[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 341-357]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous materials on H.R. 3.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 19, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3) 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 19, the bill is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                 H.R. 3

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. KEYSTONE XL APPROVAL.

       (a) In General.--TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. may 
     construct, connect, operate, and maintain the pipeline and 
     cross-border facilities described in the application filed on 
     May 4, 2012, by TransCanada Corporation to the Department of 
     State (including any subsequent revision to the pipeline 
     route within the State of Nebraska required or authorized by 
     the State of Nebraska).
       (b) Environmental Impact Statement.--The Final Supplemental 
     Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Secretary of 
     State in January 2014, regarding the pipeline referred to in 
     subsection (a), and the environmental analysis, consultation, 
     and review described in that document (including appendices) 
     shall be considered to fully satisfy--
       (1) all requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (2) any other provision of law that requires Federal agency 
     consultation or review (including the consultation or review 
     required under section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a))) with respect to the pipeline and 
     facilities referred to in subsection (a).
       (c) Permits.--Any Federal permit or authorization issued 
     before the date of enactment of this Act for the pipeline and 
     cross-border facilities referred to in subsection (a) shall 
     remain in effect.
       (d) Judicial Review.--Except for review in the Supreme 
     Court of the United States, the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have 
     original

[[Page 342]]

     and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for the 
     review of an order or action of a Federal agency regarding 
     the pipeline and cross-border facilities described in 
     subsection (a), and the related facilities in the United 
     States, that are approved by this Act (including any order 
     granting a permit or right-of-way, or any other agency action 
     taken to construct or complete the project pursuant to 
     Federal law).
       (e) Private Property Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act 
     alters any Federal, State, or local process or condition in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is necessary 
     to secure access from an owner of private property to 
     construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities described 
     in subsection (a).

  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 New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 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 enthusiastically rise today to support H.R. 3, the Keystone XL 
Pipeline Act. And for those who have not heard, according to the 
administration, the final hurdle has been removed, and that is that the 
Nebraska Supreme Court this morning has approved the pathway for the 
pipeline, the routing of the pipeline, the Keystone XL pipeline.
  Again, the administration has said that was the major hurdle. It has 
fallen. So I hope the President is not going to establish another 
hurdle, that being himself.
  America is undergoing an energy renaissance, and the prospect of 
securing North American energy independence is in sight. However, to 
achieve our goal of energy security, we need to make sure we have the 
infrastructure in place to keep pace with the changing energy 
landscape. Keystone will be a critical addition to the Nation's 
pipeline network, increasing our supply of oil and helping to reduce 
its cost.
  The State Department completed its environmental analysis a year ago. 
However, there has still been no action by the administration on the 
pipeline.
  There is simply no reason to delay this important project. As I 
mentioned, the President's main argument in this premature veto threat 
is that the bill would authorize the pipeline despite uncertainty due 
to ongoing litigation in Nebraska. Well, that uncertainty has ended 
this morning, and the Supreme Court of Nebraska has allowed the planned 
route to go forward in Nebraska. Again, there is simply no reason to 
delay. In fact, the southern leg of the pipeline has already been 
built.
  In March 2012, in Oklahoma, the President expressed his support for 
expediting construction for the southern leg of the Keystone pipeline, 
and I agree with the President when he stated at that ceremony that he 
was directing his administration to cut through red tape, break through 
bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority to go ahead and 
get it done. It was the right thing to do then, it is the right thing 
to do now, and it is exactly what this bill does.
  We should move forward because this pipeline will be a tremendous 
boon to the economic development and one that doesn't require a single 
Federal dollar. The very nature of infrastructure improvement creates 
jobs, and Keystone is no exception.
  I know my colleagues have made the argument that it is only 
temporary, but every infrastructure job is a temporary job. When a road 
is completed, when a bridge is completed, when a pipeline is completed, 
those construction workers move on to hopefully other construction 
jobs.
  Indeed, five unions representing over 3 million workers--and I repeat 
that to my Democratic colleagues, five unions representing 3 million 
hardworking Americans--support this project, and I would like to submit 
their letter in the Record for support of this project.

                                         International Brotherhood


                                                 of Teamsters,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 2014.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: I am writing to express the support of the 
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters for S. 2280, a bill to 
     approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline 
     project has been subjected to over six and one-half years of 
     scrutiny, including review by 10 federal agencies, as well as 
     numerous state and local agency reviews. We believe that it 
     is time to end the delay and to move forward with the 
     construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. We ask you to 
     support S. 2280 when it comes to the Senate floor this week.
       The Teamsters Union believes that the Keystone XL Pipeline 
     will contribute to enhanced energy security, economic 
     prosperity and, of critical importance, the creation of good 
     paying jobs. Unemployment in the building and construction 
     workforce remains too high. Construction of the pipeline will 
     provide much needed and good paying jobs for this workforce. 
     The utilization of a project labor agreement will enhance the 
     safety, technical performance, reliability and quality of the 
     project as well as maximize employment opportunities for 
     local residents along the proposed corridor. Further, the 
     fifty-seven special conditions agreed to for the project will 
     provide an even greater degree of safety than any typically 
     constructed domestic oil pipeline.
       If the pipeline is not built, important socioeconomic 
     benefits will not be realized--the positive impacts of local, 
     state and federal revenue, spending by construction workers, 
     and spending on construction goods and services. Building the 
     Keystone XL Pipeline will enhance U.S. energy and economic 
     security. It is time to move forward without further delay.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James P. Hoffa,
     General President.
                                  ____

                                            International Union of


                                          Operating Engineers,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 2013.
     Hon. John Hoeven,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mary L. Landrieu,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Hoeven and Landrieu: The International Union 
     of Operating Engineers supports your amendment to energy-
     efficiency legislation, S. 1392, which simply expresses 
     congressional support for the Keystone XL pipeline.
       The International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) 
     represents approximately 400,000 skilled American and 
     Canadian heavy-equipment operators and other craftworkers, 
     including thousands of members who hope to build the Keystone 
     XL pipeline. The IUOE is one of four unions signatory to the 
     National Pipeline Agreement.
       To create jobs and improve American energy independence, 
     the Keystone XL pipeline should become a key part of 
     America's energy infrastructure. The economic benefits of the 
     project are dramatic and undisputable. The State Department's 
     Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) says that approximately 
     10,000 construction workers would be employed building the 
     pipeline, including thousands of Operating Engineers. A total 
     of 42,100 jobs throughout the United States would be 
     supported by the project, generating over $2 billion in total 
     earnings. All told, this pipeline project would contribute 
     approximately $3.4 billion to America's Gross Domestic 
     Product.
       The Keystone XL will also be one of the safest pipelines 
     ever built. According to the EIS, the fifty-seven special 
     conditions developed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
     Safety Administration and voluntarily agreed to by 
     TransCanada ``. . . would have a degree of safety greater 
     than any typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system 
     under current regulations.'' In addition, the Operating 
     Engineers and other union construction trades tasked with 
     building the 1,179 mile pipeline possess the highest safety 
     and skill levels in the pipeline sector.
       Operating Engineers have waited over five years to build 
     this essential piece North American energy infrastructure. 
     Every state along the pipeline route has approved the 
     project. Over 80 percent of Americans believe it's in our 
     national interest to build it. Now it's time for the federal 
     government to approve the project. Congress can send a strong 
     message by supporting your amendment.
       The IUOE endorses the Hoeven-Landrieu amendment in support 
     of Keystone XL, and looks forward to working with you to see 
     it passed into law.
       Thank you again for your leadership.
           Sincerely
                                                James T. Callahan,
                                                General President.

[[Page 343]]

     
                                  ____
                                            International Union of


                                          Operating Engineers,

                                  Washington, DC, January 7, 2015.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: The International 
     Union of Operating Engineers supports the passage of H.R. 3, 
     the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, and respectfully requests that 
     you vote for the legislation on Friday when it will be 
     considered on the floor of the House of Representatives.
       After five different Environmental Impact Statements and 
     over six years of evaluation, the Keystone XL pipeline has 
     been the most exhaustively reviewed pipeline in history. All 
     of the federal studies have reached the same conclusion: The 
     Keystone XL pipeline merits approval. It is time for Congress 
     to act and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
       As you know, the International Union of Operating Engineers 
     (IUOE) proudly represents heavy equipment operators and 
     mechanics in the construction industry throughout the United 
     States and Canada. A large cadre of our members possess 
     specialized training and years of practical experience 
     building oil and gas pipeline infrastructure. Members on both 
     sides of the border hope to build the Keystone XL. Members of 
     the Operating Engineers, through the collective bargaining 
     process, will earn roughly $35 an hour on their checks as 
     they build the Keystone XL. The project is expected to 
     generate approximately 3,000 job-years for Operating 
     Engineers alone. With congressional approval of the pipeline, 
     you can unleash this massive economic activity--at no cost to 
     taxpayers.
       The misguided criticism of the pipeline by the 
     environmental community does not change the facts. Virtually 
     the whole critique depends on a fundamental misunderstanding 
     of the oil-transportation industry and its economics. Despite 
     the conclusion of five different environmental studies, 
     critics of the project refuse to accept that Keystone XL has 
     little or no effect on the extraction rate of oil sands. 
     Alternative transportation methods will step in to move the 
     commodity, irrespective of the Keystone XL decision. The oil 
     and gas industry possesses too much operational flexibility 
     to allow one pipeline to limit the extraction rates of oil 
     sands in Western Canada. Rail and other pipeline alternatives 
     are ready to move oil sands and Bakken crude.
       The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 
     has ensured that Keystone XL will be safer than any other 
     domestic oil pipeline system built under current code as a 
     result of its required 59 Special Conditions. These 
     conditions usually accompany pipeline requirements in a 
     ``High-Consequence Area''--steep slope, for example. Yet 
     these conditions will apply across the entirety of the 
     Keystone XL pipeline. The conditions relate to everything 
     from manufacturing specifications of pipe, to construction 
     techniques, to post-construction monitoring.
       This $5 billion privately-funded pipeline will move an 
     essential North American commodity more safely than other 
     alternatives. It will also grow the economy by putting 
     thousands of Operating Engineers and other construction 
     workers back on the job.
       The International Union of Operating Engineers respectfully 
     requests your support for H.R. 3, legislation to approve the 
     Keystone XL pipeline. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                James T. Callahan,
                                                General President.

