[Pages H168-H181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT

General Leave

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

H.R. 3

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. KEYSTONE XL APPROVAL.

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), and
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I enthusiastically rise today to support H.R. 3, the Keystone XL
Pipeline Act. And for those who have not heard, according to the
administration, the

[[Page H169]]

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

International Brotherhood

of Teamsters,

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

International Union of

Operating Engineers,

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

International Union of

Operating Engineers,

Washington, DC, January 7, 2015.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: The International
Union of Operating Engineers supports the passage of H.R. 3,
the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, and respectfully requests that
you vote for the legislation on Friday when it will be
considered on the floor of the House of Representatives.
After five different Environmental Impact Statements and
over six years of evaluation, the Keystone XL pipeline has
been the most exhaustively reviewed pipeline in history. All
of the federal studies have reached the same conclusion: The
Keystone XL pipeline merits approval. It is time for Congress
to act and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
As you know, the International Union of Operating Engineers
(IUOE) proudly represents heavy equipment operators and
mechanics in the construction industry throughout the United
States and Canada. A large cadre of our members possess
specialized training and years of practical experience
building oil and gas pipeline infrastructure. Members on both
sides of the border hope to build the Keystone XL. Members of
the Operating Engineers, through the collective bargaining
process, will earn roughly $35 an hour on their checks as
they build the Keystone XL. The project is expected to
generate approximately 3,000 job-years for Operating
Engineers alone. With congressional approval of the pipeline,
you can unleash this massive economic activity--at no cost to
taxpayers.
The misguided criticism of the pipeline by the
environmental community does not change the facts. Virtually
the whole critique depends on a fundamental misunderstanding
of the oil-transportation industry and its economics. Despite
the conclusion of five different environmental studies,
critics of the project refuse to accept that Keystone XL has
little or no effect on the extraction rate of oil sands.
Alternative transportation methods will step in to move the
commodity, irrespective of the Keystone XL decision. The oil
and gas industry possesses too much operational flexibility
to allow one pipeline to limit the extraction rates of oil
sands in Western Canada. Rail and other pipeline alternatives
are ready to move oil sands and Bakken crude.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
has ensured that Keystone XL will be safer than any other
domestic oil pipeline system built under current

[[Page H170]]

code as a result of its required 59 Special Conditions. These
conditions usually accompany pipeline requirements in a
``High-Consequence Area''--steep slope, for example. Yet
these conditions will apply across the entirety of the
Keystone XL pipeline. The conditions relate to everything
from manufacturing specifications of pipe, to construction
techniques, to post-construction monitoring.
This $5 billion privately-funded pipeline will move an
essential North American commodity more safely than other
alternatives. It will also grow the economy by putting
thousands of Operating Engineers and other construction
workers back on the job.
The International Union of Operating Engineers respectfully
requests your support for H.R. 3, legislation to approve the
Keystone XL pipeline. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James T. Callahan,
General President.

