jobs over a 1- to 2-year construction period, putting $2 
billion into workers' and their families' pockets and giving a much-
needed boost to the American construction sector.
  In addition, tens of thousands of jobs would be supported throughout 
the supply chain, jobs for manufacturers that make the steel pipe, the 
thousands of fittings, valves, pumps, control, and safety devices 
required for a major pipeline.
  In addition to my home State of Louisiana, manufacturers in Georgia, 
West Virginia, and throughout the country would benefit from the 
construction of this infrastructure project.
  Now, economists have found that the pipeline would create 20,000 
manufacturing jobs, an additional 118,000 spinoff jobs, including jobs 
within the U.S. refinery and petrochemical facilities. This would 
employ and improve the jobs for Americans who right now are struggling.
  Refiners in Louisiana and along the gulf coast would benefit from a 
reliable supply of heavy crude transported through the Keystone XL 
pipeline. These petrochemical plants employing the families that right 
now are having the hardest time in this economy, this gives them those 
better jobs.
  The final State Department review found the pipeline would create 
over 40,000 jobs without significant environmental impact.
  Now, note, Canada's oil sands are going to be developed with or 
without this pipeline. The Canadian Government is already on record 
stating that oil sands derived from crude oil will be exported to 
overseas markets like China. It will be shipped on rail and in oil 
tankers, which may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions versus 
transportation to the U.S. by pipeline.
  Now, the case for proving the Keystone XL pipeline is clear and 
obvious, so why hasn't the President approved it? And, up to this 
point, why hasn't Senator Reid allowed a vote on approving Keystone? If 
there was ever legislation that should not be difficult to get through 
the Senate, it is the Keystone XL pipeline.
  By the way, Pew Research reports that over 60 percent of Americans 
support it, as do major labor unions, every State along the pipeline's 
route, and a majority of the House of Representatives on eight separate 
occasions voting on similar bills in the affirmative.
  So here we are on the ninth attempt. It has been 539 days, about a 
year and a half, since the House first sent a Keystone approval bill to 
the Senate in this Congress. That legislation could have been 
considered, amended, passed, or completely replaced; yet the bill has 
collected dust on Senator Reid's desk. The bill considered today that I 
introduced is the language asked for by the Senate.
  So we are going to make it as easy as possible for the Senate to 
finally get a bill to the President's desk that approves this long 
overdue Keystone XL pipeline.
  Thanks to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, the Natural Resources Committee, the Rules 
Committee, and House leadership for working with me to clear a path for 
this expedited consideration.
  Upon passage of this bill in the House, it will go to the Senate for 
approval, then to the President, where I hope he signs H.R. 5682 into 
law.
  I want to thank Chairmen Upton, Whitfield, Shuster, Sessions, and 
Hastings for their work on this important legislation.
  I particularly want to thank the American people for sending a signal 
in this last election that they want us in Washington, D.C., to work 
together to accomplish commonsense legislation that will create jobs 
for families which are struggling now, but because of legislation like 
this, we will have more opportunity and a better future. This is a 
perfect example of what the American people have asked us to do.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in approving the Keystone XL 
pipeline to finally provide 40,000 promised jobs to the American 
people.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, we are voting once again to grant special treatment to 
TransCanada's Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. This is the third time 
this Congress and the eighth time since Republicans took control of the 
House.
  Instead of helping families deal with pressing problems, we are 
helping Canadian tar sands producers and pipeline builders. We are 
spending our time trying to exempt a foreign company from the rules 
that every other company in America has to follow.
  This bill is not an energy policy. It is about a single pipeline that 
will allow Canadian tar sands to flow across our country for export to 
other countries. That is oil going through the United States but not to 
the United States.
  We don't need this oil. We have our own sources of oil, and we are 
using less oil because of our efficiency in new cars getting better 
mileage.
  This bill will not lower gasoline prices by a single penny. It may 
even raise them in some places. It will, at most, create just a few 
dozen permanent jobs. There will be some temporary jobs for 
construction. Once they are gone, they are gone.
  This bill is a regulatory earmark. It will waive applicable 
environmental review requirements and risk our farmlands and our water 
supplies. In fact, it even exempts the Keystone pipeline from paying 
into the oil spill fund that other oil companies have to contribute to.
  That means if there is a problem with that pipeline, well, there is 
no payment by Keystone XL to that fund to make those who are hurt 
whole. That means that if there is a spill, there won't be the money to 
clean it up.
  The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is a terrible deal for America. We 
get all the risks while the oil companies reap the rewards. But even if 
you support it, this bill is a harmful and unnecessary piece of 
legislation.
  The State Department is carrying out their review of this highly 
controversial project. They have got millions of comments, and the 
Federal agencies are reviewing these comments.
  H.R. 5682 would approve the pipeline by fiat, lock out the public, 
eliminate the President's authority to balance competing interests, and 
stop Federal agencies from ensuring that if the project does go 
forward, we do it as safely as possible.
  Forget about those comments. We will just pass a bill and make it 
happen rather than consider all the other issues that would be 
appropriate to look at in approving or disproving this pipeline.
  I oppose this legislation for all these reasons. There is one more 
important reason why I oppose the bill. The tar sands pipeline will 
worsen climate change. Keystone XL would create a dependence on tar 
sands crude, reversing the carbon pollution reductions we have been 
working so hard to accomplish.
  According to some experts, building the Keystone XL pipeline will 
triple production of the tar sands. That is totally inconsistent with 
any future scenario for avoiding catastrophic climate.
  Just this week, the United States and China agreed to mutual pledges 
to fight climate change, and I commend President Obama and President Xi 
for that accomplishment.

