[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2123-2137]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE APPROVAL ACT


                             General Leave

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

                                  S. 1

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. KEYSTONE XL APPROVAL.

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

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

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) School.--The term ``school'' means--
       (A) an elementary school or secondary school (as defined in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801));
       (B) an institution of higher education (as defined in 
     section 102(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1002(a));
       (C) a school of the defense dependents' education system 
     under the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (20 
     U.S.C. 921 et seq.) or established under section 2164 of 
     title 10, United States Code;
       (D) a school operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
       (E) a tribally controlled school (as defined in section 
     5212 of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25 
     U.S.C. 2511)); and
       (F) a Tribal College or University (as defined in section 
     316(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1059c(b))).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (b) Designation of Lead Agency.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
     shall act as the lead Federal agency for coordinating and 
     disseminating information on existing Federal programs and 
     assistance that may be used to help initiate, develop, and 
     finance energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy 
     retrofitting projects for schools.
       (c) Requirements.--In carrying out coordination and 
     outreach under subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
       (1) in consultation and coordination with the appropriate 
     Federal agencies, carry out a review of existing programs and 
     financing mechanisms (including revolving loan funds and loan 
     guarantees) available in or from the Department of 
     Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of 
     Education, the Department of the Treasury, the Internal 
     Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
     other appropriate Federal agencies with jurisdiction over 
     energy financing and facilitation that are currently used or 
     may be used to help initiate, develop, and finance energy 
     efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting 
     projects for schools;
       (2) establish a Federal cross-departmental collaborative 
     coordination, education, and outreach effort to streamline 
     communication and promote available Federal opportunities and 
     assistance described in paragraph (1) for energy efficiency, 
     renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects that 
     enables States, local educational agencies, and schools--
       (A) to use existing Federal opportunities more effectively; 
     and
       (B) to form partnerships with Governors, State energy 
     programs, local educational, financial, and energy officials, 
     State and local government officials, nonprofit 
     organizations, and other appropriate entities to support the 
     initiation of the projects;
       (3) provide technical assistance for States, local 
     educational agencies, and schools to help develop and finance 
     energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting 
     projects--
       (A) to increase the energy efficiency of buildings or 
     facilities;
       (B) to install systems that individually generate energy 
     from renewable energy resources;
       (C) to establish partnerships to leverage economies of 
     scale and additional financing mechanisms available to larger 
     clean energy initiatives; or
       (D) to promote--
       (i) the maintenance of health, environmental quality, and 
     safety in schools, including the ambient air quality, through 
     energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofit 
     projects; and
       (ii) the achievement of expected energy savings and 
     renewable energy production through proper operations and 
     maintenance practices;
       (4) develop and maintain a single online resource website 
     with contact information for relevant technical assistance 
     and support staff in the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
     Renewable Energy for States, local educational agencies, and 
     schools to effectively access and use Federal opportunities 
     and assistance described in paragraph (1) to develop energy 
     efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting 
     projects; and
       (5) establish a process for recognition of schools that--
       (A) have successfully implemented energy efficiency, 
     renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects; and
       (B) are willing to serve as resources for other local 
     educational agencies and schools to assist initiation of 
     similar efforts.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the implementation of this section.

     SEC. 4. CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBES.

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

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

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

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

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) Congress should approve a bill to ensure that all forms 
     of bitumen or synthetic crude

[[Page 2124]]

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

               DIVISION B--ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

                       TITLE I--BETTER BUILDINGS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) High-performance energy efficiency measure.--The term 
     `high-performance energy efficiency measure' means a 
     technology, product, or practice that will result in 
     substantial operational cost savings by reducing energy 
     consumption and utility costs.
       ``(2) Separate spaces.--The term `separate spaces' means 
     areas within a commercial building that are leased or 
     otherwise occupied by a tenant or other occupant for a period 
     of time pursuant to the terms of a written agreement.
       ``(b) Study.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
     Energy, shall complete a study on the feasibility of--
       ``(A) significantly improving energy efficiency in 
     commercial buildings through the design and construction, by 
     owners and tenants, of separate spaces with high-performance 
     energy efficiency measures; and
       ``(B) encouraging owners and tenants to implement high-
     performance energy efficiency measures in separate spaces.
       ``(2) Scope.--The study shall, at a minimum, include--
       ``(A) descriptions of--
       ``(i) high-performance energy efficiency measures that 
     should be considered as part of the initial design and 
     construction of separate spaces;
       ``(ii) processes that owners, tenants, architects, and 
     engineers may replicate when designing and constructing 
     separate spaces with high-performance energy efficiency 
     measures;
       ``(iii) policies and best practices to achieve reductions 
     in energy intensities for lighting, plug loads, heating, 
     cooling, cooking, laundry, and other systems to satisfy the 
     needs of the commercial building tenant;
       ``(iv) return on investment and payback analyses of the 
     incremental cost and projected energy savings of the proposed 
     set of high-performance energy efficiency measures, including 
     consideration of available incentives;
       ``(v) models and simulation methods that predict the 
     quantity of energy used by separate spaces with high-
     performance energy efficiency measures and that compare that 
     predicted quantity to the quantity of energy used by separate 
     spaces without high-performance energy efficiency measures 
     but that otherwise comply with applicable building code 
     requirements;
       ``(vi) measurement and verification platforms demonstrating 
     actual energy use of high-performance energy efficiency 
     measures installed in separate spaces, and whether such 
     measures generate the savings intended in the initial design 
     and construction of the separate spaces;
       ``(vii) best practices that encourage an integrated 
     approach to designing and constructing separate spaces to 
     perform at optimum energy efficiency in conjunction with the 
     central systems of a commercial building; and
       ``(viii) any impact on employment resulting from the design 
     and construction of separate spaces with high-performance 
     energy efficiency measures; and
       ``(B) case studies reporting economic and energy savings 
     returns in the design and construction of separate spaces 
     with high-performance energy efficiency measures.
       ``(3) Public participation.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary 
     shall publish a notice in the Federal Register requesting 
     public comments regarding effective methods, measures, and 
     practices for the design and construction of separate spaces 
     with high-performance energy efficiency measures.
       ``(4) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish the study 
     on the website of the Department of Energy.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 423 
     the following new item:

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

     SEC. 104. TENANT STAR PROGRAM.