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

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

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

TransCanada,

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

Dear Landowner: While we continue to wait for decisions
from the Nebraska Supreme Court and from the U.S. Department
of State regarding our proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, I would
like to provide you with an update on our project.
To date, Nebraska landowners have voluntarily granted us
easements representing 84 percent of the required right-of-
way for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. We continue to work
to acquire the remaining land rights. In Montana and South
Dakota, we have acquired easements for 100 percent of the
privately owned right-of-way.
Between September 2008 and earlier this year, five
successive sets of extensive public comments were taken and
five successive independent environmental assessments were
published by the State Department. Each review confirmed the
safety and environmental soundness of the project. The State
Department is continuing its review of our Presidential
Permit application and will ultimately make a determination
whether the project is in the national interest. The State
Department has not announced a definitive timeline for
reaching that decision.
In addition, reviews have been completed separately by the
States of Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota. As with the
federal reviews, these state reviews included extensive
public input. Each resulted in state approval of the project.
In South Dakota, the South Dakota Public Utilities
Commission approved the project in 2010. Because construction
did not begin within four years, we must certify that the
pipeline continues to meet the conditions upon which the
permit was issued. We have initiated the certification
process and we expect a decision in 2015.
The State of Nebraska enacted legislation in 2011 and in
2012 requiring state review of the proposed Keystone XL
Pipeline route. The Governor approved the route in January
2013, after a year-long public review process overseen by the
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Following a
legal challenge of the new law, a lower court determined that
the law was not valid and that the review should have been
overseen by the Nebraska Public Service Commission. The
Nebraska Attorney General appealed the lower court ruling to
the Nebraska Supreme Court and the Court is expected to make
a ruling later this year or early next year.
Pending a decision on the appeal, the law remains in effect
as does the resulting Keystone XL route. In the event that
the Nebraska Supreme Court affirms the lower court ruling
invalidating the new law, we would expect a second Nebraska
review to be required, this time by the Nebraska Public
Service Commission.
If instead, the Nebraska Supreme Court reverses the lower
court ruling, affirming the validity of the existing state
review, we expect that other aspects of that law would remain
in effect as well. One of those aspects affects the timing
available to complete negotiations to acquire remaining
property rights in Nebraska. If parties ultimately are not
able to reach voluntary agreement on acquisition of necessary
land rights for the project, we are required to commence the
legal process of eminent domain to obtain those rights within
two years of the January 2013 Nebraska approval.
We recognize that the Supreme Court ruling may not be
issued before we are required to take action in preparation
for the existing January 2015 deadline. While we would prefer
not to initiate the process to acquire outstanding land
rights while there is uncertainty, we are bound by that
deadline in order to meet our responsibility to continue to
prepare to build the pipeline necessary to safely transport
North American energy.
Regardless of your perspective on the project, we would
welcome the opportunity to address your questions and
concerns and discuss property-specific details for pipeline
construction. When we are able to work with landowners to
achieve mutual agreement where possible, we are better able
to minimize potential effects of construction on land and
operations.
A member of my land team will follow-up with you or your
legal counsel. If you have not heard from us or if you have
questions, you are welcome to contact me. If you would like
to see an operating pipeline, please let us know and we'd be
happy to arrange for a

[[Page H171]]

tour of a pump station on the operating Keystone line in
Nebraska.
Sincerely,

Andrew Craig,

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

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

{time} 1115

So those are just a few of the problems.
And by passing this bill, the House of Representatives will attempt
to preempt the executive authority of the President in this matter
because this pipeline crosses an international border. The President
has authority, and the State Department has been considering it.
And even with the Supreme Court of Nebraska refusing to make a
judgment, they didn't uphold the law of the Nebraska legislature. In
fact, four out of seven judges--normally a majority in most places--
said it was unconstitutional, but Nebraska has a peculiarity that if
the other three judges take a walk--which they did--then even though a
majority found it unconstitutional, it is not found unconstitutional,
and that is the end of the proceeding.
So that is the big news out of Nebraska. They need a little work on
their constitution, I think. So it hasn't received a stamp of approval
there. There are still aggrieved landowners in Nebraska who object to
the route and who are going to have their private property taken by a
foreign corporation. So other than that, it is a great idea.
And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I just want to remind my Democratic colleagues that, first of all,
I am from Pennsylvania. Punxsutawney is several miles outside of my
district. That is where Punxsutawney Phil resides. So I am somewhat
knowledgeable on Groundhog Day. And I just want to point out to my
Democratic colleagues that in the movie ``Groundhog Day,'' Bill Murray
learned from his mistakes the day before and improved his situation
each day. So hopefully today, your references to your learning from
yesterday and how we can move forward--I think the Nebraska situation
improves the whole situation for all of us. And I certainly don't
question the wisdom of the Nebraska Supreme Court.
And with that, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill as vice
chair of the Pipeline Subcommittee.
Pipelines are the single safest way to transport liquids--safer than
rail, safer than trucks. The State Department says Keystone would have
a minimal impact on the environment.
President Obama and his administration have confirmed that Keystone
will create thousands of construction jobs. These are men and women's
livelihoods.
Respectfully, I would remind the administration, but by their nature,
all construction jobs are temporary. And it is insulting to marginalize
the value of these jobs or the people who might hold them.
Keystone is supported by many unions, including mine, Local 545, the
Operating Engineers, where I have been for almost 35 years.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada said, and I agree, that
Keystone is in both of our nations' interests and that ``the logic here
is overwhelming.''
Keystone will help us stop sending billions and billions of dollars
overseas to our enemies, many of whom would harm us.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to start building this Keystone pipeline.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time remains of
the 15 minutes that I had?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). Each side has 9 minutes
remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the ranking member of the Natural Resources
Committee.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to what can only be described
as an earmark for a Canadian corporation. It speaks volumes about the
Republican agenda, as this new Congress convenes, that the first order
of business in the House and Senate is to rubberstamp the Keystone XL
pipeline.
We have not dealt with unemployment benefits that the American people
need that have lapsed for more than a year. Millions of Americans are
suffering from a low minimum wage and income disparity, but we are not
helping them. Women in this country still only earn 77 cents to every
dollar their male counterparts earn, but we are not trying to end that
disparity.
Instead, they are forcing Keystone through without the proper
approval process. Building a pipeline clear across the United States so
that TransCanada can sell its dirty tar sands oil to the highest
bidder--namely China--is not in the American people's best interests.
We take on the risk to our lands, the American people face threats to
their health, and TransCanada gets to reap the rewards. That is not a
winning formula for our country or the economy. In fact, it is a sham.
And yet the Keystone XL pipeline continues to be sold to the American
people on blatantly false pretenses. We are told by proponents that
this is about job creation, yet not a single independent analysis
supports these claims.
The burden of proof is on the GOP. They pull fantastic claims out of
thin air, and yet they refuse to back them up. Instead, we are told to
take their assertions at face value.
Here is what we actually know. These are the facts that can actually
be substantiated:
The State Department found in its supplemental environmental impact
study of the Keystone pipeline that it will generate less than 2,000
jobs a year for 2 years and only during the period of construction.
Once the pipeline is built, these jobs will disappear, leaving a mere
35 permanent jobs that will result from this project--35. To put that
in context, under President Obama, 353,000 jobs were generated in
November and a total of 2.9 million in 2014.