[[Page 15666]]

  This is a really important development. For the last two decades, 
antagonisms between the United States and China have stymied efforts to 
reach a global climate agreement. Those days, we hope, are finally 
over. The U.S. and China are now both pledging strong joint action. The 
world has been waiting decades for the U.S. and China to reach an 
understanding on climate.
  Now that moment has finally arrived; yet instead of working on a real 
energy policy, one that would move us toward a new, low carbon energy 
future, instead of working on a clean energy future that would create 
lots of new jobs, real jobs, permanent jobs, and keep pace with China's 
clean energy investments, instead of trying to protect our 
irreplaceable environment and our drinking water supplies, Republicans 
have set their sights on passing a special law for a special interest.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip 
and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a strong leader for 
energy independence for America.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Whitfield for 
yielding, and I especially want to thank my colleague from Louisiana, 
Congressman Cassidy, for the leadership that he had in fighting hard to 
get this bill brought to the floor so we can finally get the Keystone 
pipeline built.
  If you look at this issue, this is all about jobs, and it is all 
about American energy security, Mr. Speaker. What does the Keystone 
pipeline mean for America? According to the Obama administration, 
40,000 jobs will be created here in America, good jobs that our economy 
needs.
  In fact, this is not a partisan issue; this is a very bipartisan 
issue. Republicans and Democrats alike have come together and said, 
``Build the Keystone pipeline.'' Even the labor unions have said, 
``Build the Keystone pipeline.''
  Unfortunately, just a small group of radical environmental extremists 
have held this project hostage, and President Obama has hidden behind 
studies and subterfuge to say, ``Don't do it.''
  Now, Congress can come together in a bipartisan way and say, ``Let's 
get this thing done.'' Let's actually work with Canada, who is a 
friend, Mr. Speaker, and bring almost a million barrels a day of oil 
from Canada that we will no longer need to get from countries who don't 
like us. This isn't about a million new barrels coming into America; it 
is about deciding who we are going to do business with.
  When we trade with Canada, we get about 80 cents on the dollar back. 
When we send billions of dollars to Middle Eastern countries, sometimes 
that money is used against us, against our troops, and we get less than 
50 cents on the dollar back.
  Everything about this says do it, says ``yes.'' Stop staying ``no'' 
to American jobs. Stop saying ``no'' to American energy security.