  Mr. SHUSTER. I want to name them off. It is the Teamsters; it is the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; it is the Laborers' 
International Union of North America; it is the Operating Engineers; it 
is the pipefitters of the United States and Canada all supporting this 
project. Again, they see it as positive economic impact.
  When these jobs are completed, they will move on to other, hopefully, 
construction jobs; but what is left behind will have a positive impact 
to our economy, to job creation for a generation.
  Our energy renaissance is helping make North America more secure and 
energy independent, and, in fact, I want to quote the President:

       In this time of significant political uncertainty in key 
     oil-producing countries and regions, and in the context of a 
     difficult economic situation, non-OPEC Canada crude oil 
     supplies advance the energy security of the United States.

  Now, I wish he would have said that about this pipeline, but he 
didn't. He said it in 2009 about the Enbridge pipeline, which started 
transferring oil sands from Canada to the gulf coast last month. The 
President, 5 years ago, supported this type of thing. He should support 
it now. So other than politics, I don't understand why he hasn't 
approved this project as he did with Enbridge. It is time to build.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I especially look to my Democratic colleagues. 
Let's put down our gloves. Let's do something positive for America, for 
those 3 million union workers that are out there supporting this. Let's 
do what is good for the environment. Let's do what is good for energy 
independence.
  Finally, let's be fair to our greatest friends in the world, our 
Canadian neighbors. They allowed us to build a pipeline across their 
land. We should allow them to do the same in ours. They are our best 
allies. They are our greatest friends. They are a great neighbor. So 
let us, today, pass this bill and build the Keystone pipeline.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, it is Groundhog Day come early to the floor of the House. It is 
cold enough I guess for Groundhog Day, but this will be the 10th time 
in the last 4 years that the House of Representatives has moved this 
bill with the assertion that somehow it leads us to energy 
independence, energy security, lower prices at the pump.
  Well, the reality is a Canadian corporation is going to build a 
pipeline from Canada to Texas. They are going to be exempt from paying 
into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, unlike most other projects in 
this country, because of a stupid ruling by the IRS--but that is 
nothing new--regarding tar sands. So they will be exempt from paying 
into that. So if this thing bursts, there is an accident, the taxpayers 
of the United States get the bill, not the taxpayers of Canada. They 
don't get the bill. The taxpayers of the United States get the bill. 
Now, that is one of a number of problems regarding this project.
  It is somewhat unprecedented, I believe. This may have happened at 
some other time in American history, but I do find it particularly 
ironic today, when we had the reading of the Constitution, that the 
effect of passing this bill, if it were to become law--and the 
President has already said he will veto it. But if this were to become 
law, the effect would be to give a foreign corporation the right to 
take private property from American citizens.
  I am not aware of any other time in the history of the Union where we 
have given a foreign corporation the right to take Americans' private 
property. And, yes, some people were happy to sell the rights, but many 
others weren't, including some in Nebraska and some in Texas. It has 
been quite contentious among landowners who are just having this 
corporation come.
  I would like to put in the Record a letter from TransCanada. We have 
blacked out the name of the recipient of the letter, but it is a true 
copy of a letter to a person who will have their private property taken 
by eminent domain by a foreign corporation, and the foreign corporation 
informs them that they will begin proceedings this month, I guess 
because of the anticipated Republican action, to take their private 
property away.

                                                  TransCanada,

                                       Omaha, NE, December 8, 2014
     Re Keystone XL Project Update.

       Dear Landowner: While we continue to wait for decisions 
     from the Nebraska Supreme Court and from the U.S. Department 
     of State regarding our proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, I would 
     like to provide you with an update on our project.
       To date, Nebraska landowners have voluntarily granted us 
     easements representing 84 percent of the required right-of-
     way for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. We continue to work 
     to acquire the remaining land rights. In Montana and South 
     Dakota, we have acquired easements for 100 percent of the 
     privately owned right-of-way.
       Between September 2008 and earlier this year, five 
     successive sets of extensive public comments were taken and 
     five successive independent environmental assessments were 
     published by the State Department. Each review confirmed the 
     safety and environmental soundness of the project. The State 
     Department is continuing its review of our Presidential 
     Permit application and will ultimately make a determination 
     whether the project is in the national interest. The State 
     Department has not announced a definitive timeline for 
     reaching that decision.

[[Page 344]]

       In addition, reviews have been completed separately by the 
     States of Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota. As with the 
     federal reviews, these state reviews included extensive 
     public input. Each resulted in state approval of the project.
       In South Dakota, the South Dakota Public Utilities 
     Commission approved the project in 2010. Because construction 
     did not begin within four years, we must certify that the 
     pipeline continues to meet the conditions upon which the 
     permit was issued. We have initiated the certification 
     process and we expect a decision in 2015.
       The State of Nebraska enacted legislation in 2011 and in 
     2012 requiring state review of the proposed Keystone XL 
     Pipeline route. The Governor approved the route in January 
     2013, after a year-long public review process overseen by the 
     Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Following a 
     legal challenge of the new law, a lower court determined that 
     the law was not valid and that the review should have been 
     overseen by the Nebraska Public Service Commission. The 
     Nebraska Attorney General appealed the lower court ruling to 
     the Nebraska Supreme Court and the Court is expected to make 
     a ruling later this year or early next year.
       Pending a decision on the appeal, the law remains in effect 
     as does the resulting Keystone XL route. In the event that 
     the Nebraska Supreme Court affirms the lower court ruling 
     invalidating the new law, we would expect a second Nebraska 
     review to be required, this time by the Nebraska Public 
     Service Commission.
       If instead, the Nebraska Supreme Court reverses the lower 
     court ruling, affirming the validity of the existing state 
     review, we expect that other aspects of that law would remain 
     in effect as well. One of those aspects affects the timing 
     available to complete negotiations to acquire remaining 
     property rights in Nebraska. If parties ultimately are not 
     able to reach voluntary agreement on acquisition of necessary 
     land rights for the project, we are required to commence the 
     legal process of eminent domain to obtain those rights within 
     two years of the January 2013 Nebraska approval.
       We recognize that the Supreme Court ruling may not be 
     issued before we are required to take action in preparation 
     for the existing January 2015 deadline. While we would prefer 
     not to initiate the process to acquire outstanding land 
     rights while there is uncertainty, we are bound by that 
     deadline in order to meet our responsibility to continue to 
     prepare to build the pipeline necessary to safely transport 
     North American energy.
       Regardless of your perspective on the project, we would 
     welcome the opportunity to address your questions and 
     concerns and discuss property-specific details for pipeline 
     construction. When we are able to work with landowners to 
     achieve mutual agreement where possible, we are better able 
     to minimize potential effects of construction on land and 
     operations.
       A member of my land team will follow-up with you or your 
     legal counsel. If you have not heard from us or if you have 
     questions, you are welcome to contact me. If you would like 
     to see an operating pipeline, please let us know and we'd be 
     happy to arrange for a tour of a pump station on the 
     operating Keystone line in Nebraska.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Andrew Craig,

                                 Manager--Land, Keystone Projects,
                                       TransCanada Pipelines, USA.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Now, that is a bit ironic, again, on the day we read the 
Constitution and also of the party of individual rights for property 
owners. So that is also of concern.
  Yes, there will be construction jobs, and I am the first to admit we 
need more jobs in America. In fact, I voted against the President's so-
called stimulus bill because it didn't invest enough in building 
infrastructure in this country. Instead, it did a whole bunch of stupid 
tax cuts because of Larry Summers, a highly acclaimed hack economist, 
and we didn't put a lot of people back to work. Seven percent went to 
infrastructure, that created jobs; 42 percent went to tax cuts, didn't 
create jobs. But that is another agenda the Republicans are pursuing is 
tax cuts to create jobs, but we won't get into that here today.
  So, yes, that will happen, but there are a lot of other investments 
we should, could, and I believe the chairman supports making that will 
create significant construction and infrastructure jobs.
  Now, were this just in isolation and it didn't involve the total 
destruction of the boreal forests of Canada, if I were Canadian I would 
be pretty upset about that; and perhaps the dirtiest, most 
environmentally problematic way of extracting fossil fuels from the 
ground to get these oil sands, the construction jobs might carry the 
day, but sometimes you have to draw a line.
  In this case, we also hear it is going to lead somehow to energy 
security. Well, that is interesting because the crude, tar sand oil, or 
whatever you want to call it, is going to come down to Texas without 
paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund--creating a potential 
problem for the future taxpayers of the United States--go to a refinery 
in an export zone in Texas, and, yes, it will be refined and then it 
will be exported.
  We are exporting millions of gallons of fuel every day, so to somehow 
say this is going to lead to lower prices at the pump in America--maybe 
it is lower prices at the pump in China or I don't know where else, 
Japan or someplace, but it isn't going to be here because the product 
is ultimately going to be exported. So it is also not going to do 
anything for our energy security, and at the moment we have kind of a 
surfeit because of fracking and other things of fuels, and prices are 
down considerably.

                              {time}  1115

  So those are just a few of the problems.
  And by passing this bill, the House of Representatives will attempt 
to preempt the executive authority of the President in this matter 
because this pipeline crosses an international border. The President 
has authority, and the State Department has been considering it.
  And even with the Supreme Court of Nebraska refusing to make a 
judgment, they didn't uphold the law of the Nebraska legislature. In 
fact, four out of seven judges--normally a majority in most places--
said it was unconstitutional, but Nebraska has a peculiarity that if 
the other three judges take a walk--which they did--then even though a 
majority found it unconstitutional, it is not found unconstitutional, 
and that is the end of the proceeding.
  So that is the big news out of Nebraska. They need a little work on 
their constitution, I think. So it hasn't received a stamp of approval 
there. There are still aggrieved landowners in Nebraska who object to 
the route and who are going to have their private property taken by a 
foreign corporation. So other than that, it is a great idea.
  And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I just want to remind my Democratic colleagues that, first of all, 
I am from Pennsylvania. Punxsutawney is several miles outside of my 
district. That is where Punxsutawney Phil resides. So I am somewhat 
knowledgeable on Groundhog Day. And I just want to point out to my 
Democratic colleagues that in the movie ``Groundhog Day,'' Bill Murray 
learned from his mistakes the day before and improved his situation 
each day. So hopefully today, your references to your learning from 
yesterday and how we can move forward--I think the Nebraska situation 
improves the whole situation for all of us. And I certainly don't 
question the wisdom of the Nebraska Supreme Court.
  And with that, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill as vice 
chair of the Pipeline Subcommittee.
  Pipelines are the single safest way to transport liquids--safer than 
rail, safer than trucks. The State Department says Keystone would have 
a minimal impact on the environment.
  President Obama and his administration have confirmed that Keystone 
will create thousands of construction jobs. These are men and women's 
livelihoods.
  Respectfully, I would remind the administration, but by their nature, 
all construction jobs are temporary. And it is insulting to marginalize 
the value of these jobs or the people who might hold them.
  Keystone is supported by many unions, including mine, Local 545, the 
Operating Engineers, where I have been for almost 35 years.
  Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada said, and I agree, that 
Keystone is in both of our nations' interests and that ``the logic here 
is overwhelming.''
  Keystone will help us stop sending billions and billions of dollars 
overseas