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

     ``SEC. 425. TENANT STAR PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) High-performance energy efficiency measure.--The term 
     `high-performance energy efficiency measure' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 424.
       ``(2) Separate spaces.--The term `separate spaces' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 424.
       ``(b) Tenant Star.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Energy, shall develop a voluntary program within the Energy 
     Star program established by section 324A of the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294a), which may be known as 
     `Tenant Star', to promote energy efficiency in separate 
     spaces leased by tenants or otherwise occupied within 
     commercial buildings.

[[Page 2125]]

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

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

                  TITLE II--GRID-ENABLED WATER HEATERS

     SEC. 201. GRID-ENABLED WATER HEATERS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(ii) Effective date.--If the Secretary exercises the 
     authority described in clause (i) or amends the efficiency 
     requirement for grid-enabled water heaters, that action will 
     take effect on the date described in subsection 
     (m)(4)(A)(ii).
       ``(iii) Consideration.--In carrying out this section with 
     respect to electric water heaters, the Secretary shall 
     consider the impact on thermal storage and demand response 
     programs, including any impact on energy savings, electric 
     bills, peak load reduction, electric reliability, integration 
     of renewable resources, and the environment.
       ``(iv) Requirements.--In carrying out this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall require that grid-enabled water heaters be 
     equipped with communication capability to enable the grid-
     enabled water heaters to participate in ancillary services 
     programs if the Secretary determines that the technology is 
     available, practical, and cost-effective.'';
       (2) in section 332(a) (42 U.S.C. 6302(a))--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in the first paragraph (6), by striking the period at 
     the end and inserting a semicolon;
       (C) by redesignating the second paragraph (6) as paragraph 
     (7);
       (D) in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (7) (as so 
     redesignated), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) for any person--
       ``(A) to activate an activation lock for a grid-enabled 
     water heater with knowledge that such water heater is not 
     used as part of an electric thermal storage or demand 
     response program;
       ``(B) to distribute an activation key for a grid-enabled 
     water heater with knowledge that such activation key will be 
     used to activate a grid-enabled water heater that is not used 
     as part of an electric thermal storage or demand response 
     program;
       ``(C) to otherwise enable a grid-enabled water heater to 
     operate at its designed specification and capabilities with 
     knowledge that such water heater is not used as part of an 
     electric thermal storage or demand response program; or
       ``(D) to knowingly remove or render illegible the label of 
     a grid-enabled water heater described in section 
     325(e)(6)(A)(ii)(V).'';
       (3) in section 333(a) (42 U.S.C. 6303(a))--

[[Page 2126]]

       (A) by striking ``section 332(a)(5)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (5), (6), (7), or (8) of section 332(a)''; and
       (B) by striking ``paragraph (1), (2), or (5) of section 
     332(a)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1), (2), (5), (6), (7), 
     or (8) of section 332(a)''; and
       (4) in section 334 (42 U.S.C. 6304)--
       (A) by striking ``section 332(a)(5)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (5), (6), (7), or (8) of section 332(a)''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 332(a)(6)'' and inserting 
     ``section 332(a)(7)''.

         TITLE III--ENERGY INFORMATION FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

     SEC. 301. ENERGY INFORMATION FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.

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

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

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

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), 
and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1, the Keystone XL 
Pipeline Approval Act. S. 1 passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 
62-36. This bill is based on H.R. 3 which, last month, the House passed 
by a bipartisan vote of 266-153. S. 1 does not change any of the House 
provisions regarding the Keystone pipeline.
  Here we are again on the floor with a bill that has been approved on 
a bipartisan basis three times in the last 4 months. It is time for the 
President to approve the Keystone pipeline.
  His own administration has found the pipeline would have minimal 
impact on the environment. Congress has shown that there is Republican 
and Democrat support for the pipeline. The last remaining excuse for 
delay--pending litigation in Nebraska--has been resolved. I hope the 
President reconsiders his veto threat on this bill.
  I think he should sign this bill because we all agree we need to 
invest in our Nation's infrastructure, and pipelines are critical to 
the economy. America's pipeline network is immense--2.6 million miles 
of pipe transporting natural gas, oil, and other hazardous materials.
  Pipelines transport more energy product than any other mode of 
transportation in this country. Keystone will be a critical addition to 
the pipeline network, increasing our Nation's supply of oil and 
enhancing our energy independence.
  This project will create good-paying American jobs. As the President 
has stated, ``First-class infrastructure attracts first-class jobs.'' 
Indeed, six unions representing over 3 million workers support this 
project, including the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, 
the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers' 
International Union of North America, the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers, the building and construction trade, and the 
Teamsters.
  It is simply time to move forward on this project, so I urge all my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for S. 1, and I urge the 
President to sign this bill and allow infrastructure to be built in 
this country.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, for anyone watching this debate for the 11th time who 
isn't familiar with the substantive reasons

[[Page 2127]]