                              {time}  1830

  This is an issue that brings people together, and there was a message 
that the American people sent last week. They don't want a go-alone 
President. They want a Washington that can work for them. This is a 
classic example of how Republicans and Democrats can come together and 
say ``yes'' to a project that creates good jobs for our country and 
creates American energy security for our Nation.
  The time for studies is over. This has been studied to death for 6 
years. Everybody that looks at this says, ``You have got to do it.'' 
All we are saying is let the United States agree with Canada to cross 
the border. They still have to get the permits from each State that 
this pipeline would go through and all those great jobs that would come 
with that pipeline and the billions of dollars of private investment.
  The time for studying is over, Mr. Speaker. It is time for action. It 
is time for those great American jobs. It is time to say ``yes'' to the 
Keystone pipeline. I urge approval from my colleagues for this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the last gentleman that spoke said everybody 
is for this.
  Well, everybody in Louisiana is clearly for it. The Senator from 
Louisiana has been a strong supporter of it, and the would-be 
replacement Senator is strongly for it. The Republican whip from 
Louisiana is strongly for it. The oil companies are strongly for it.
  But to say that those who oppose it are radical environmental 
extremists seems to me quite a stretch. There are a lot of very 
responsible people against this legislation, even some who support the 
pipeline, because they would argue this is not the way to make a 
decision: put a bill on the floor, to ignore all the comments, all the 
evaluations, all the considerations.
  The people in Nebraska are not going to be happy about that. Maybe in 
Louisiana, they will be, but other places would like to know that 
pipelines are safe and their aquifers for drinking water are not going 
to be jeopardized.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rush), a distinguished member of our committee who is also the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to begin by thanking the 
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for his outstanding 
leadership on this and other matters that have come before the Energy 
and Commerce Committee. I want to say to him that his leadership has 
been inspiring on so many issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with the process that the majority's 
side has undertaken in order to hastily bring H.R. 5682 to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the Keystone pipeline is not key to America's energy 
future. If we just disregard the merits or the lack thereof of the 
Keystone pipeline itself, the majority just recently in the past couple 
of weeks has made promises to the American people that it will return 
to regular order for bills to be brought to the floor of this Congress. 
Mr. Speaker, here we are once again: promises made, promises broken. 
This bill was brought to this floor after 1 hour--1 measly hour--of 
debate and without the ability for the minority side to bring forth any 
amendments. Not one amendment can we bring to this bill. Where is the 
promise of bipartisanship of the other side on this particular matter 
regarding this bill?
  Promises made to the American people equals promises broken by the 
majority.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will automatically approve the Keystone XL 
pipeline even though this pipeline has no legal route through the State 
of Nebraska, where there is a case pending in a court before a local 
judge regarding some of the siting issues that surround this illegal 
pipeline. Why can't the people of Nebraska, the citizens of Nebraska, 
have the time and the consideration just to make sure that this 
pipeline is safe for them and their aquifers and also for their 
environment? There are other States that this pipeline is going to be 
traveling through.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, as President Obama pointed out, there is an 
independent process taking place, and this bill shortcuts the approval 
process and would allow, Mr. Speaker, this bill would allow a foreign 
company to preemptively seize property from American people, from the 
landowners, particularly those in Nebraska.
  Additionally, this bill seeks to usurp the President's ability and 
authority to ultimately approve or reject the project and instead uses 
this pipeline as a political football to score some elective 
advantages.
  Mr. Speaker, eight times we have brought this bill or a version of 
this bill to the floor. Eight times. Don't we get it. As the popular TV 
series used to pronounce to us all, ``eight is enough.'' Eight is 
enough.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Kentucky.

[[Page 15667]]