[[Page 345]]

to our enemies, many of whom would harm us.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to start building this Keystone pipeline.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time remains of 
the 15 minutes that I had?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). Each side has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the ranking member of the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to what can only be described 
as an earmark for a Canadian corporation. It speaks volumes about the 
Republican agenda, as this new Congress convenes, that the first order 
of business in the House and Senate is to rubberstamp the Keystone XL 
pipeline.
  We have not dealt with unemployment benefits that the American people 
need that have lapsed for more than a year. Millions of Americans are 
suffering from a low minimum wage and income disparity, but we are not 
helping them. Women in this country still only earn 77 cents to every 
dollar their male counterparts earn, but we are not trying to end that 
disparity.
  Instead, they are forcing Keystone through without the proper 
approval process. Building a pipeline clear across the United States so 
that TransCanada can sell its dirty tar sands oil to the highest 
bidder--namely China--is not in the American people's best interests.
  We take on the risk to our lands, the American people face threats to 
their health, and TransCanada gets to reap the rewards. That is not a 
winning formula for our country or the economy. In fact, it is a sham.
  And yet the Keystone XL pipeline continues to be sold to the American 
people on blatantly false pretenses. We are told by proponents that 
this is about job creation, yet not a single independent analysis 
supports these claims.
  The burden of proof is on the GOP. They pull fantastic claims out of 
thin air, and yet they refuse to back them up. Instead, we are told to 
take their assertions at face value.
  Here is what we actually know. These are the facts that can actually 
be substantiated:
  The State Department found in its supplemental environmental impact 
study of the Keystone pipeline that it will generate less than 2,000 
jobs a year for 2 years and only during the period of construction. 
Once the pipeline is built, these jobs will disappear, leaving a mere 
35 permanent jobs that will result from this project--35. To put that 
in context, under President Obama, 353,000 jobs were generated in 
November and a total of 2.9 million in 2014.
  There is also the claim that it is going to lower gas prices for the 
American people. Please. Gas prices have been dropping for more than 
100 straight days and are at the lowest level in more than 5\1/2\ 
years. They won't go any lower by allowing oil to be piped across our 
country just to be sold abroad.
  In contrast to fantasy impacts on gas prices, the potential impacts 
on our environment are very real. Not only will burning these tar sands 
add to global climate change, but any leak, failure, or, God forbid, 
explosion will have disastrous impacts on our environment. And because 
tar sands importers are exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability 
Trust Fund, the American taxpayers will have to bear the cost of 
cleaning up any spills.
  The public needs to know these facts, and that is why allowing 1 hour 
of debate with not a single, solitary amendment today robs the American 
people of a full debate and discussion.
  On top of all that, this bill is being pushed through despite the 
fact that it violates not one but two treaties with American Indian 
nations.
  What does this say about the GOP's respect for the rule of law?
  If the Republicans truly want to generate jobs for the American 
people, they should fully fund the highway trust fund and support the 
GROW AMERICA Act to invest in the crumbling infrastructure all across 
this country, not help Canadians build a superhighway for their dirty 
tar sands oil.
  We would be supporting not just 2,000 jobs per year for 2 years but 
millions of jobs for American families, across every congressional 
district.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have a chance to take an important stand 
today early in this Congress on behalf of taxpayers, the environment, 
Native American communities, and the rule of law by supporting 
President Obama's veto and rejecting this toxic giveaway to foreign 
corporate oil interests.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I just want to say that there have been 15 hearings on the Keystone 
pipeline. This is the 10th time we have debated it on the floor. This, 
quite possibly, could be the most debated piece of legislation in the 
history of Congress. I don't know that for sure. But I do know that it 
has been out there for 2,303 days, and 60 percent of the American 
people support it, while 20 percent don't support it. So I think the 
American people are fully aware of what is going on here. They 
understand it, and they do support it.
  With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Emmer).
  Mr. EMMER. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Keystone pipeline, which 
will safely move 300 million barrels annually, strengthen our economy, 
continue to decrease our dependence on Mideast oil, and support 
thousands of jobs.
  This body has shown tremendous leadership on this issue and last year 
passed bipartisan legislation to approve Keystone for the ninth time. 
Today, with strong support from unions, businesses, and the American 
people, we must pass it again.
  I am grateful for Representative Cramer, Chairman Shuster, Chairman 
Upton, and the leadership for their work on this vital legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman just referenced safely transport. Of course that is a 
hypothetical. And let me give a real example:
  In 2010, a Canadian company, Enbridge, had a pipeline burst in 
Marshall, Michigan, spilling 1 million gallons of tar sands oil.
  Now, here is the thing. All oil has viscosity and other 
characteristics. The thing about tar sands oil is, it doesn't float. It 
goes right to the bottom. They are still dredging Canadian tar sands 
oil out of the bottom of the Kalamazoo River 4 years later. And so far, 
claims of $53 million have been made, which will have to be paid by 
American taxpayers against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and not 
by Enbridge, the Canadian corporation.
  Which is what we are setting up here: an even greater transshipment 
by a foreign corporation, exempt from paying into the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund, creating even bigger potential for spills with 
this oil, which has unique characteristics which are much more 
difficult to clean up if it comes in contact with water and, God 
forbid, it gets into the aquifer in one of the States that are being 
transected.
  The chairman did reference the 15 hearings. We have a difference in 
counting. But let's say 15 hearings. Three were in the Rules Committee. 
Those aren't hearings. That is sort of a little star chamber where you 
take things before you bring them to the floor of the House. You don't 
discuss substance there. One was in the Senate. There were 10 in the 
House, but not a single one of those hearings was in the principal 
committee of jurisdiction, which would be the Transportation Committee. 
And of course the bill that was marked up by the Transportation 
Committee in the first session of the last Congress was very different 
than the bill that is being advocated for today, which has not been 
marked up.
  And we heard a lot about regular order, read the bill, and all that 
stuff. It is fine to say, gee, we have voted on this a lot of times 
before. With 61 new Members of the House, gas prices are down by almost 
50 percent, a lot of things have changed. I would even wonder about the 
viability of this project.

[[Page 346]]

  I did just recently learn that the Koch brothers, though, have a 
significant investment in tar sands in Canada. But that probably has 
nothing to do with an attempt to expedite this project.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I would just like to remind the distinguished ranking member of the 
Transportation Committee, arguably the most knowledgeable man in 
Congress when it comes to transportation issues, with many years of 
service plus an intellect that is very sharp--I would never presume to 
tell him--I just want to remind him that the safest way to move 
product, to move oil is by pipeline. And I think the gentleman knows 
that, but I just wanted to remind him of that.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just heard a word that is almost hard to believe. We 
have been accused of expediting this process. Ladies and gentlemen, 
this is day 2,303 of this process. It is time now.
  It is time because it is good for job creation. It is time because it 
is good for the environment. It is not just the safest way, as the 
chairman said; the most environmentally sound way to move tar sands oil 
is in a pipeline. It is good for national security. It is good for 
economic security. It is good because 62.8 percent of labor force 
participation is the lowest since 1978. It creates jobs. And it is for 
these reasons that not only does the majority of the United States 
House and the majority of the United States Senate support it, but it 
is because of these reasons that the vast majority of the people of the 
United States support it, including the people of Nebraska. And for 
those reasons, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. At this moment, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Poe).

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the permitting for the Keystone pipeline has taken 
longer than it took for the United States to win World War II. Isn't 
that lovely?
  The pipeline will bring oil to my home State of Texas. Pipelines are 
the safest way to transport oil. The Keystone will deliver as much oil 
as we get from Saudi Arabia. The United States should work more with 
our neighbors--our normal neighbors--Canada and Mexico to develop our 
national resources and compete with OPEC.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a national security and energy security issue. 
We can make the Middle East, its politics, its oil, and its turmoil 
irrelevant. It is time to pick a horse and ride it.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  In response to the transport, yes, pipelines are generally safer, but 
the consequences--look at the case in Michigan--when a pipeline goes 
are generally much greater, much greater volumes.
  Even in the horrific train accidents we have had, the volumes were 
relatively small that were spilled, even though the consequences--
particularly in the one in Canada--were very, very damaging. Minimally, 
you should have added to the bill requiring them to pay into the oil 
spill liability trust fund. That would make that slightly less 
objectionable.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Denham), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 
Hazardous Materials.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Keystone XL 
Pipeline Act. This bill is based on the Cassidy Keystone bill which 
passed the House last Congress on a bipartisan vote of 252-161.
  As Chairman Shuster noted, this pipeline will create jobs, enhance 
our energy independence, and strengthen our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that makes numerous project benefits a 
reality. According to the Department of Energy, the pipeline will 
transport over 800,000 barrels per day of oil from Canada to the gulf 
coast, which will help reduce reliance on more hostile nations.
  Some have argued that the oil will just be exported, but the 
administration's own environmental analysis denies that that will ever 
occur. It will also create good-paying jobs now, while promoting the 
growth of our energy economy for the future.
  This is the most studied pipeline in our history. In the history of 
our Nation, we have never studied a pipeline like this. There is no 
need to continue to stall its approval. This project will be safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, America currently has 2.6 million miles of 
pipeline providing an extremely safe way to transport energy products.
  The Keystone pipeline will be the safest ever built, with 95 special 
mitigation measures, including nearly 60 recommended by the Department 
of Transportation. It is time to approve this project.
  We can't afford any more delays. The American public deserves these 
jobs, and we deserve to be energy independent.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Ranking Member.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that building the Keystone pipeline will create 
some jobs, and it can even help lower consumers' prices, but many of 
these jobs are temporary, which is true in most capital cases anyway. 
The price of oil has already fallen below $50 a barrel for the first 
time since 2009.
  We really got some good news about jobs today again. We added 252,000 
jobs, and the unemployment rate is the lowest since 2008--I think May 
or June of that year.
  While we are going in the right direction, we need some serious 
creation of jobs and at least a reach-out to the administration, ``Hey, 
you are doing a pretty good job on this, on oil prices, on gasoline 
prices,'' just a little bit of encouragement. We all roll on the same 
ship, come on.
  You boost our energy security, and you save consumers money at the 
pump, but the debate over Keystone has become a symbolic issue. Come 
on, let's admit it. It is clear that this fight is vastly greater than 
the economic, environmental, or energy impact. It is the end of the 
world if you listen to the extremes of both sides.
  I could support the construction of this pipeline but do not believe 
Congress should circumvent the administrative view.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just recommend something perhaps through you to 
the Chair. I believe that the reason why we have this problem is the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has nothing to say about oil 
lines. They do on gas lines, but not oil lines.
  I think we could have saved a lot of time if we used the same 
situation. I am going to vote ``no'' on this, but I think there is some 
good things that need to be done and could be worked out.
  Mr. SHUSTER. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), a Nebraskan.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I thank the chairman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, as you all know, a major portion of the Keystone XL 
pipeline will run through Nebraska's Third District. Nebraskans 
overwhelmingly support this project to improve access to North American 
energy and decrease the strain on our overwhelmed infrastructure 
system.
  As we all now know, the Nebraska Supreme Court has upheld the process 
as established by the elected Nebraska officials.
  I urge my colleagues to support approval of this project, and I urge 
the President to sign off on the pipeline as a needed step to encourage 
private investment in infrastructure.