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

                              {time}  1530

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

[[Page 2128]]

have to pay. Why is that? Because tar sands are not considered crude 
oil for purposes of contributing to the oil spill liability trust fund. 
We have repeatedly pointed out this egregious and unjustified loophole 
to the majority, and we have repeatedly received assurances that it 
will be addressed--yet it has still not been addressed. In fact, three 
times in this Chamber alone, we have offered amendments to solve this 
problem, but the Republican majority voted each one of them down.
  Now there is this new ``sense of the Senate'' language that was put 
into the bill by the Senate that promises further action on this issue, 
but it is no substitute for real legislation to protect the American 
taxpayer from the financial consequences of a tar sands spill. Make no 
mistake, this language, this sense of Congress or sense of the Senate, 
does nothing to change the equation and end the tar sands oil subsidy.
  Recently, the President stood in this Chamber and noted that 21st 
century businesses need 21st century infrastructure. He said that we 
should ``set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline.'' Yet here 
we are again voting on that single oil pipeline.
  It is my hope that we are nearing the end of this long cycle of 
futile votes to grant special treatment to this single pipeline; and it 
is my hope that sooner rather than later we can get back to trying to 
find agreement on a moderate energy policy, one that is sustainable, 
one that helps the U.S. economy, and one that moves us forward, not 
backward, in the fight against climate change. In the meantime, I urge 
my colleagues once again to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
  Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Madam Speaker, it was 2008 when 
TransCanada first submitted an application to construct the Keystone XL 
pipeline. Six years later, the Keystone pipeline is still awaiting 
approval.
  What does construction of the Keystone pipeline mean for our Nation? 
Over 40,000 jobs, energy security, and increased economic growth. 
Furthermore, the State Department found that construction of the 
Keystone pipeline would pose little environmental risk. In fact, there 
would be greater environmental and safety risks from not building the 
pipeline.
  Despite the obvious benefits and bipartisan support, the President 
has continued to block Keystone's approval. Now he threatens to veto 
the bill, effectively killing the entire Keystone program. After 6-plus 
years, the President has run out of excuses. It is clear that the 
construction of the Keystone pipeline is in our Nation's best 
interests, and we cannot afford to delay any longer.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I wanted to reference again this provision in the bill that the 
Senate put in. The Senate bill contains a provision boldly stating that 
``climate change is real and not a hoax.'' I couldn't agree more with 
that, Madam Speaker, but let's be clear: the Senate Republican majority 
in the same breath rejected another amendment stating that climate 
change is caused by human activity.
  Senators who voted against those amendments are out of step with the 
American people, including many Republicans. In a recent poll, an 
overwhelming majority of Americans, including almost half of 
Republicans, stated support for government action to fight climate 
change and disagreed with those who question that climate change is 
caused by human activity.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have become fond 
of saying that they are not scientists, and I think that we can 
generally agree that is true. But even though they admit they are not 
scientists, it doesn't stop them from questioning the science. Now, I 
am not a scientist either, but when actual scientists speak and say 
there is an overwhelming body of evidence that man-made climate change 
is real and happening now, I listen to the actual scientists. And 
saying that you are not a scientist is, in my opinion, just a way of 
dodging the facts.
  I have to say, Madam Speaker, when I go home to New Jersey, and my 
district was probably more impacted by Superstorm Sandy than any other 
district, I don't see any disagreement between Democrats and 
Republicans in my district. It doesn't matter whether they are State 
legislators or county legislators or mayors or on the council. And I 
have almost as many Republican mayors and councilmen and councilwomen 
as I do Democrats, but all of them agree that climate change is real 
and caused by human activity because they are listening to the 
scientists and they understand that science is important and that we 
should pay attention to it.
  In any event, the ``sense of the Senate'' language affirming that 
climate change is not a hoax does not fix any of the problems with the 
bill before us, and its inclusion doesn't mean that voting ``yes'' 
today will help us in the fight against climate change. In fact, voting 
``yes'' today will move us backward in that fight because one of the 
major concerns that I have and opponents have of Keystone is because it 
will exploit tar sands, it will actually increase greenhouse gas 
significantly. And it is very possible that, without the pipeline, 
those tar sands will simply not be developed or exploited.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).
  Mr. MOOLENAAR. Madam Speaker, it is time to build the Keystone 
pipeline. Building Keystone will create jobs, expand economic 
opportunity, and provide our country with energy from a reliable 
trading partner. It is estimated that the pipeline will carry more than 
30 million gallons of oil per day, and the State Department has 
concluded the pipeline is the safest way to transport it to market. 
Keystone will support job creation by moving oil to American refineries 
where American workers will process it. Thousands of products using 
refined oil are manufactured and purchased by Americans every day, and 
this pipeline has the potential to make those products less expensive.
  The House has passed Keystone policy time and again. Ten times, in 
fact, the House has stood with American workers and consumers. Today, 
we stand with hardworking Americans looking for good-paying jobs. 
Today, we stand with American consumers who will see more of their 
hard-earned money go further at the gas pump.
  Keystone helps secure our country's energy independence, lowers 
energy costs for every American, and supports jobs without raising 
taxes or adding to our debt.
  It is time to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Again, I want to make this point about the impact of low oil prices 
on Keystone and on exploitation of tar sands. The price of oil has 
dropped precipitously in the past few months and is expected to stay in 
the $65 to $75 per barrel range for the foreseeable future. Just last 
month, the price of oil actually dipped below $50 per barrel, and gas 
prices have fallen below $2 per gallon in some areas. Obviously, this 
is good news for the American consumer but bad news for tar sands 
producers who are struggling to remain profitable in the face of rising 
production costs and limited transportation options.
  In a scenario where tar sands are less profitable due to low oil 
prices and transportation constraints, the State Department concluded 
that the construction of Keystone will play a pivotal role in future 
tar sands development and increased carbon pollution that comes from 
it. So just last week, EPA made clear that low oil prices mean that the 
pipeline's impact on future tar sands production could be substantial, 
with significant implications for climate change.
  Now, when I was at Rules, some of my colleagues on the Republican 
side said: Well, if you don't build the pipeline, this tar sands oil is 
going to be transported by rail or by some other