[[Page H172]]

There is also the claim that it is going to lower gas prices for the
American people. Please. Gas prices have been dropping for more than
100 straight days and are at the lowest level in more than 5\1/2\
years. They won't go any lower by allowing oil to be piped across our
country just to be sold abroad.
In contrast to fantasy impacts on gas prices, the potential impacts
on our environment are very real. Not only will burning these tar sands
add to global climate change, but any leak, failure, or, God forbid,
explosion will have disastrous impacts on our environment. And because
tar sands importers are exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund, the American taxpayers will have to bear the cost of
cleaning up any spills.
The public needs to know these facts, and that is why allowing 1 hour
of debate with not a single, solitary amendment today robs the American
people of a full debate and discussion.
On top of all that, this bill is being pushed through despite the
fact that it violates not one but two treaties with American Indian
nations.
What does this say about the GOP's respect for the rule of law?
If the Republicans truly want to generate jobs for the American
people, they should fully fund the highway trust fund and support the
GROW AMERICA Act to invest in the crumbling infrastructure all across
this country, not help Canadians build a superhighway for their dirty
tar sands oil.
We would be supporting not just 2,000 jobs per year for 2 years but
millions of jobs for American families, across every congressional
district.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have a chance to take an important stand
today early in this Congress on behalf of taxpayers, the environment,
Native American communities, and the rule of law by supporting
President Obama's veto and rejecting this toxic giveaway to foreign
corporate oil interests.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I just want to say that there have been 15 hearings on the Keystone
pipeline. This is the 10th time we have debated it on the floor. This,
quite possibly, could be the most debated piece of legislation in the
history of Congress. I don't know that for sure. But I do know that it
has been out there for 2,303 days, and 60 percent of the American
people support it, while 20 percent don't support it. So I think the
American people are fully aware of what is going on here. They
understand it, and they do support it.
With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Emmer).
Mr. EMMER. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Keystone pipeline, which
will safely move 300 million barrels annually, strengthen our economy,
continue to decrease our dependence on Mideast oil, and support
thousands of jobs.
This body has shown tremendous leadership on this issue and last year
passed bipartisan legislation to approve Keystone for the ninth time.
Today, with strong support from unions, businesses, and the American
people, we must pass it again.
I am grateful for Representative Cramer, Chairman Shuster, Chairman
Upton, and the leadership for their work on this vital legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman just referenced safely transport. Of course that is a
hypothetical. And let me give a real example:
In 2010, a Canadian company, Enbridge, had a pipeline burst in
Marshall, Michigan, spilling 1 million gallons of tar sands oil.
Now, here is the thing. All oil has viscosity and other
characteristics. The thing about tar sands oil is, it doesn't float. It
goes right to the bottom. They are still dredging Canadian tar sands
oil out of the bottom of the Kalamazoo River 4 years later. And so far,
claims of $53 million have been made, which will have to be paid by
American taxpayers against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and not
by Enbridge, the Canadian corporation.
Which is what we are setting up here: an even greater transshipment
by a foreign corporation, exempt from paying into the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund, creating even bigger potential for spills with
this oil, which has unique characteristics which are much more
difficult to clean up if it comes in contact with water and, God
forbid, it gets into the aquifer in one of the States that are being
transected.
The chairman did reference the 15 hearings. We have a difference in
counting. But let's say 15 hearings. Three were in the Rules Committee.
Those aren't hearings. That is sort of a little star chamber where you
take things before you bring them to the floor of the House. You don't
discuss substance there. One was in the Senate. There were 10 in the
House, but not a single one of those hearings was in the principal
committee of jurisdiction, which would be the Transportation Committee.
And of course the bill that was marked up by the Transportation
Committee in the first session of the last Congress was very different
than the bill that is being advocated for today, which has not been
marked up.
And we heard a lot about regular order, read the bill, and all that
stuff. It is fine to say, gee, we have voted on this a lot of times
before. With 61 new Members of the House, gas prices are down by almost
50 percent, a lot of things have changed. I would even wonder about the
viability of this project.
I did just recently learn that the Koch brothers, though, have a
significant investment in tar sands in Canada. But that probably has
nothing to do with an attempt to expedite this project.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I would just like to remind the distinguished ranking member of the
Transportation Committee, arguably the most knowledgeable man in
Congress when it comes to transportation issues, with many years of
service plus an intellect that is very sharp--I would never presume to
tell him--I just want to remind him that the safest way to move
product, to move oil is by pipeline. And I think the gentleman knows
that, but I just wanted to remind him of that.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I just heard a word that is almost hard to believe. We
have been accused of expediting this process. Ladies and gentlemen,
this is day 2,303 of this process. It is time now.
It is time because it is good for job creation. It is time because it
is good for the environment. It is not just the safest way, as the
chairman said; the most environmentally sound way to move tar sands oil
is in a pipeline. It is good for national security. It is good for
economic security. It is good because 62.8 percent of labor force
participation is the lowest since 1978. It creates jobs. And it is for
these reasons that not only does the majority of the United States
House and the majority of the United States Senate support it, but it
is because of these reasons that the vast majority of the people of the
United States support it, including the people of Nebraska. And for
those reasons, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3.
Mr. DeFAZIO. At this moment, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Poe).