  Mr. Speaker, this week the House will pass a bill to complete the 
Keystone pipeline system. The first pipeline in the system is known 
only as Keystone. That pipeline has been sending 600,000 barrels a day 
from Canada to Patoka, Illinois. It has been 4 years and counting, and 
the water in Nebraska is still clean.
  The second pipeline in this system is called the Keystone XL. It 
sends the same oil into America as the Keystone does but on a slightly 
longer and different route.
  Secretary Clinton twice has approved Keystone XL. Secretary Kerry has 
approved it once. And yet the Politician in Chief has threatened to 
veto the Keystone XL pipeline.
  Canada will export their oil. Either it comes to America or it goes 
to China. President Obama has a simple choice: oil for America or oil 
for China. Oil for America or oil for China.
  Please join Congress in choosing America.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have on each 
side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Whitfield.
  Mr. Speaker, for years I and Members of this body have come to the 
floor in support of the Keystone pipeline project, asking for the 
Senate and the White House to put politics aside in favor of this 
critical project.
  With bipartisan support, the House has passed eight separate pieces 
of legislation to clear the way for the approval of the most studied 
pipeline in American history. Yet each time these measures were blocked 
in the Senate and condemned by a President crippled by indecision on a 
project that would put tens of thousands of Americans to work. So once 
again I rise in support of the Keystone XL pipeline, joining my 
colleagues in both parties in backing H.R. 5682, which would 
immediately certify the Secretary of State's final environmental impact 
statement from nearly a year ago and truly put our Nation on a course 
toward American energy independence.
  Sadly, while the House has continued to take definitive bipartisan 
action to advance this critical goal, it appears the Senate has waited 
only until it is politically advantageous to do so, even as it enjoys 
majority support in that Chamber.
  While I am pleased about the Senate's newfound interest in the wide-
ranging benefits of this commonsense project which will grow our 
economy and strengthen our national security, it is a shame that it 
took election-year politics and not the best interests of American 
workers and the families that they represent for Senate leaders to act.
  This pipeline is a vital piece of a plan that creates better jobs and 
more opportunity. I encourage the Senate and President to deliver on 
the promise of embracing an all-of-the-above energy strategy that works 
for the American people.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for so much, 
including his voice and his leadership on this issue.
  There are three numbers that we all ought to know as we consider this 
bill approving the Keystone XL:
  2 degrees Celsius--the amount the Earth can warm before climate 
change becomes truly catastrophic and irreversible;
  565 gigatons--the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted before 
we reach irreversible global warming;
  240 gigatons--the amount of carbon that would be emitted if the 
Alberta tar sands are fully developed, nearly half of all the carbon 
the world can burn.
  Keystone XL is the fastest and perhaps the only way to fully develop 
the Alberta tar sands.
  Keystone XL would move almost 1 million barrels per day of the 
dirtiest oil on Earth directly through the middle of our country. It 
would pass through some of our Nation's most important land and water 
sources, including the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies 30 percent of 
the United States' irrigation and drinking water to millions of 
Americans.
  And those who claim there is no serious risk of a spill have a very 
short memory. There were 12 spills in the first year of operation of 
the original Keystone pipeline, and there have been 30 spills in just 
over 4 years.
  So what I am saying today is that this is dangerous, and it is also 
not the best way to create jobs. Three times as many jobs are created 
for every dollar invested in renewable energies over the pipeline. And 
so if we want jobs, if we want clean energy, we want a good 
environment, we should vote down this legislation.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers and I think I 
have the right to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
  This legislation is very likely going to be approved, and that is sad 
for a number of reasons.

                              {time}  1845

  Let me just declare here what I declare in my district and anywhere 
else. I believe in earmarks because I think it is constitutional. I 
think it is almost politically obscene to give what the Constitution 
says is our responsibility to the White House no matter who is there. 
That is why I have some serious concerns about this special interest 
earmark that will make the U.S. a permanent conduit to international 
markets for one of the dirtiest fuel sources on the planet.
  This is an earmark for TransCanada. Maybe the worst abuse in this 
legislation is that it exempts TransCanada from all Federal permitting 
requirements and other Federal environmental laws. Other U.S. companies 
will have to abide by laws that we will exempt for TransCanada. It 
exempts TransCanada from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
Fund, which helps the government respond to oil spills.
  Now, this particular company already has had major oil spills. We 
will have oil spills. So what we are saying when we approve this 
legislation are these things:
  One, we are going to give an earmark to TransCanada. It is okay give 
it an earmark, special interest earmark, but we just can't do it here 
in the United States;
  Number two, we are saying that TransCanada will have the ability to 
bypass environmental laws that Americans cannot bypass;
  And number three, we are saying that this company does not have to 
pay one penny into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which means that 
the people who are watching this debate tonight will pay when an oil 
spill occurs, and I think that is obscene.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how many minutes I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to, first of all, thank Mr. Waxman of California for the 
many contributions that he has made while a Member of the House of 
Representatives. I have had the opportunity to serve with him on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee for many years. He has very strong 
beliefs; he is committed; and I just want to wish him the very best in 
his future endeavors. I know that he won't be retiring. He'll be very 
active in some worthwhile cause, and I just want to tell him how much 
we admire and respect the work that he did. Although I personally 
didn't agree philosophically with some of it, as I am sure you do not 
agree with many of mine, I do wish you the very