[[Page 347]]


  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock.)
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the 
Keystone XL pipeline. This bill is about good-paying jobs and energy 
security.
  Republicans and many Democrats agree on this, as well as the unique 
coalition of unions like the Teamsters, LIUNA, the Tea Party, as well 
as the Chamber of Commerce.
  Listen to what the president of LIUNA said:

       To the tens and thousands of men and women in the 
     construction industry, this isn't just a pipeline; it is 
     their mortgages, college tuitions, car payments, and food on 
     the table. And for our country, this isn't just a pipeline; 
     it's a lifeline to family security, energy security, and 
     national security.

  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for the passage of 
this critical, bipartisan bill.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Reed).
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to 
authorize the building of the Keystone pipeline. It is time. Enough is 
enough. We agree, thousands of jobs would be created by this pipeline.
  This will improve consumer prices. This will bring stability to oil 
markets around the world. This will contribute to protecting us here on 
American soil rather than relying on energy sources from hostile 
nations of the world. It doesn't cure all the problems, but it is a 
step in the right direction.
  Our constituents sent us here, Mr. Speaker, to solve problems. This 
is part of the solution. I rise in support of the Keystone pipeline and 
ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reaffirm the 
bipartisan message of the last Congress and approve this legislation 
today.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Bucshon).
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Keystone XL pipeline, the most studied pipeline in American history.
  After 6 years and 22,000 pages of review, the President's own State 
Department tells us that construction of this pipeline will support 
over 42,000 good-paying jobs and do nothing to harm the environment. 
Pipelines have been shown to be the safest way to transport oil.
  Keystone has bipartisan, widespread support--Democrats, Republicans, 
industry leaders, and labor. Unfortunately, the President issued a veto 
threat, putting the wishes of environmental activists ahead of creating 
jobs for the American public.
  Mr. Speaker, let's say ``yes'' to much-needed jobs and approve the 
Keystone pipeline without any further delays.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are exporting more than 60 percent of the oil that we 
produce every day either as refined or even as crude product. In this 
case, Canadian oil, exempt from a tax, will flow through the United 
States to a refinery.
  It will be processed and exported overseas. Somehow, that is going to 
lower prices further at the pump. Somehow, that is going to lead to 
American energy security.
  You have to blow the dust off those arguments. They are a little 
dated, so we have raised a number of concerns here today.
  Minimally--minimally--the Republicans should require this Canadian 
corporation to pay the same tax that most U.S. corporations pay when 
they transport products through pipelines and not put American 
taxpayers at risk.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, the final hurdle has been removed. The 
Nebraska Supreme Court has said that the Keystone pipeline can move 
forward. That should be enough for my Democratic colleagues.
  But there is more. It is safe. It is the safest way to transport this 
oil, this natural resource. It is the most studied pipeline. It is 
going to be safe and environmentally sound. It will protect the 
environment. It creates jobs. Don't listen to me; listen to the five 
unions that represent 3 million workers. Three million union workers 
say the Keystone pipeline should be built.
  Mr. Speaker, it provides energy security for us, it is good for our 
economy, and it helps our allies--it strengthens our allies, and it 
weakens our enemies.
  The last point is it is fair to our best friends in the world, the 
Canadians, who have allowed us to build a pipeline from Alaska to the 
lower 48. We ought to return the favor to our best friend--our best 
ally--and say: ``Yes, you can build a safe pipeline, you can build a 
pipeline that will help all of North America, that will help all of our 
allies around the world and weaken our enemies.''
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee has 
shared jurisdiction over this issue with T&I, and we have a number of 
members that would like to speak on the issue as well.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, do you like cheap oil? Most Americans would 
say ``yes,'' and a number of us have strongly pursued a North American 
energy independence plan for years, and our friend, Canada, is a big 
part of that.
  In August of 2009, President Obama signed off on a new pipeline 
called the Alberta Clipper. Guess what? It brings 400,000 barrels of 
oil a day from western Canada to the United States.
  We have been waiting for the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline for 
years--over 6 in fact. I remember well when President Obama promised to 
do whatever it takes to create American jobs. That was followed by a 
so-called year of action; yet here we are, 6 years later, and nothing 
has happened.
  By the administration's own estimates, tens of thousands of jobs will 
be supported by this landmark project. Bringing oil from Canada to the 
U.S. displaces imports from Venezuela and the Middle East. Isn't that a 
good thing?
  I also note that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled 
that she was inclined to support the project, and that was way back in 
2010.
  In fact, in the summer of 2011, the White House issued its first veto 
threat against congressional action on the Keystone XL, claiming that 
legislation was unnecessary because their process was working and a 
decision would be reached by the end of that year. Since then, we have 
upgraded new oil and gas pipeline standards, and Keystone will exceed 
those, Mr. President, as it should.
  We used to be a nation of big ideas and big dreams. We imagined 
building the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge and accomplished 
both in far less time than it has taken the President to muster the 
courage to simply say ``yes'' or ``no.'' We can do better.
  The election, Mr. President, is over. There has been broad, 
bipartisan support for this project from the very first day. The 
President has been hiding behind the Nebraska court case to block the 
critical jobs project called Keystone XL, and with that contrived 
roadblock cleared, the White House is now out of excuses. Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gene Green) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3, a bill to approve the 
application for the construction of Keystone XL pipeline.
  I rise in support of this bill because I support North American 
energy development.
  Today, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed that Keystone XL should be 
built.

[[Page 348]]

  Keystone XL pipeline 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.
  Energy prices are at their lowest point in the last decade.
  Energy imports from partners like Canada and Mexico, and domestic 
production, have put more than $900 a year in the pockets of the 
American people.
  Keystone XL will continue this success in a time of struggle.
  The United States still imports approximately 40 percent of the oil 
we use domestically.
  The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has decided 
to directly challenge the new North American energy market by 
maintaining, and in some cases, increasing production.
  This is a direct affront to North American producers and an all-out 
price war.
  This, however, is a struggle we can win, with the help of our North 
American partners.
  Breakeven prices for North American crude, including Canadian oil 
sands and United States shale oil, are as low as $40 per barrel.
  Our producers can support our domestic demand while further driving 
out more expensive competitors.
  Unfortunately, our domestic producers cannot win without cost-
effective and environmentally sound transportation.
  Keystone XL offers that advantage and I support it, although I do not 
believe H.R. 3 is the perfect legislation.
  I believe that oil sands should be subject to the Oil Spill Liability 
Trust Fund.
  Almost every other source of crude oil that transits the United 
States is subject to the Trust Fund tax and oil sands should be as 
well.
  It makes fiscal sense, it makes environmental sense and it makes 
competitive sense.
  Oil sands should not be favored over any other sources in our 
country.
  The Keystone XL pipeline is the most scrutinized project in as long 
as I can remember.
  As we face the 114th Congress, we have real problems that require 
answers.
  Keystone XL pipeline is good for the United States, it's good for 
North America and we should support this bill.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we are voting once again to grant special 
treatment--and I stress ``special treatment''--to TransCanada's 
Keystone XL pipeline. It is the 10th time since Republicans took 
control of the House.
  American families face many pressing problems, and they want us to 
use this new Congress to work together to solve them. Unfortunately, we 
will begin this new year with a bill crafted solely to help the 
Canadian tar sands industry. The administration issued a statement in 
opposition to this legislation and indicated that the President will 
veto the bill. I heard my Republican colleagues talk about the action 
or inaction, whatever it was, by the Nebraska Supreme Court today; but 
I would stress that the White House press office still says in a 
statement that regardless of the Nebraska ruling today, the House bill 
still conflicts with longstanding executive branch procedures regarding 
the authority of the President and prevents the thorough consideration 
of complex issues that could bear on U.S. national interests, and if 
presented to the President he will veto the bill. So the bill will 
still be vetoed by the President, which is another indication why we 
are wasting our time today.
  Mr. Speaker, oil prices are at their lowest level in more than 5 
years. Gas prices are now below $2 a gallon. Domestic U.S. oil 
production is skyrocketing. Tar sands are among the dirtiest and most 
carbon-intensive of all fossil fuels. Approving the Keystone XL 
pipeline will 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, and that is totally inconsistent 
with any future scenario for avoiding catastrophic climate change.
  We don't need this oil. Approving and constructing this pipeline 
won't lower gas prices for Americans. In some areas, it may even raise 
prices. This pipeline is a terrible deal for the United States. We get 
all of the risk while the oil companies will reap all of the rewards.
  I was at the Rules Committee the other night and all I kept hearing 
was how wonderful Canada is, how we have to help Canadian companies. 
This is all about Canada. Frankly, I don't know why we are so worried 
about a Canadian corporation. It wasn't clear during the Rules 
Committee hearing, based on the conversations and debate we had with 
the Republican side, that this pipeline would even ever be built. And 
yet here we are rushing to basically say to the President: We don't 
care what you or the State Department or the Department of the Interior 
says what is in the national interest; we are just going to do this 
because of some Canadian interest.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a new year and a new Congress. We have new 
Members who will vote on this bill without the benefit of any hearings 
or markups or floor amendments, without the benefit of learning how our 
changing energy picture alters the need for this pipeline, and without 
considering whether our time might be better spent on efforts to 
promote other cleaner energy sources.
  We need sound energy policy in these challenging times. As the 
ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I am anxious to 
begin working with all of my colleagues on pragmatic energy policy; but 
we need a balanced energy policy, one that takes into account current 
circumstances, one that takes into account our need to combat climate 
change, and one that works with the President rather than against the 
President to actually deliver legislation that the President can sign 
rather than veto. This legislation doesn't meet any of these criteria, 
so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman and friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak today as a former naval aviator who flew 
alongside Canadian Armed Forces as we won the cold war. We have no 
greater ally than our neighbor to the north--Canada. We were attacked 
on September 11 and went to war in Afghanistan; they went with us. To 
date, nearly 200 of their precious sons have come home in coffins. That 
is a true ally.
  When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in August 2005, within 3 days 
our neighbor to the north authorized three military vessels, a Coast 
Guard vessel, numerous planes, 25 military divers, and tons of tents, 
blankets, beds, water, and medical supplies. That is a true ally.
  And yet this strong alliance is being weakened dramatically because 
President Obama has chosen to listen to a small group of wealthy 
radicals who want no drop of oil coming from our neighbor to the 
north--Canada.
  In November, I met with officials from Canada, officials from all 
over, from Leeds-Grenville and Nova Scotia. They were dismayed because 
we are telling them: We don't want your oil; don't help us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. OLSON. It is a bad world, Mr. President, with terrorists in 
Paris, and ISIS. Terrorists hit our country from North Korea. We need 
strong allies.
  Today, pick up two things, Mr. President:
  Pick up the phone, dial Mr. Harper and say: I am going to approve 
this pipeline;
  After it passes in the Senate, pick up that pen and sign this bill 
into law.
  Let's have a strong alliance with Canada forever.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to direct 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy and Power 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.