[[Page 2129]]

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

                              {time}  1545

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

[[Page 2130]]


  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. And lastly, Madam Speaker, I will just say 
that this President for years has embraced an all-of-the-above energy 
strategy, all-of-the-above. This pipeline fits that criteria--it is all 
of the above. Perhaps I misunderstood and they were talking 
geographically above. It is coming from Canada. It fits that one too.
  Madam Speaker, this project needs to move forward. It has been 
delayed far too long. All it is going to do by not building this 
project is cause us to rely upon Venezuela and other non-allies for 
energy to power this Nation's economy.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the 
Energy and Power Subcommittee.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, this is deja vu all over again, as for the 
umpteenth time the majority party is trying to jam the Keystone XL 
pipeline through this Congress despite the fact that President Obama 
has made it pretty clear to all who will listen that this bill is 
headed to a veto if it ever reaches his desk.
  Madam Speaker, instead of going through regular order and the 
committee process and working on bipartisan legislation that would 
ultimately create hundreds of thousands of good-paying American jobs, 
such as building up our infrastructure, fixing our roads and bridges, 
and modernizing our energy grid, instead of looking at the interests, 
the real interests of the American people, and working to provide the 
American people much-needed jobs, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle have repeatedly spent valuable time, time that this Congress will 
never, ever see again, trying to grant a regulatory earmark to the 
TransCanada Corporation by short-circuiting the normal permitting 
process and forcing President Obama's hand.
  This is not a jobs bill. Madam Speaker, we need a jobs bill. But 
where are the jobs in this bill? Every time we talk about jobs, every 
time jobs develop on the floor of this House, the Republicans all run 
to one place: that all we need is to build the Keystone XL pipeline and 
that will solve America's job problem. I beg to differ with my friends 
on the other side of the aisle.
  The State Department--our State Department--consulted with 
TransCanada and found out that the construction of this pipeline would 
directly result in about 4,000 jobs in the early stages just to build 
the pipeline. These jobs, Madam Speaker, will last no more than 12 
months--365 days of work provided to the American people. What kind of 
jobs bill are we trying to perpetrate on the American people?
  In addition, Madam Speaker, by building the pipeline, 42,100 1-year 
jobs will be created indirectly across the United States.
  After the Keystone XL pipeline is completed, operation, where the 
permanent jobs are, the real operation where the lasting jobs are, the 
jobs that will provide a future for American families--college 
education, mortgages to pay for their home, put dinner on the table--
these jobs would only amount to about 35 permanent jobs in this 
Nation--35. A franchise burger joint on the corner will provide more 
permanent jobs than this whole Keystone XL pipeline is purported to do.
  Let's put these figures into perspective.
  In 2014, the U.S. economy created nearly 50,000 jobs per week--50,000 
per week in 2014; 230,000 jobs per month. So even taking the most 
favorable estimates for all the indirect and direct jobs, the Keystone 
XL pipeline will produce fewer jobs than the economy is already 
creating on its own in just 7 days--in just one week.
  Taking the lowest estimate for the 35 permanent jobs again, the 
Keystone XL pipeline will produce even fewer jobs, in all of its 
massiveness, in all of the hyperbole that comes from the other side, 
than the economy is already creating in just 1 hour. In the next hour, 
Mr. Speaker, the American economy will produce more jobs than the 
entire Keystone XL pipeline in all of its duration--in just the next 
hour.
  This is not a jobs bill. Where are the priorities for the other side? 
Why are we wasting time on this?
  Let me remind my friends on the other side, in just 2 weeks--just 2 
weeks--the Homeland Security Department will run out of money, putting 
all of the American people, our entire Nation, at risk, in just 2 
weeks.
  Where are your priorities? Doesn't that make more sense than wasting 
our time on creating 35 jobs--35 permanent jobs? We are going to be out 
of this place at the end of the week. Where is the priority for 
American security? Where is the priority for us to spend our time? What 
are the priorities of the majority if we are going to waste our time?
  Here we go again, valuable time. Homeland Security running out of 
money, folks being laid off, our borders are being compromised, 
terrorists are going to have or could have a field day because we have 
not funded Homeland Security.

                              {time}  1600

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

[[Page 2131]]