[[Page 15668]]

best, Mr. Waxman, as you move forward.
  In conclusion, on this important debate, I would like to say this is 
not a new piece of legislation. It has passed the House of 
Representatives on eight separate occasions, and we really did not plan 
to bring it up in this lameduck session except that Senator Reid, the 
leader of the Senate, the Democratic leader of the Senate, changed his 
mind and decided to bring it up on the Senate side. So when we found 
out about that, Mr. Cassidy introduced this legislation, which mirrors 
the bill on the Senate side, and we are thrilled that we have an 
opportunity to pass this legislation, and I expect that we will pass 
it.
  I might add that it has been studied for over 6 years. There have 
been four complete environmental studies completed. The Secretary of 
State's office on more than one occasion--two occasions, three 
occasions--has said it would have a negligible environmental impact. In 
fact, in one place they said they would be better off to build this 
pipeline than not to build it because the environmental degree of 
moving it by pipeline would be better than the alternative in which it 
is being moved today. So I think it is a win-win-win situation for 
America.
  Many people have said, well, they are simply bringing this oil 
through the United States and then it is going to be exported. We have 
had many hearings. Some of it will be exported, but some of it will be 
refined right here in the U.S. It will be 850,000 barrels of oil a day, 
which is about half of what we are importing from the Middle East. It 
will make us less dependent. Some labor unions support this 
legislation. The Governor of Nebraska supports this legislation. So I 
think it is a win-win-win for everyone.
  There are additional safety requirements on this pipeline that are 
not required on other pipelines. I think there are going to be adequate 
safeguards. We have had so many hearings on this. I would urge the 
body, the House of Representatives, to pass this legislation and give 
us the opportunity to send it down to the White House for the 
President's consideration.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to today's 
legislation to grant automatic approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, 
bypassing the legal review process.
  Today's bill grants immediate authority to Canadian company 
TransCanada to ``construct, connect, operate, and maintain'' the 
pipeline as described in their 2012 application to the State 
Department. However, as the bill itself acknowledges, there are still 
outstanding issues with that application. Notably, there is no legal 
route through Nebraska due to an ongoing court case over private 
property rights and eminent domain. This bill does nothing to resolve 
that case. It gives blanket approval without knowing what the pipeline 
route will look like in Nebraska.
  I am also deeply concerned that tar sands oil, which would be 
transported in the pipeline, is exempt from the Oil Spill Liability 
Trust Fund that is used to respond to leaks and accidents. If there is 
an accident along this pipeline, taxpayers will be on the hook for 
cleanup. We need to close that loophole and ensure that the American 
public is not bearing the risks for TransCanada's pipeline.
  The State Department continues to review the 2.5 million comments it 
has received on this project and is awaiting a final route from 
Nebraska to make its determination on whether this project is in the 
best interest of the American people. We should allow that process to 
continue.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
5682, a bill to approve the northern portion of Keystone XL pipeline.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because I support North 
American energy development.
  But I also rise in support of the bill because the Keystone XL 
pipeline has become an obstacle created by indecision and inaction.
  Keystone XL is not the first cross-border pipeline project built in 
North America.
  But if some opponents had their way, Keystone XL pipeline would be 
the last pipeline we built in North America.
  Today, the United States, Canada and Mexico are revolutionizing the 
world and the world of energy.
  These three North American partners are reshaping the geo-political 
balance of the entire world.
  Between the three countries, we can satisfy our own energy needs for 
the first time in memory.
  But to accomplish this feat, we must be able to move products to 
market.
  My colleagues who oppose Keystone XL have forgotten that just because 
there isn't a-pipeline doesn't mean the products aren't moving.
  In fact, they are moving just as rapidly as ever.
  Unfortunately, the products are moving to market at the expense of 
other commodities and even at the expense of people's schedules.
  Opponents cannot deny that pipelines are the safest, most effective 
way to move products to market.
  Opponents cannot say the State Department has failed to consider the 
environmental consequences of the pipeline.
  Opponents cannot say this project hasn't been reviewed by the proper 
authorities.
  If they do, they are incorrect.
  The Keystone XL pipeline is the most scrutinized project in as long 
as I can remember.
  If we built railroads, the way we built KXL, we wouldn't have a rail 
system.
  If we built roads, the way we built KXL, we wouldn't have a highway 
system.
  As we face the 114th Congress, we have real problems we need to 
address.
  Keystone XL pipeline is good for the United States, it's good for 
North America and we should support this bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2011, I stood on the House 
floor in support of legislation to expedite approval of the landmark 
Keystone XL pipeline. We passed that bill by a strong bipartisan vote 
of 279 to 147. But despite the overwhelming support, the White House 
issued a veto threat, declaring the bill was unnecessary given that the 
administration was committed to reaching a decision on the project by 
the end of the year.
  Fast forward to today, and it's deja vu all over again. More than 
three years after we passed that initial bill, we still don't have a 
decision from the president on this critical jobs project despite 
widespread support from Democrats and Republicans, laborers, and job 
creators.
  President Obama famously proclaimed in January 2013 that he would do 
``whatever it takes'' to create jobs and 2014 was renamed the 
president's so-called ``Year of Action.'' But when the chips are down, 
President Obama is incapable of saying ``yes'' to a project that would 
create tens of thousands of American jobs and advance our energy 
security. But despite the president's excuses, we haven't given up on 
finding a bipartisan solution.
  We have now voted a total of eight times in the House to move this 
landmark project forward. And now we are standing up for jobs and 
energy once again. We are going to keep fighting for Keystone until we 
get the job done.
  There is now no question that Keystone is in America's best interest. 
Keystone has been exhaustively studied more than any other pipeline in 
our nation's history and the facts are clear. Keystone will deliver 
nearly a million barrels of safe and secure North American oil, and 
President Obama's own State Department has confirmed that it will 
support over 42,000 jobs without significantly increasing emissions. 
It's also expected to be one of the safest pipelines ever built, 
adhering to the new pipeline standards we passed into law with 
additional safety requirements.
  Hopefully, this ninth vote is the charm, and the Senate and President 
will finally agree, that after six years, it's time to finally say yes 
to energy and yes to jobs.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to 
H.R. 5682, a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline by circumventing 
the ongoing regulatory process. Rather than building infrastructure to 
transport dirty fossil fuels, we should be creating new jobs for our 
constituents by modernizing our transportation system and upgrading 
failing infrastructure.
  Despite some recent gains, our economic recovery is not yet reaching 
all of our constituents. I agree with supporters of this bill from both 
sides of the aisle that we must not delay consideration of legislation 
putting our constituents back to work. House leadership should allow us 
to vote on and pass a long-term transportation bill, for example. The 
proposal before us will result in short term job gains in some areas, 
but the tradeoff is a continued reliance on an outdated, dirty energy 
source.
  There is a long list of important legislation awaiting consideration 
by this Congress that will support new jobs, including the National 
Infrastructure Development Bank Act, the Bring Jobs Home Act, the Make 
it in America Manufacturing Act, and legislation to extend tax 
provisions that lead to the construction of