[[Page 349]]

  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, and I strongly disagree 
with this abhorrent process that the majority side has undertaken in 
order to hastily bring H.R. 3 to the floor after only 1 hour of debate 
and denying the minority the ability to offer one single, solitary 
amendment.
  Truth be told, Mr. Speaker, it is unclear how this legislation would 
actually be of benefit to the American people. A 2014 report by the 
State Department concluded that the Keystone pipeline would create 35 
permanent, full-time domestic jobs, which is roughly the same amount of 
jobs that would be created by opening a new corner fast-food burger 
joint, albeit with more risk to the American environment.
  And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill is unnecessary because there 
is already an independent process that is taking place at this very 
moment, and H.R. 3 short-circuits this approval process.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, let it be fully understood by all Members 
of this House, the President has indicated that he would veto this 
bill. This bill is dead on arrival if it ever reaches the President's 
desk.
  The State Department has already released its final supplemental 
environmental impact statement and has begun the review period to 
determine whether the pipeline is in the national interest.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 2.5 million Americans have contributed 
comments on how this foolhardy project would impact the national 
interest, and their voices, the voices of 2.5 million Americans, 
deserve to be heard.
  I have said it before, Mr. Speaker, and I say it again: this bill is 
about seizing power away from the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. RUSH. This bill is about seizing power away from the American 
people by seizing power away from our duly-elected President. It will 
prevent the thorough, sober consideration of complex issues that could 
have serious security, safety, environmental, and other ramifications.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this body to vote ``no.'' The 
Keystone XL pipeline is a Republican pipe dream.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as we stand on the floor debating a bill to approve the 
Keystone pipeline, we all need to admit that we shouldn't be doing 
this. We should not have to be here today.
  It is 2,303 days after the application for Keystone was first 
submitted to the State Department. We shouldn't be debating it; we 
should be building it.
  For years, approval has been stuck in the Senate. Well, now the 
Senate is open. The Senate is changed. It moved through committee.
  Mr. Speaker, for the longest time, the President hid behind the 
lengthy and delayed review process saying he wanted to wait to make a 
decision. He said he was waiting because of environmental and legal 
considerations. But Keystone won't harm the environment; it will help 
protect it. The people know that. Mr. Speaker, the President knows 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, the President, before we even started the debate today, 
has submitted a threat of a veto. I take these seriously as a majority 
leader, so I wanted to read it. Mr. Speaker, one of the rationales why 
the President wants to veto it is because this bill also authorizes the 
project, despite uncertainty due to ongoing litigation in Nebraska. 
Well, hallelujah. We have good news for the President, Mr. Speaker. The 
Nebraska Supreme Court solved that problem for him today.
  So we should move forward just as we have done before on a bipartisan 
basis. Why? Because of 42,000 jobs. Those are American jobs created 
here, an economy continuing to move forward.
  And rest assured, the oil in Canada will be produced. The question 
before us today: Will that oil move down through America, refined in 
American refineries, built by American women and men, or will it go to 
a whole other continent?
  We take up many issues here on this floor, but we have to look to the 
future and we have to build for a strong future. I want North America 
to be energy independent. We all know the strength of that. I want an 
environmentally sound way to do it. Today does it.
  I listened to the President's concerns, Mr. Speaker. We have had 
2,303 days. We have studied it. Our departments have studied it. They 
have come back and said, environmentally, we are safe. There was a 
legal concern. Well, the Supreme Court dealt with that.
  So today we can join together, just as we have done before, in a 
bipartisan manner and pass this bill. There is a change in the Senate 
with an open process. They can pass it there, and it can go to the desk 
and be signed so 42,000 Americans can get back to work.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this issue are two questions: 
First, is climate change real? Is it a threat to our economy, to jobs, 
to our environment, and to our security?
  Speaking for Vermont, climate change is real. In the past 5 years, 
Vermont has had 10 Federal disaster declarations from severe weather, 
including Tropical Storm Irene that did nearly $1 billion worth of 
damage. Our farmers, ski area operators, and maple sugar producers are 
all trying to contend with the changing climate.

                              {time}  1200

  Also, we know that that oil is the same. This is not sweet Texas 
crude. Tar sands produce about 20 to 40 percent more carbon emissions 
than that Texas oil, and extracting it is going to produce about 27 
million metric tons of carbon emissions.
  The second question is this: Should Congress now or should Congress 
ever pass a major piece of legislation without any committee hearings, 
particularly when that legislation is only about oil going through our 
country, not to our country?
  And this legislation includes a special provision that exempts a 
foreign corporation from contributing to an environmental cleanup fund 
all our domestic corporations are required to pay into.
  On the issue of jobs, these are good jobs, about 2,000 jobs. But if 
this Congress would do its job, we would pass a surface transportation 
bill that would create 200,000 jobs and put those 3 million men and 
women in our labor unions to work on good things that are going to 
rebuild this country.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong bill, it is passed in the wrong way, 
and at exactly the wrong time.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman from 
Kentucky for his tenacious work on this issue. This is the 10th time 
this has come to the floor and he has been diligent and has continued 
to push it, and we thank him for those efforts.
  I have to tell you, listening to this debate, it just goes to show 
you why the American people are so tired of what they consider to be 
the political games that are played here in Washington.
  They said they wanted us to come and get some things done. This is 
getting some things done. It is appropriate that we take up this bill 
today. And here is why: Do you realize 88 percent of all Americans 
support energy independence--88 percent? Sixty-five percent of all 
Americans think that building the Keystone pipeline is what this 
country should do.
  Now, I have to tell you, I listen to the President and to the excuses 
that come out of the administration, and I think that with the Supreme 
Court decision in Nebraska today the President is out of excuses. He is 
out of excuses. He has run the gamut on it. No more

[[Page 350]]

excuses. It is time that we pass it, the Senate passes it, and that 
this legislation goes to the President's desk.
  One of my colleagues said that being here on the floor today is a 
waste of time. I really disagree with that, Mr. Speaker. The President 
vetoing this legislation is a waste not only of the American people's 
time, but of the resources and the taxpayer money that come into the 
coffers for this government to function.
  Create 20,000 new jobs, increase our energy supply, move us to energy 
independence. Pass the bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time is 
available on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. David Scott).
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a labor 
economics jobs bill. The American people need jobs. The labor unions 
who founded and built the middle class of this Nation need jobs.
  But, ladies and gentlemen, nobody needs jobs like young Black men. I 
see this as an opportunity here today. The highest unemployment rate is 
with Black young men. For Black young men between the ages of 19 and 
35, the unemployment rate is 38 percent--38 percent--and in some 
communities it is 50 percent.
  That is why I come before you today. I support the bill. But I want 
you all to help me support an amendment. You all know the amendment 
process is going on over in the Senate.
  Over in the Senate, Senator McConnell said he is open to amendments. 
Here is the amendment: the amendment would just put language in this 
bill that would put the apprenticeship programs, what they 
affectionately call ``earn as you learn'' on-the-job training--no 
Federal money--and target those and guide and direct and encourage in 
this language that our labor union partners bring in these young 
African American men to learn these trade building skills. Each of the 
labor unions are ready. They have the apprenticeship programs, they 
have them there.
  We need this desperately, ladies and gentlemen. Do you know that 
sitting in the prisons right now are 1 million Black men. Every week, 
thousands of our Black men are going into prison. The number one 
reason: they don't have jobs. This is a jobs bill. Yeah, it has got 
maybe, some people say, 4,000, some people say 2,000, but there will be 
other jobs that they can learn these skills from when we rebuild our 
infrastructure.
  You all have seen the sign. Black lives matter, but Black lives with 
jobs.
  Help me get this amendment in on the Senate side and let's pass this 
bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3 and the construction 
of the Keystone XL pipeline.
  Part of the existing pipeline system actually supplies the Wood River 
Refinery in the 12th Congressional District in Illinois.
  In anticipation of the construction of this pipeline, the owners have 
spent $4 billion upgrading the facility and created about 2,400 jobs 
over a 4-year period. Construction of the Keystone XL extension would 
deliver similar benefits to other regions of the country, creating over 
42,000 jobs in construction, manufacturing, transportation, and 
services industries.
  It is for these reasons that a diverse coalition of businesses and 
labor unions in the construction and building trades industries have 
come out in support of H.R. 3, and I encourage all of my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, how does this one project, the 
Keystone XL pipeline, get so much outsized attention? We currently have 
a sprawling, 185,000-mile network of oil pipelines in the United States 
and a regulatory process to ensure that they are operating safely.
  So why are we spending so much time trying to exempt a Canadian 
company from the environmental reviews that every other company in 
America has to abide by?
  And the big question, Mr. Speaker: Who will pay for any future oil 
spills? Not Keystone. This bill exempts Keystone from contributing the 
same 8 cents per barrel that every other oil company is required to pay 
into the oil spill trust fund.
  Tell me, Mr. Speaker, why is this? If the authors are so certain that 
this pipeline does not carry any environmental risk, won't they allow 
the review process to run its course?
  I stand with my colleagues. I want those jobs, I want them around the 
country. We can do this, we can do better.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this dangerous precedent, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say congratulations again to 
my friend Congressman Pallone for assuming the ranking position. We 
look forward to working with you.
  Today is a great day. This pipeline should have been approved 6 years 
ago, like so many other transnational pipelines in our history. A 
pipeline is the safest way to move bulk liquid product, more than any 
other means. It will be from an ally, a trusted ally. More crude oil on 
the world market lowers prices for everybody. It is more money in the 
individual citizen's pocket. It actually is a very great day.
  Let's just debunk this myth. This oil is going to go in refineries in 
my district, Mike Bost's district, Ohio, Indiana, and in the gulf 
coast. We are going to get the double effort because we are going to be 
able to refine this, put it on the U.S. market, and lower energy prices 
for all our citizens. It is a great day.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
opposition.
  We have been promised thousands of jobs, but the U.S. State 
Department estimates that this will create only 35 permanent jobs. Yes, 
they will be construction jobs, but they are not permanent. They are 
for a year, maybe 2 years.
  Let's be clear about what we are getting with Keystone: a dirty and 
dangerous pipeline running through the heart of our country which will 
help Canadian oil companies export their oil, and it happens to be the 
filthiest possible energy form.
  I would like to say that if we put the same time and energy into a 
transportation bill as we have to this Canadian pet project, we could 
upgrade our crumbling roads and bridges, expand our mass transit 
system, provide a huge boost to the American economy, and create jobs 
in almost every single congressional district in this country, 
thousands and thousands of permanent jobs in our good country.
  We don't need another pipeline dividing our country, polluting our 
water, pushing us closer and closer to the climate tipping point. A 
transportation overhaul will actually create jobs that Americans can 
live off of. Keystone will not, unless what they are considering with 
these jobs are just the 35 permanent jobs. And maybe they are 
considering that there will be jobs to create the leaks and the 
pollution and treat the pollution and illnesses that may be associated 
with the pollution.
  I urge a ``no'' vote. We should invest in American companies. We 
should invest in American pipelines. We should invest in American jobs 
that are here in America for Americans and are permanent.
  Again, the State Department estimates that there will be only 35 
permanent jobs. So what are we getting? No jobs and pollution from the 
dirtiest oil source and energy source that is on the Earth at this 
point.