  They say this is the umpteenth time the Republicans have passed this 
bill. On November 4, as I recall, the Americans elected some umpteen 
new Republicans. I think they are sending a message that they want 
energy independence, that they want a change. They understand that the 
Keystone pipeline means energy independence.
  Yes, this House will pass this bill. We will send it to the 
President. A little over a year ago, the President said, if Congress 
wouldn't act, he had a phone and a pen, and he would. Now Congress is 
acting, and he is saying: I have got a pen, and I am going to veto.
  Which way is it, Mr. President? You can't have it both ways.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Maybe, if the people on the other side of the 
aisle don't vote for this bill, we will get it passed, and the 
President will veto it. Then maybe Americans will elect some umpteen 
more Republicans.
  It is time to move this bill and get it done.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 15 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I want to thank our ranking member for 
allowing me to have 2 minutes to talk about how I support the Keystone 
pipeline. We have a little diversity on our side.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline 
Approval Act.
  I represent a refinery and chemical plant community in Houston, east 
Harris County, Texas. We have five refineries in my area alone, which 
would use that Keystone crude oil. In fact, Congressman Weber has the 
eastern leg of it, and I have the western leg that actually stops in 
our district. We have two, big, old, huge tanks in Channelview, Texas, 
which are ready to get that oil and distribute it to our refineries. We 
have refineries, literally, from Corpus Christi over to Pascagoula in 
the Gulf of Mexico, on the gulf coast, that could use that crude oil. 
They are already using heavier crude from other parts of the world.
  It has taken 6 years to get this permit for the pipeline's 
development. This is the longest study of any cross-border pipeline 
that I have ever seen. Unfortunately, because of the backlog, we have 
11 other cross-border projects that have not moved through the process. 
Some of these are just a simple name change, and that is the problem. 
The Presidential permitting process has broken down. That is why 
Congress needs to act. The State Department has studied the project 
four different times. Each time, they have come back and have said that 
the environmental and climate impacts would be negligible.
  Let me talk about the jobs issue.
  We will have a year of high-paid pipefitters, teamsters, laborers, 
electrical workers--you name it. Those are great jobs, and they are 
high paying for a year. Construction jobs are temporary. Then they will 
go on to another job, and, frankly, in Texas, we have no shortage of 
need for pipelines even though I have never not lived on a pipeline 
easement in Houston, Texas.
  The bill is not as perfect as I would like, but we need to send this 
bill to the President--it got out of the Senate--and give the President 
a chance to do it. We need cross-border pipelines whether it is Canada 
to the United States, Texas to Mexico, or the United States to Mexico, 
or back.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1, the Keystone XL 
Pipeline Approval Act. I represent a refinery/chemical plants. The 
refineries on the Gulf Coast will use the crude oil.
  I rise in support of this bill because I support North American 
energy development.
  The pipeline has been in development and waiting for approval for six 
years. This is the longest study of any cross-border pipeline that I 
have ever seen.
  Unfortunately, because of this backlog, there are now 11 other cross-
border projects that have not moved through the process.
  Some of these projects are as simple as a name change.
  The Presidential Permitting Process has become nothing more than a 
political game.
  Opponents of domestic infrastructure projects use the process to 
delay projects endlessly in an attempt to raise money under the guise 
of environmental protection.
  The State Department has studied this project four different times.
  Each time, the Department reported back that the environmental and 
climate impacts would be negligible.
  However, opponents of the project do not like that answer so they 
continue their attack until the project is deferred.
  Opponents of the project now decry that because oil prices are low, 
more studies should be conducted.
  Opponents cite low oil prices as a reason the federal government 
shouldn't approve the project.
  Last time I checked, the federal government wasn't involved in 
private business decisions.
  If oil prices remain low, the market will dictate which projects 
remain viable and which do not.
  The federal government has one job to do and should complete its work 
in a timely fashion.
  Further, opponents claim that Keystone XL will only result in 35 
permanent jobs.
  What they fail to address is that Keystone XL, along with the 
majority of other cross-border facilities, will create thousands of 
construction jobs.
  Those who oppose the project say, those are only temporary jobs.
  Well, to my friends who oppose the project, construction jobs by 
their very nature are temporary jobs.
  But I can tell you this, the pipefitters, operating engineers, 
electrical and Teamster laborers that work on their segment of the 
pipeline are darn happy to have that job.
  That is a large paycheck to help support his or her family.
  I continue to urge support for the Keystone XL pipeline.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, I ask my colleagues to support this bill, this pipeline, 
that is said to have been the most studied and will be the safest 
pipeline. It will help out one of our great allies, and it will help us 
keep energy costs down in this country. It will create over 40,000 
infrastructure jobs. Yes, they are temporary, but as we all know, those 
jobs will go to helping the families of the construction workers. They 
will move on to other jobs, and these will also be a spinoff to other 
jobs to help keep this pipeline viable for years to come.
  Let me finish with a final quote from a well-known American--an 
American respected by the other side of the aisle, an American trusted 
by the other side of the aisle, an American listened to by the other 
side of the aisle. He says:

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

  That American, ladies and gentlemen, is President Barack Obama. He 
said that in 2009, but he was talking about the Enbridge Alberta 
Clipper. I don't know what has changed, but this quote could go right 
towards this pipeline. It does all of the same things, and it has all 
of the positive impact that that pipeline has. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill, to send it to the President, and to ask the 
President to reconsider his veto threat.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.

[[Page 2132]]


  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton) control the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 16\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Here we are, once again, to debate legislation on the Keystone XL 
pipeline. For the past 6 years, this project has been thoroughly vetted 
by the Congress and the administration. There is no question in my mind 
that the Keystone XL is in the national interest, so let's look again 
at the facts:
  It is a jobs project. The President's own State Department has 
confirmed that Keystone is going to support 42,000 jobs across the 
country;
  Keystone is going to be safe. Yes, it is. Pipelines remain one of the 
very safest and most efficient ways to transport energy, and Keystone 
is going to rank at the top of the class when it comes to safety. The 
pipeline, in fact, is going to incorporate some 59 additional safety 
standards proposed by PHMSA, and it will adhere to the rigorous new 
pipeline safety standards on which I worked with John Dingell to get 
signed into law in the last Congress;
  Keystone is better for the environment. Yes, it is. We know that 
Canada is going to continue to develop its rich oil sands regardless of 
whether we build the pipeline. If we don't build it, that oil is going 
to continue to get to the marketplace through other, more carbon-
intensive means;
  Keystone is going to enhance our energy security and help energy 
prices stay stable and affordable. We know this respite from high gas 
prices won't last forever, and prices have already begun to tick back 
up. By bringing more North American energy to the market, the pipeline 
can help protect us against future price spikes and overseas 
disruptions. We want as much certainty in the marketplace as we can.
  The President said last week that, again, another reason he is 
against this is that gas prices are low. Yesterday's Wall Street 
Journal headline above the fold reads: ``Oil-Price Rebound Predicted.'' 
That is right. They are going to go up. Americans understand supply and 
demand. The Keystone pipeline is very positive for us in the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter that we 
received just an hour or so ago from the Canadian Embassy.