[[Page 15669]]

clean energy projects. I have no doubt we can find consensus on these 
and other policies that will increase American competitiveness and put 
our constituents back to work, but the bill I opposed today is not the 
approach we should be taking.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill so we can work together to 
create new economic opportunities for our constituents.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this is the eighth time that the House 
has voted to approve Keystone and short circuit the review process, and 
I have opposed it each time. Continuing this pattern is not helpful or 
a good use of our time.
  My position has long been clear: there is a legal and regulatory 
process that the Administration is currently following to determine if 
this pipeline is in the interest of the American people.
  It is important to consider the environmental impact that this 
pipeline may have, including a potential direct increase in the energy-
intensive extraction of tar sands oil. It is also important to consider 
the impacts to local communities where this pipeline would be built as 
well as threats to the water supply. Oil from the tar sands continues 
to reach American refineries.
  We should do the analysis of this pipeline right, and wait for it to 
finish. Most importantly, we should focus on long-term, sustainable 
solutions to meet our nation's future energy needs, lower our carbon 
emissions and make our communities more resilient to a changing 
climate.
  If I had been present for the vote, I would have voted no.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 748, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Mrs. Capps moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5682 to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, L.P. 
                   PAY FOR ANY OIL SPILL CLEANUP ON AMERICAN SOIL.