[[Page 351]]


  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, would you explain again the amount of 
time remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Harper), a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  Here we are again working to pass a bill to approve construction of 
the northern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline. Again, with the facts 
on our side. Again, with bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. 
And again, under threat of a veto. But with the new Republican majority 
in the Senate, the President just might get to make good on his veto 
threat this time, and we should force him to make that decision.
  I urge my colleagues to support this job-creating, North American 
energy-producing, bipartisan, labor union- and Chamber of Commerce-
supported, shovel-ready project. The American people asked for H.R. 3. 
We have waited long enough.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I have heard more than one person say common 
sense isn't so common anymore. Boy, isn't that right? Well, today, we 
have a unique opportunity to pass commonsense legislation that will 
truly help the American people and strengthen America.
  I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act. It is 
projected this pipeline will create more than 40,000 good-paying jobs, 
and it will create far more good jobs indirectly by increasing our 
energy supply.
  At a time when our families are struggling to make ends meet, it is 
irresponsible for the President to walk away from doing what is right 
for America. Building the pipeline will help us achieve energy 
independence. This is an opportunity to strengthen our position in the 
world, eliminate a key revenue source for our enemies, and strengthen 
our economy by lowering fuel prices even more.
  I urge my colleagues in both Chambers and the President to support 
the Keystone XL Pipeline Act. This is an opportunity to show the 
American people that there is still a glimmer of hope for good old 
common sense.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, as a combat veteran, we should never have 
to fight for something that we can so readily produce here. Why should 
we put competitors in leverage over our economy and give them dollars 
to use against us?
  We hear a lot of talk from progressives on the environment, Mr. 
Speaker. Imagine a life without petroleum, no cell phones, no asphalt 
for roads, no synthetic clothing, no plastics. On what do progressives 
suppose we run our magnificent Nation and lifestyle? Perhaps their 
answer is sweet bubble love and rainbow stew.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Keystone XL pipeline moves us in exactly the wrong 
direction: enabling production of the dirtiest crude oil on the planet 
to expand and increasing our carbon pollution for decades to come.
  We still have a lot of work to do to cut our carbon pollution and 
avoid catastrophic carbon change. The concentration of carbon dioxide 
in the atmosphere just hit 400 parts per million for the first time in 
human history.
  Although this administration is making great progress, we are far 
from achieving our pollution reduction goals, and the need to act is 
more urgent than ever. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' The 
President is going to veto this legislation. It is just a political 
exercise at this point.
  Again, it bothers me that I hear so much from the other side about 
trying to help this Canadian company. We should be concerned about the 
United States. We should be concerned about the world and the 
environment that results from climate change and the continued 
production of greenhouse gases.
  My concern and the concern of the President is that this is simply 
not legislation that has been proven to be, so far, in the national 
interest. The President is just asking for more time to make that 
determination.
  Vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to address a couple of things.
  First of all, I will place in the Record letters I received from the 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council and Caterpillar.

                                                  January 7, 2015.
     Hon. Kevin Cramer,
     Longworth Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Cramer: The Small Business & 
     Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) and our nationwide 
     membership of business owners and entrepreneurs strongly 
     support H.R. 3, the ``Keystone XL Pipeline Act.''
       Delays in approving this important project cannot be 
     justified on any grounds. This is a critical energy supply 
     and security issue, as well as being vital for U.S. economic 
     growth, job creation and small business development.
       This project means quality job growth, new business 
     formation, and an increase in oil supplies from reliable 
     sources. The building and operation of Keystone XL would 
     benefit small businesses via affordable energy and economic 
     growth. Small businesses within the energy sector would see 
     growth opportunities as a result of the pipeline's 
     construction and operation. An underreported fact is that the 
     U.S. energy sector is dominated by small businesses.
       Consider the latest U.S. Census Bureau data:
       Among oil and gas extraction businesses, 91.1 percent of 
     employer firms in 2011 had less than 20 workers.
       Among oil and gas pipeline and related structures 
     construction businesses, 65.5 percent of employer firms in 
     2011 had less than 20 workers.
       And among oil and gas field machinery and equipment 
     manufacturing businesses, 57.6 percent of employer firms in 
     2011 had less than 20 workers.
       Among support for oil and gas operations businesses, 83.3 
     percent of employer firms in 2011 had less than 20 workers.
       Among drilling oil and gas wells businesses, 79.8 percent 
     of employer firms in 2011 had less than 20 workers.
       The energy business is all about small business. A new 
     study released by SBE Council on November 13, 2014, found 
     that small businesses are driving America's energy 
     renaissance. For example, from 2005-2012, construction 
     businesses related to oil and gas pipeline and related 
     structures grew by 12.2 percent among firms with less than 20 
     workers; oil and gas extraction businesses grew by 4.1 
     percent among firms with less than 20 workers; businesses 
     drilling oil and gas wells grew by 7.9 percent among firms 
     with less than 20 workers; businesses supporting oil and gas 
     operations grew by 29.1 percent among firms with less than 20 
     workers; and manufacturing businesses related to oil and gas 
     field machinery and equipment grew by 8.5 percent among firms 
     with less than 20 workers. It is important to understand that 
     during this same period, the total number of small and mid-
     size employer firms declined, but the opposite was true in 
     the energy sector. Construction of Keystone XL would mean 
     increased small business growth, opportunities for 
     entrepreneurs, and a stronger economy for America.
       A vote in favor of H.R. 3 is a vote for small business and 
     quality job creation. Thank you for considering America's 
     small business sector on this critical issue. SBE Council and 
     its members look forward to House passage of H.R. 3.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Karen Kerrigan,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                                  January 8, 2015.
     Hon. Kevin Cramer,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Cramer: On behalf of Caterpillar Inc., I 
     write today in support of H.R. 3 the ``Keystone XL Pipeline 
     Act'', which would authorize construction of the Keystone XL 
     Pipeline. Caterpillar has long supported the construction of 
     the Keystone XL Pipeline because of its significant economic 
     and energy security benefits to North America.

[[Page 352]]

       As the world's leading manufacturer of construction and 
     mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, industrial 
     gas turbines, and locomotives; along with our commitment to 
     providing leading financial, remanufacturing, logistics and 
     rail services, Caterpillar has been making sustainable 
     progress possible on every continent for more than 80 years.
       With energy related products and services accounting for 
     over one-fourth of our business, Caterpillar, our dealers, 
     and our customers are uniquely positioned to provide 
     solutions to the world's energy challenges. Through our core 
     business and through new innovative technologies, Caterpillar 
     is one of the world's leading technology suppliers to the 
     diverse energy market and leverages its technology and 
     innovation to meet the world's growing energy needs.
       In the United States, the approval and construction of the 
     Keystone XL Pipeline would result in billions of dollars of 
     investment, create tens of thousands of jobs, and would allow 
     for the movement of hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil 
     per day. Pipelines are a safe, reliable, economical, and 
     environmentally favorable way to transport oil and petroleum 
     products, as well as other energy liquids throughout the U.S. 
     America already depends on thousands of miles of liquid 
     pipelines to move the energy and raw materials our country 
     relies on for everything from heating homes to powering 
     manufacturing facilities. This additional pipeline capacity 
     will help consumers and business throughout the United States 
     and increase American competitiveness.
       Caterpillar commends you for your leadership on this 
     critical issue and looks forward to working with you on the 
     approval of this important project.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Kathryn D. Karol,
                                                   Vice President.