                                             Canadian Embassy,

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

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

                              {time}  1615

  With regard to the pump station spill in North Dakota, on the 
original pipeline, I know it well. I sited that line. The good news was 
that everything worked. The alarms went off. The bells shut down. The 
farmer even called the

[[Page 2133]]

company. There was a spill. It was corrected. There was no negative 
environmental impact.
  With regard to the types of jobs, I saw them firsthand. These are 
permanent jobs. Yes, they are temporary on that particular job, but 88 
percent of the steel used in the Keystone XL pipeline has been sourced 
from North Carolina. That is 88 percent.
  I want to finish by reading this quote from Danny Hendrix. Danny says 
this with regard to what kind of jobs will be created by the XL:

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

  Danny Hendrix is a business manager for Pipeliners Local 798 in 
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
  These are real jobs, and to belittle them in any way, Mr. Speaker, to 
degrade them in any way, is intellectually dishonest and disrespectful.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Keystone XL pipeline. It 
is going to create 42,000 jobs. By the way, those jobs that you are 
talking about that will be part-time, I guarantee you the Department of 
Labor will include them in their numbers when they talk about how great 
we are becoming.
  This is the most federally reviewed pipeline in U.S. history--it is 6 
years--and the thing about this that is most impressive is it doesn't 
cost the American taxpayer one single penny. It is privately funded. 
And I would guarantee you that along that pipeline, as it is 
constructed, all those communities are going to benefit from the fact 
they have people working there, staying in their hotels, buying their 
food, enhancing their local economy.
  How many more times do we have to talk about this? This is not a 
Republican issue, by the way. This is an American issue. A majority of 
the American people support this, and Democrats and Republicans in both 
the House and the Senate. It is bipartisan and bicameral. My goodness, 
how rare is that? Business groups and labor unions. You know what? Even 
President Bill Clinton and President Bush agree this is something that 
needs to be done.
  News outlets from Bloomberg to The Washington Post to USA Today all 
say: Build it.
  USA Today gets it right. They say:

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

  President Obama must say ``yes'' to new jobs, he must say ``yes'' to 
bipartisanship, he must say ``yes'' to good government, he must say 
``yes'' to America, and he must say ``yes'' to the Keystone pipeline. 
It is long past due, my friends.
  Let's move American forward, let's become energy self-sustaining, and 
let's be the leader in the world when it comes to energy. This debate 
is way past time, and the thought that we shouldn't do it now because 
the oil market is down, my goodness, nothing could be further from the 
truth.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I am having kind of a deja vu moment and
a holy cow moment both at the same time. It is deja vu because we 
already passed a Homeland Security funding bill. So that bill has 
shifted to the Senate. Somebody apparently didn't get that memo. I am 
having this holy cow moment because I can't believe I am standing up 
here in support of the Senate-passed Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the broad support for building the Keystone XL pipeline 
is truly remarkable. This bill is bipartisan. It is bicameral. In fact, 
it commanded a supermajority in the Senate. A majority of the American 
people want to see the pipeline constructed. The pipeline has been 
studied and studied and studied again, in fact, way up to the State 
Department, which approved the pipeline more than a year ago.
  This kind of support for a piece of legislation is a rarity in 
Washington. It doesn't get any better than this. And that is because 
the pipeline has unquestionable merit. It directly creates jobs. It is 
a shot in the arm for our energy economy. It will make America more 
energy secure, an aspiration of Presidents and Congresses for decades. 
And it is now within our grasp if we choose to seize it. Why our 
President would choose to veto this bill is beyond rational 
explanation. Its economic benefits could not be more evident.
  Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope the President reconsiders his threat to 
veto this so American workers can finally start to construct and reap 
the benefits for the American people.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of approving the 
Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline is widely supported by Americans and 
by a bipartisan majority in this House and in the Senate.
  In the more than 6 years since the application to build the pipeline, 
the President has refused to authorize it, citing two reasons. Number 
one, environmental challenges. But, Mr. Speaker, the pipeline has 
undergone numerous environmental assessments, and the U.S. State 
Department's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement confirms 
the minimal impact of the pipeline on the environment.
  Number two, legal challenges. But, Mr. Speaker, on January 9, 2015, 
the Nebraska Supreme Court approved the pathway of the pipeline.
  The President has no more excuses to deny the completion of the 
Keystone XL, and I urge him to rescind his veto threat of this critical 
energy and infrastructure bill.
  Americans want a true all-of-the-above energy policy that boosts our 
goal of North American energy independence, benefits consumers, creates 
jobs, protects our environment, and preserves our natural resources.
  This bill accomplishes all of those goals. However, Mr. Speaker, the 
President continues to block this essential energy and infrastructure 
project and the jobs it would provide to our hardworking American 
families.
  Further, due to the bureaucratic delays of the past 6 years, this 
project is now costing 50 percent more than its original announcement.
  In my district alone, the pipeline has supported over 600 jobs at 
Welspun Tubular, headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, where 700 
miles of this pipe are stacked up at the rail head ready to put in the 
ground.
  Mr. Speaker, if approved, this project will provide thousands more 
jobs and over $3.4 billion for our Nation's economy. The President is 
out of excuses. It is time to approve this project.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said this is the time to pass 
it. It is not the time to pass it. The time to pass it is after all the 
reports and studies are in. The State Department hasn't completed its 
study.
  It is kind of like what we are doing in this Congress. We are not 
going by our regular procedures. We are not having bills in committee 
and opportunities for amendments on the floor because we bring things 
up here to make it the political issue du jour.
  This is not the time for the bill, just like it is not the time for 
the Prime Minister to come and speak from that well. It should be after 
his election and after the negotiations with Iran are over. This should 
be after the State Department has told us what their opinion is, and 
then let the President make his decision.
  We should go back to regular order. I hope the House will return to 
regular order.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page 2134]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline Approval Act.
  I think on both sides all we talk about is creating jobs. For 6 
years, this project has been studied. We hear that over and over again. 
Every environmental report has been favorable. In fact, the President's 
own State Department says that the construction of this pipeline will 
create tens of thousands of jobs.
  At a time when millions of Americans are struggling, this is a 
project that is ready to go. As we said, we have pipeline stacked up 
and ready to put in the ground.
  The Keystone pipeline is not just important to growing our economy. 
This project is critical to securing North American energy independence 
and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
  Congress has taken action with bipartisan support, and finally we 
will put this priority on the President's desk. I urge the President to 
listen to the American people who support this project and reconsider 
his threat to veto this critical legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding time and 
the work you have done on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1 to approve the Keystone 
XL pipeline after what has turned out to be an unacceptable 6-year 
delay by the Obama administration.
  Many have stated that this bill is about creating jobs. And guess 
what? They are right. The pipeline would create over 40,000 jobs 
without a dime of taxpayer funding, helping to pull eager American 
workers out of the unemployment line.
  Approval of the pipeline would also bring down energy costs here at 
home, lifting a huge burden on hardworking families, small businesses, 
and farmers.
  Moreover, clearing the construction of the Keystone pipeline puts us 
closer to North American energy independence to reduce our dependence 
on oil from foreign sources that are all too often at odds with 
America's interests and our national security.
  So the bill we debate today is about jobs. It is about making energy 
more affordable. But it is also about making our country safer. This 
bill will help us stop funding both sides of the war on terror.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 
4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that we have any further 
speakers. I am willing to close, if the gentleman goes first.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The bill grants a regulatory earmark to TransCanada Corporation, 
effectively exempting TransCanada's Keystone tar sands pipeline from 
all Federal permitting requirements, including requirements that apply 
to every other construction project in the country.
  Keystone will increase carbon pollution and threaten critical water 
resources. Tar sands are a dirty, high-polluting fuel. On a lifecycle 
basis, tar sands crude produces up to 40 percent more carbon pollution 
than conventional oil. And even with the current proposed route, leaks 
from the highly corrosive crude in the pipeline would still threaten 
the aquifer, a critical resource for drinking water and irrigation.
  Mr. Speaker, we don't need this dirty oil. Since Keystone was 
proposed, we have cut U.S. oil demand. We have dramatically boosted 
less-polluting U.S. oil production. In fact, much of the tar sands oil 
will not go to America but will go through America and be exported 
overseas. This leaves the United States with all the risk and no 
reward.
  I would urge my colleagues once again to vote ``no'' on this 
legislation. It is not good for this country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not new science. We have got existing oil and 
gas pipelines that cross the border. We have got a million miles of 
pipeline or so within the United States. Safety standards, rightly so, 
are a lot higher than they used to be, and we will continue to oversee 
this.
  Canada is our friend. We get oil and gas from Canada today. We have 
expanded many of our refineries by billions of dollars trying to get 
prepared for new pipeline commodities coming from the north.
  It is time to build this. It has been 6 years. I remember well 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a number of years ago saying that 
they would be ready before the end of that year to complete their 
studies to get this thing done. Well, 6 years has now come, and it is 
time for us to act.
  The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled the way that they did in support 
of this. We know that the carbon footprint is less by putting it in a 
pipeline, and we know that it is safer than other means of 
transportation.
  Again, we know that Canada is going to sell this oil somewhere. And 
if they don't get it in a pipeline here to the U.S., that pipeline is 
going to go 2,000 miles to the east and get on a boat or a barge--a 
higher carbon footprint. Isn't it better to do it here, to build it, 
put it in a pipeline here in the U.S.?