       In the approval process authorized under this Act, 
     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. WHITFIELD (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of 
order against this motion to recommit.
  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--and only--
amendment to this bill. Passage of this amendment will not prevent the 
passage of the underlying bill. If it is adopted, my amendment will 
simply be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately 
voted upon.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that we are still primarily dependent on 
oil and other fossil fuels for our energy needs. This dependence does 
have the effect of polluting our planet, harming public health, and 
threatening our national security. Recent advances in clean, renewable 
energy technologies have demonstrated that it doesn't have to be this 
way. But rather than pursuing this sustainable energy future we know we 
need, H.R. 5682 and the Keystone pipeline double down on fossil fuels 
and push us further down this destructive path.
  No matter if you support or oppose Keystone XL, we can all agree that 
drilling and transporting oil has serious risks. It only takes one 
small crack, one small mistake, to cause a major oil spill and 
catastrophic, irreparable harm to the surrounding communities.
  In 1969, my home district experienced one of the worst oil spills in 
U.S. history. I saw firsthand the devastating damage to our local 
economy, to human health, property, and natural resources. We have seen 
this happen far too many times since then in communities around the 
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 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 is much harder to clean up than standard crude, 
which is one of the reasons that spill took nearly $1 billion and 
several years to fully clean up.
  Mr. Speaker, history has shown us that there is simply no such thing 
as a spill-proof well or pipeline. Accidents do happen. In fact, 
accidents have already happened 14 times on the existing Keystone 
pipeline. Despite numerous assurances that Keystone XL will be safer 
and that spill risks will be minimal, safer simply does not equate to 
safe.
  That is why we have the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is 
funded by an 8-cents-per-barrel excise fee on crude oil and petroleum 
products. This fund ensures that the oil companies that create these 
messes also pay to clean them up. But TransCanada is currently exempt 
from contributing to the trust fund for Keystone because tar sands oil 
is not considered crude oil for purposes of the program.
  If Keystone XL is approved, the pipeline's tar sands oil will 
literally get a free ride through the United States. If there is a 
spill, taxpayers and local communities--not those responsible--could be 
stuck with the cleanup bill. This makes no sense. TransCanada and all 
tar sands oil companies should have to pay into the Oil Spill Liability 
Trust Fund just like every other oil company.
  That is why I am offering this very 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 our 
taxpayers--would pay to clean up its own mess in the event of a spill.
  Mr. Speaker, if we as a Nation--and these are our natural resources 
as taxpayers--if we as a Nation are going to bear 100 percent of the 
spill risk, the least we can do is to ensure that those responsible pay 
to clean it up. This is a commonsense idea that should have bipartisan 
support.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment to protect American 
taxpayers and ensure that oil companies pay what is only their fair 
share, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. 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. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentlewoman 
that President Obama, through a regulation, decided that diluted 
bitumen is not crude oil for the purposes of the trust fund tax, so the 
problem was created by President Obama and the IRS.
  We are in the process of trying to address that issue. It is under 
the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. In their tax reform 
package, that is an issue that they are looking at. But if we try to 
change that now in this bill, we would be treating TransCanada 
differently than all other pipelines are being treated bringing bitumen 
into the United States.
  I would also point out this pipeline's greater safety 
characteristics. It has more safety characteristics than any other 
pipeline built. We would think

[[Page 15670]]

you would want to incentivize its use and not punish it with further 
taxation.
  So, in my opinion, while I have great respect for the gentlewoman 
from California, this is simply a ruse to kill the bill.
  I would respectfully ask our Members to oppose this motion to 
recommit and pass H.R. 5682. The Senate has said--Senator Reid has 
said--that they will take it up in the Senate. That is precisely what 
we would like to see.
  I urge defeat of the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 5682 is postponed.

                          ____________________