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the climate change issue 
because I think it is an important issue to a lot of people.
  The argument that the other side makes is based on the false idea 
that somehow oil sands are not going to be developed without the United 
States. It is. Moving anything by rail is 1.9 times more the emissions 
of CO2 than moving it by pipeline. Moving it by truck 
creates 2.8 times the CO2 emissions as moving it by 
pipeline. Moving it by barge to China is priceless.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In conclusion, I would like to point out a couple of things. First of 
all, this was a significant issue in the last election just a couple of 
months ago. This is a piece of legislation about the American people, 
not a Canadian oil company. In polls, 72 percent of the American people 
say they support this legislation.
  This is about jobs for people in America who need jobs. This is about 
increasing the energy infrastructure of our country. This is also a 
project that would not include one dime from the Federal Government. It 
is going to be at a cost of approximately $7 billion of private funds 
that will create a lot of jobs and make us less dependent on foreign 
oil.
  The application for the Keystone pipeline was filed in September of 
2008. There are 2.6 million miles of pipelines in America. Most of 
those pipelines do not have to be approved by the President of the 
United States, but in this particular pipeline, since it crosses into 
the country from Canada to the U.S., the President must approve it.
  The President has said that one reason he is not going to approve it 
is because of litigation in Nebraska, which ended today in favor of the 
Governor of Nebraska who supports this pipeline.
  The second ostensible reason for the President to oppose it is 
CO2 emissions; yet the Secretary of State's office under 
Hillary Clinton and Mr. Kerry in their final Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement have said on three occasions that it will have minimal 
impact on the environment.
  Today, we want to pass this legislation once again for the American 
people. The U.S. Senate said that they will pass it, and we would ask 
the President to join us and sign this legislation.
  I would urge the passage of H.R. 3, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, the majority has chosen the 
first week of the 114th Congress to relitigate the battles of the 
previous two Congresses. This time, we're here debating whether or not 
to approve a pipeline, through our nation's Heartland, carrying 
Canadian tar sand oil.
  There are many reasons why I'm opposed to this legislation, Mr. 
Speaker, the fact that oil produced from tar sands creates 17% more 
carbon emissions than other crudes; the potentially devastating impact 
wrought by this heavy crude should a pipeline rupture occur; or that my 
constituents are enjoying the best prices at the pump in several years 
without the completion of this pipeline due to the record glut in 
global oil supply.
  Without even getting into the disappointing number of permanent jobs 
created by this project, which is 50, Mr. Speaker; the President has 
already clearly stated that he will veto this measure should it ever 
make it to his desk.
  So at the end of the day Mr. Speaker, what are we really talking 
about here?
  It would seem to me that instead of trying to score political points 
and refighting old battles, the 114th Congress should be using its 
first week to bring legislation to the floor that fosters an 
environment of innovation, energy diversification and an investment in 
clean, domestic forms of renewable energy. Policies that would create 
hundreds of thousands of new, permanent jobs while also ensuring energy 
independence for years to come.
  While I understand that some of my Democratic Colleagues are in 
favor, I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this misguided 
legislation.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, the 
Keystone XL Pipeline Act. For far too long, President Obama has impeded 
construction of the Keystone XL pipeline--costing the American people 
thousands of good-paying jobs and blocking an affordable source of 
energy. In the face of his continued obstruction, I proudly joined a 
strong bipartisan group of my colleagues voting to put an end to 
Obama's obstruction and approving the Keystone XL pipeline.
  This legislation is not only good for America, but it is also 
uniquely important to the 36th District of Texas. The pipeline will 
bring an economic boost to our area through its construction and new 
energy supply. For six years President Obama has put politics above 
what is good for the American people and our local and national 
economy. This is an important step in putting more Americans back to 
work, creating opportunity to good jobs and growing our national 
economy.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of The 
Keystone XL Pipeline Act.
  The Keystone Pipeline represents a critical asset in our efforts to 
increase energy security and reduce our dependence on Mid-East oil. It 
would also further lower prices at the pump for American families.
  Most importantly, the Pipeline would create thousands of jobs in 
Texas and across the United States.
  The President has threatened to veto this legislation and ignore the 
will of the American people. Six years of stalling is enough.
  The Administration should stop standing in the way of a stronger 
energy future and thousands of new American jobs. Keystone must be 
approved immediately.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, the 
Keystone XL Pipeline Act. While I welcome an open and transparent 
debate about whether building this pipeline is in our national 
interest, that is not what this legislation is about. Instead, we are 
being asked to circumvent the administration's permitting process and 
pass legislation that has been rushed to the House floor, without 
consideration by any committee or proceeding through regular order. 
This is no way to legislate.
  The people of Michigan sent me to Congress to fight for our shared 
values. And no one knows better than the people of my state the 
importance of protecting our natural resources. This legislation puts 
those resources at risk by exempting the operators of the pipeline from 
paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which helps the federal 
government respond to oil spills. It also waives all the requirements 
of the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy 
Act, both of which contain critical environmental protections that 
cannot be ignored. I simply cannot support legislation which sets these 
landmark laws aside.
  Congress needs to have a real and thoughtful debate on how we promote 
clean energy in the United States. I am ready to have that debate, but 
until then, I cannot support flawed legislation that puts our natural 
resources at risk.
  I urge all my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 3.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, 
the Keystone XL Pipeline Act. The legislation would immediately 
authorize the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of 
the Keystone XL pipeline.
  My constituents are sick and tired of the delays in approving and 
building the Keystone

[[Page 353]]

pipeline. The recent drop in gas prices highlights the economic 
benefits of increased energy production right here in North America.
  Building the Keystone pipeline will increase access to more North 
American energy sources and further reduce our dependence on oil from 
the Middle East. For the first time in decades, North American energy 
independence is within our grasp if we make the critical investments in 
the necessary infrastructure.
  President Obama's opposition to the Keystone pipeline and all of its 
economic benefits shows just how out of touch he is with middle class 
working families.
  The State Department studied the environmental impacts of the 
Keystone XL pipeline and concluded that it would not have a negative 
impact. Furthermore, the State Department found that the Keystone XL 
pipeline project would support roughly 42,000 jobs. Earlier today, the 
Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed a key lawsuit challenging the Keystone 
XL pipeline.
  The passage of H.R. 3 is the tenth bill approved by the House of 
Representatives to authorize the construction of the Keystone XL 
pipeline. Thankfully, the new Republican majority in the Senate has 
indicated it will take action on similar legislation next week. I know 
my constituents and hardworking American families hope we can finally 
start construction on this economically important project.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, which 
would circumvent the legal approval process and grant blanket automatic 
authority for TransCanada to ``construct, connect, operate, and 
maintain'' the Keystone XL pipeline and cross-border facilities.
  Every cross-border pipeline must undergo a vetting process to make 
sure that it is in the national interest. This process has been ongoing 
at the State Department and has been complicated by disputes over the 
route, most notably in Nebraska, where their Supreme Court ruled on the 
issue just this morning. Today's legislation would provide a special 
deal for one company to bypass federal permitting requirements.
  Additionally, the oil that would be transported by Keystone XL, tar 
sands oil, is currently exempt from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 
that is used to fund the response to leaks and accidents. This means 
that the American public would bear the risks for the immediate cleanup 
costs from any potential accidents or leaks from the pipeline. 
Congressman Earl Blumenauer introduced legislation last night, which I 
am proud to cosponsor, to close that loophole and ensure that 
TransCanada and other companies transporting tar sands oil share 
responsibility for those costs by paying into the Oil Spill Liability 
Trust Fund. Democrats are offering a motion today to address this issue 
for the oil that would be transported through the Keystone XL pipeline, 
and I hope my Republican colleagues will work with us to close this 
loophole.
  Ultimately, there is no reason to give special treatment to a single, 
foreign company, which would be exempt from permitting requirements and 
from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. We should reject 
this bill and allow the State Department to complete its ongoing 
review.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote for the tenth time 
to bypass a process established by law and instead, move to approve an 
oil pipeline that will harm the climate, do nothing to enhance our 
energy security, and create 35 permanent jobs. In the process, the 
legislation before us disregards the Endangered Species Act, the 
National Environmental Policy Act, and the more than 2.5 million 
Americans who submitted comments to the State Department on the 
Keystone XL pipeline proposal.
  Keystone XL is a proposed 2,000-mile pipeline to carry up to 830,000 
barrels per day of tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf 
Coast. Because the pipeline crosses the U.S.-Canadian border, existing 
law requires that a Presidential Permit be obtained to ensure that the 
project is in the interest of the United States. TransCanada, the 
Canadian company planning to build the pipeline, was initially denied a 
Presidential Permit in early 2012. The company then split the project 
into two sections and reapplied for a Presidential Permit for the 
1,200-mile section of pipeline from Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska. 
This section has undergone an environmental review process and the 
State Department is currently reviewing the public comments to 
determine if the project is in the national interest. This bill ends 
that review and deems the project immediately approved.
  As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have participated 
in the hearings on this issue since 2011, and it is clear to me that 
Keystone XL is not in the nation's interest. It will provide an export 
route for one of the dirtiest fuels on earth, putting the U.S. at risk 
of a spill and unleashing billions of tons of future greenhouse gas 
emissions. Beyond the environmental impacts, TransCanada has 
acknowledged that this project will create very few permanent U.S. jobs 
and that most of the oil will be exported overseas rather than 
remaining in the U.S. market. In my view, this is a bad deal for the 
American people and should not be given a special legislative exemption 
in the form of this bill.
  Construction of Keystone XL is also incompatible with our long-term 
climate goals and would put millions of Americans at risk of a 
catastrophic oil spill. Tar sands oil produces up to 40 percent more 
carbon pollution than conventional oil on a life-cycle basis and is 
much harder to clean up in the event of a spill. In Michigan, a 2010 
tar sands oil spill in the Kalamazoo River took over four years to 
clean up at a cost of over $1.2 billion.
  Despite claims from its backers, Keystone XL will not improve U.S. 
energy security or reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. A 
study commissioned by the Department of Energy found that U.S. oil 
imports from Canada will grow at ``almost identical'' rates with or 
without Keystone XL. The State Department's review of the Keystone XL 
proposal estimated that a majority of the oil that travels through the 
pipeline will be exported overseas. In fact, contrary to the company's 
claims in promotional materials, TransCanada has refused to guarantee 
that any of the oil will remain in the U.S. In 2011, I participated in 
an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing where TransCanada's President 
of Energy and Oil pipelines, Alex Pourbaix, acknowledged under 
questioning that his company was not willing to guarantee in law or in 
shipping contracts that oil from Keystone XL will remain in the U.S. 
market. Several attempts to insert language ensuring that a portion of 
the oil remains in the U.S. have been rejected by the House Republican 
leadership.
  Supporters of Keystone XL have widely touted the job-creation 
benefits of this pipeline, but in reality this project will provide 
less than three dozen permanent jobs. The projections in the State 
Department's environmental impact statement, made in consultation with 
TransCanada, reveal that up to 42,100 direct and indirect temporary 
jobs will be supported during construction of the pipeline. I do not 
diminish this factor. However, when construction is completed in less 
than two years, Keystone XL is expected to support only 35 permanent 
jobs.
  Rather than investing in renewable energy technologies and 
infrastructure updates that would benefit millions of Americans, the 
House has chosen as its first order of business in the 114th Congress 
to provide a special deal to a Canadian company, without any guarantee 
that a single drop of the oil will remain in the United States. For 
this reason and the others I've stated, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this legislation and any further attempts to short-circuit the Keystone 
XL review process.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 3, which grants 
approval to build the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline. The public has 
been misled by the pipeline's advocates, who have played down the 
pipeline's potentially devastating effects on our nation's environment 
and on the American people.
  For starters, this bill allows a foreign company to take property 
from U.S. landowners through eminent domain. The taking of private land 
for public purposes has always been for local government or local 
interests. We cannot allow a foreign company to take our private 
property to feed its corporate profits.
  In addition, the bill exempts TransCanada Corp. and any other company 
producing, shipping, or refining tar sands oil for this project, from 
paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which helps to finance 
the federal government's response to spills. This exemption essentially 
reduces the companies' liability for spills from the pipeline and makes 
the U.S. taxpayers pay to clean up those spills. That's outrageous, 
especially when you consider the pipeline will go over the underground 
water supply for eight of our states.
  The legislation also gives this project special regulatory treatment 
by exempting the pipeline from all federal permitting requirements. Our 
federal permitting process exists to ensure worker safety, and to 
provide health safeguards and environmental protections for the 
American people. It is irresponsible to give this project a blanket 
exemption from these critical safety measures.
  This is particularly true given that the tar sands oil to be 
transported is more destructive than any other oil in the world. 
Converting a barrel of tar sands into synthetic crude oil emits three 
times more greenhouse gas emissions than are emitted by producing a 
barrel of conventional crude oil. If this pipeline leaks, the health of 
thousands of Americans will be at risk--and Americans, not the Canadian 
company, will be held responsible for the cost of the clean-up.