                              {time}  1630

  This bill, we were accepting the Senate bill. Yes, they finally 
passed this bill. Let's pass this bill this afternoon. Let's send it to 
the President. Let's hope that he might reconsider a proposed veto on 
this bill, and let's deal with the issue, and let's get it done.
  There is a reason why better than 65 percent of Americans support 
this. They understand it. They understand supply and demand. We want 
gas prices to stay stable. We know that this oil that we get from 
Canada will displace oil coming either from the Middle East or from 
Venezuela. Why is that not a good thing?
  Please vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in opposition to the 
Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act (S. 1). Despite no evidence 
suggesting that Congressional intervention is needed, this is the 
second time this Congress that the Republicans are bringing forward a 
bill to sidestep federal requirements and approve TransCanada's 
application for the Keystone Pipeline. I oppose this legislation and 
support the ongoing federal review of the environmental, safety, and 
economic impacts of this application to determine if this pipeline is 
truly in our national interest.
  The Keystone XL pipeline would transmit oil 1,700 miles from the tar 
sands of Alberta, Canada across the U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico where it 
would be refined and exported to global markets. According to federal 
law, the State Department must complete an environmental review of all 
cross-border projects of this magnitude. The State Department requested 
comments on Keystone XL by February 2, 2015 from the Pentagon, the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Departments of Energy, 
Justice, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, and Homeland Security. The 
EPA released their public comments on this day stating that the recent 
trend of global decline in oil prices should be factored in on whether 
to approve Keystone XL pipeline. The State Department needs the time to 
thoroughly evaluate the EPA and other agencies' comments.
  In Minnesota, this project has the potential to negatively impact our 
economy. The Keystone XL pipeline would divert Canadian oil that now 
flows to refineries in Minnesota and the upper Midwest to the Gulf of 
Mexico. Diverting oil away from Minnesota could result in job losses at 
our refineries. Respected oil economist Philip Verleger wrote an op-ed 
published in the Star Tribune in March 2011 stating that in his expert 
opinion the oil diversion will diminish supply, resulting in an 
increase in the cost of oil and food for Minnesotans and the rest of 
the Midwest. In fact, he states the country as a whole would end up 
paying nearly $5 billion more for oil than we do today if the pipeline 
is built. Other economists have estimated that the pipeline will result 
in the creation of only 50 permanent jobs nationally.
  President Obama has stated that he will veto this legislation because 
S. 1 sidesteps the process for deciding whether a cross-border pipeline 
serves the national interest of the

[[Page 2135]]

American people. I support the President's decision to veto S. 1. The 
precedent of forgoing our national due diligence in order to benefit of 
a foreign company is irresponsible. The American people deserve an 
adequate review is conducted. Trading dubious economic benefits for 
potentially disastrous environmental consequences and higher costs for 
Minnesota families and small businesses is simply not a trade I am 
willing to make.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Keystone 
XL Pipeline Approval Act and instead bring a bill to the House floor 
that works to strengthen the middle class.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 100, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be read a third time and was read the third 
time.