[[Page 354]]

  Considering this foreign-built pipeline takes private property and 
poses serious economic and safety risks, I stand in firm opposition to 
this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the Keystone XL 
Pipeline Project and the legislation before us, H.R. 3.
  Mr. Speaker, the Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a 
Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil 
sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a 
market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries.
  The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of 
oil per day. One of the most appealing aspects of the project is the 
positive economic impact it is expected to have on the economy.
  Let me just take one state's economy and realize what would happen 
with this particular effort. There would be a $2.3 billion investment 
in the Texas economy, creating more than 50,000 jobs in the Houston 
area, providing $48 million in state and local tax revenues, and 
increasing the gross domestic product of the state by $1.9 billion.
  I favor the job creation potential of the Keystone XL Pipeline 
project, and voted accordingly less than a month and a half ago, on 
November 14, which was H.R. 5682. Yet the legislation contains several 
provisions that are of great concern to me which I feel inclined to 
address.
  First, because the pipeline would cross an international border, 
construction requires a presidential permit and would be subject to 
applicable state laws and permitting requirements.
  To issue a presidential permit, the State Department, after 
consulting with other federal agencies and providing opportunities for 
public comment, must determine that the project would serve the 
national interest.
  Because the Keystone XL project would constitute a major federal 
action with a potentially significant environmental impact, it is also 
subject to environmental impact statement requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
  The bill, however, declares that a presidential permit is not 
required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from 
the Canadian border through Nebraska even though the project crosses an 
international border. This is unprecedented.
  Second, H.R. 3 deems that environmental impact statements issued to 
date would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the 
NEPA and the Endangered Species Act.
  As a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a 
problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact.
  Third, the bill vests exclusive jurisdiction regarding legal disputes 
over the pipeline or the constitutionality of this bill would be 
granted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and 
requires claims regarding the pipeline to be brought within 60 days of 
the action that gives rise to the claim.
  It is unduly burdensome to require aggrieved parties to bear the 
considerable expense and hardship of traveling from their homes in 
North or South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas to 
Washington, DC to vindicate their legal rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I also believe the bill before could have been improved 
had amendments been made in order.
  For example, two proposed amendments, one from a Democrats and one 
Republican, making oil sands petroleum eligible to pay an excise tax 
into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and another splitting revenue 
generated by the pipeline's construction between DOE's energy 
efficiency and renewable energy research and deficit reduction, were 
not made-in-order.
  Had the bill been subject to amendment and the amendments offered in 
the Rules Committee been made in order and approved, the bill before us 
would be improved markedly.
  And Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of this body, you are well-aware that 
when amendments are made-in-order, the rank-and-file can at least feel 
that they had a say in the process but when a Closed Rule is put 
forth--it does not stoke optimism about the legislative process for the 
114th Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 19, 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

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

       Mr. Garamendi moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3 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. 3. 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. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer an 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 immediately be voted 
upon.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know if a question is appropriate, but is this 
February 2? Is this Groundhog Day? I am curious. This is the 10th time 
this bill has been before the House, and those who are in support would 
argue, ``Enough is enough. Let's pass it and get on with it.''
  Those of us in opposition would say, ``Well, why haven't you written 
a bill that is sufficient to the problems raised by the pipeline?''
  Specifically, 10 times on this floor--and even additional times in 
committee--the issue of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund has been 
raised. We have raised that issue 10 times. It has been debated here on 
the floor. I have heard five, six people speak to that issue.
  The chairmen of the committee are well aware that this bill has a 
huge loophole in it allowing one company that owns a pipeline to avoid 
paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
  Why in the world would we move a bill that allows this company, 
unique among all others, to not participate in a very, very important 
part of the protection of communities and the environment?
  The Kalamazoo issue has been raised here--the spill. Over $60 million 
was paid for by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and then reimbursed 
by the pipeline company.
  Let's do something right. This is great fun: back and forth, back and 
forth. We kick this thing around. We may get some political points on 
one side or the other. But why in the world don't we write a decent 
piece of legislation? Why don't we do it right? Why would we exempt one 
company among all of the others of hundreds of pipeline companies and 
allow this one Canadian company--and I love Canada, my son-in-law is a 
Canadian.
  This is about doing what is right. This amendment would simply 
include this company being required to participate in the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund. It is a lot of dollars. It is about $24 million a 
year. That is a pretty good tax break. Who among us would not like to 
have that tax break? I guess we are all going to stand up because we 
want to have it.
  The rest of the story is this: we have spent an enormous amount of 
time on this issue when, in fact, as has been said here many times by 
proponents and opponents, we ought to get on to real infrastructure.
  Consider the time spent on this issue when you consider the time that 
has been spent on transportation bills on this floor. Consider the time 
that we must spend figuring out how to pay for repairing our bridges, 
building our highways, our ports, our airports. Consider that time.
  Ten times, this bill has been here. Ten times, this House has ignored 
a tax

[[Page 355]]

break that is not warranted. It will allow to move forward to the 
Senate a bill that, in its very substance, provides an unwarranted, 
unnecessary, and grossly unequal tax break to one company among all the 
other pipeline companies.
  This amendment simply comes to the point of making sure that this 
pipeline company, like every other petroleum pipeline company in 
America, pays its fair share of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, 
which is essential.
  I see some of my friends from Michigan here. You know how important 
this is. The Kalamazoo River was a big deal--$60 million thus far and 
more to come. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was there to provide 
the early money for the cleanup.
  It is important, folks. My colleagues, this is important. Let's do it 
right. This is our 10th time. Let's do it right. Adopt this amendment. 
We clear up one problem in the bill. We remove one point of opposition, 
and we do what is right.
  I ask for your ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and seek time in 
opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of a point of order is 
withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the motion to recommit, and I 
would just say to all my colleagues: our side certainly views that as a 
procedural issue, not as a real amendment.
  I would say that in the markup that we had on this bill in earlier 
years, I pledged to work with Mrs. Capps on our committee to find a 
solution that would be fair to the bill.
  I support the concept of what the gentleman is doing, and in fact, I 
sent a letter in 2012 to the then-chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Dave Camp, asking for help on this, and we were hoping that 
we would see comprehensive tax reform, and this would have been 
included as part of that.

                              {time}  1230

  But that did not happen. We didn't get tax reform.
  So as this bill comes forward, a review does have to be made in terms 
of how to treat crude oil derived from oil sands for the purposes of 
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. But I have to say that really is a 
Ways and Means issue, now a Transportation issue, not an Energy and 
Commerce issue.
  I know that this issue is going to be raised in the Senate with an 
amendment probably in the next week. I would just say to the gentleman 
and those that support this idea, I look forward to working with our 
Senate colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, as well as Republicans 
and Democrats in this body to, in fact, address this situation that 
does need to happen.
  But as a motion to recommit, we shouldn't do it now. So let my 
Democrat friends vote ``yes.'' I would urge my Republicans on this side 
to vote ``no.'' I just want to give them the assurance that, in fact, 
as this bill moves into the conference, as what I expect to happen, 
that I certainly intend to see an understanding go forward.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), 
the chairman of the Transportation Committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman.
  I am in agreement with the chairman of Energy and Commerce. This is, 
again, something to be dealt with on a tax bill.
  Two things that are good have happened today. One, the Nebraska 
Supreme Court has removed the final hurdle to move this bill forward; 
and number two, my good friend from California and I agreed today on 
something--that this thing should be dealt with. But this is not the 
place or the time to deal with it.
  Moving forward, we want to make sure that this is dealt with in the 
proper way, and I believe that the Ways and Means Committee will do 
that.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you so very much.
  I have enormous respect for the two of you, and this issue has been 
before us many, many times. If we wait for a comprehensive tax reform, 
the tar sands may be totally eliminated and used up. We have an 
opportunity today to get it done.
  Mr. UPTON. Reclaiming my time, we understand that this will not be 
part of a comprehensive tax reform bill. We need to act earlier than 
that.
  With the Senate now passing a bill, in all likelihood next week, 
likely with an amendment addressing this situation, we can deal with it 
as part of that conference report, and I look forward to supporting 
that and the inclusion of such in the final package.
  I would again urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the procedural 
motion to recommit so that we can get to final passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. 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 passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 180, 
nays 237, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 15]

                               YEAS--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer

[[Page 356]]


     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cardenas
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Fincher
     Gosar
     Hinojosa
     McMorris Rodgers
     Moore
     O'Rourke
     Pearce
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Thompson (MS)

                              {time}  1256

  Mrs. ELLMERS, Messrs. BYRNE, HANNA, and STEWART changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ASHFORD, Ms. DelBENE, Messrs. PAYNE, NEAL, Mses. CASTOR of 
Florida and KAPTUR changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


  Moment of Silence in Remembrance of Victims of Terrorist Attacks in 
                                 France

  The SPEAKER. The Chair would ask all present to rise for the purpose 
of a moment of silence.
  The Chair asks that the House now observe a moment of silence in 
memory of the victims of the terrorist attacks in France.
  Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 266, 
nays 153, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 16]

                               YEAS--266

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

                               NAYS--153

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Amash
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Fincher
     Gosar
     Hinojosa
     Moore
     O'Rourke
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Thompson (MS)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1305

  So the bill was passed.

[[Page 357]]

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

                          ____________________