                            Motion to Commit

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

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

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

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

  Mr. UPTON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of 
order against the motion to commit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the final amendment to 
this bill.
  Passage of this amendment will not prevent passage of the underlying 
bill. If it is adopted, my amendment will simply be incorporated into 
the bill, and the bill would be immediately voted upon.
  Mr. Speaker, no matter if you support or oppose Keystone XL, we can 
all agree that extracting and transporting oil has some serious risks. 
It only takes one small crack, one small mistake, to cause a major oil 
spill and a catastrophe, irreparable damage to the surrounding 
communities and to the environment.
  History has shown us that there is simply no such thing as a 
spillproof well or pipeline. Accidents happen, and they will continue 
to happen, regardless of what we are told by the oil companies building 
and maintaining the pipelines.
  In fact, accidents have already happened 14 times on the existing 
section of the Keystone pipeline, and these oil spills don't just 
devastate the surrounding environment. They harm lives and livelihoods 
as well.
  In 1969, my home district in California experienced one of the worst 
oil spills in American history. I saw, firsthand, the devastating 
damage to our local economy, to human health, to property, to natural 
resources. We have sadly seen this happen far too many times since then 
in communities all around this country.
  The Deepwater Horizon disaster cost 11 lives, billions of dollars in 
economic damages, and untold devastation to the delicate ecosystem of 
the gulf. That very same year, we saw as well a terrible spill in 
Kalamazoo, Michigan. This spill was particularly noteworthy because it 
involved tar sands oil, which is the same type of oil that would flow 
through the Keystone pipeline.
  Tar sands oil is much harder to clean up than standard crude, which 
is one of the reasons the spill took nearly $1 billion and several 
years to clean up.
  Mr. Speaker, despite numerous assurances that Keystone XL will be 
safer and that the risk of a spill will be minimal, safer simply does 
not equal safe. That is why we have the oil spill liability trust fund, 
to ensure that the oil companies that create these messes will also pay 
for them to clean them up.
  This trust fund is financed by an 8 cents per-barrel fee on crude oil 
and petroleum products, but TransCanada is currently not even required 
to contribute to the trust fund for Keystone because tar sands oil is 
not considered crude oil for purposes of this program--a loophole, if I 
have ever heard of one.
  If there is a spill, taxpayers and local communities, not those 
responsible, could be stuck paying for this cleanup. That is why I am 
offering this straightforward amendment.
  My amendment would simply require TransCanada to certify that it will 
pay the same per-barrel fee for its tar sands oil as it does for its 
regular crude. It would ensure that TransCanada--and not taxpayers--pay 
to clean up its own mess in the event of a spill.
  I have offered this amendment several times before, both in committee 
and here on the floor, so the majority should be quite familiar with 
this issue. In fact, the majority has assured us on several occasions 
that they would work with us, on Ways and Means Committee as well, to 
resolve this issue; yet the majority has failed to even propose a 
meaningful solution, let alone bring one to the floor for a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward issue that should have 
bipartisan support. We taxpayers, if we are going to bear 100 percent 
of the risk of an oil spill from this Keystone pipeline, the least we 
can do is to ensure that those that are responsible for it also pay to 
clean it up.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, to protect American 
taxpayers, and hold oil companies accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I might just start off by asking my dear 
friend from California a quick question: If this motion was adopted, 
would she be voting for the bill? Yes or no.
  I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. CAPPS. As I said in my opening remarks, I would not, but as we 
know, the bill would still pass.
  Mr. UPTON. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlelady's interest 
on this, and I share her concern.
  I would note, and I know that I would also speak for my colleague, 
Chairman Shuster, as we did write then-chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Dave Camp, back in 2012, May 21, I sent a letter to the Ways 
and Means chair encouraging that this exemption be--loophole--be fixed.
  As you know, meaningful tax reform did not emerge from the last 
Congress. I remain absolutely committed to resolving this, as I know 
Bill Shuster has said so on the Record.
  Besides that though, it has been years that we have been debating 
this, and we finally have a bill out of the Senate. They took a whole 
month on the other side. They considered lots of amendments. They 
adopted three. We are accepting those three amendments when this bill 
passes today, as we did not go to conference.
  As we know, this is a jurisdictional issue, that neither our 
committee nor Transportation has jurisdiction over tax issues. That is 
why we were not able to include that provision here, and that is, 
frankly, why the Senate was not able to adopt it on the Senate side

[[Page 2136]]

either, because it would have been a blue slip issue.
  We view this on our side as a procedural issue. We don't want to send 
it back to the Senate. Who knows when we are going to get it back after 
the last month that they had.
  I would urge my colleagues on our side to vote ``no'' on this 
procedural vote. To the folks on your side that are voting, just know 
that we remain committed to closing this loophole.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to commit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to commit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; and the motion to 
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 431.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 181, 
nays 241, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 74]

                               YEAS--181

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

                               NAYS--241

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

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

                              {time}  1704

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

                             [Roll No. 75]

                               YEAS--270

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Doyle (PA)
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer

[[Page 2137]]


     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--152

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

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

                              {time}  1713

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

                          ____________________