{time} 1130

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, the permitting for the Keystone pipeline has taken
longer than it took for the United States to win World War II. Isn't
that lovely?
The pipeline will bring oil to my home State of Texas. Pipelines are
the safest way to transport oil. The Keystone will deliver as much oil
as we get from Saudi Arabia. The United States should work more with
our neighbors--our normal neighbors--Canada and Mexico to develop our
national resources and compete with OPEC.
Mr. Speaker, this is a national security and energy security issue.
We can make the Middle East, its politics, its oil, and its turmoil
irrelevant. It is time to pick a horse and ride it.
And that is just the way it is.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
In response to the transport, yes, pipelines are generally safer, but
the

[[Page H173]]

consequences--look at the case in Michigan--when a pipeline goes are
generally much greater, much greater volumes.
Even in the horrific train accidents we have had, the volumes were
relatively small that were spilled, even though the consequences--
particularly in the one in Canada--were very, very damaging. Minimally,
you should have added to the bill requiring them to pay into the oil
spill liability trust fund. That would make that slightly less
objectionable.
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Denham), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Keystone XL
Pipeline Act. This bill is based on the Cassidy Keystone bill which
passed the House last Congress on a bipartisan vote of 252-161.
As Chairman Shuster noted, this pipeline will create jobs, enhance
our energy independence, and strengthen our national security.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that makes numerous project benefits a
reality. According to the Department of Energy, the pipeline will
transport over 800,000 barrels per day of oil from Canada to the gulf
coast, which will help reduce reliance on more hostile nations.
Some have argued that the oil will just be exported, but the
administration's own environmental analysis denies that that will ever
occur. It will also create good-paying jobs now, while promoting the
growth of our energy economy for the future.
This is the most studied pipeline in our history. In the history of
our Nation, we have never studied a pipeline like this. There is no
need to continue to stall its approval. This project will be safe.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, America currently has 2.6 million miles of
pipeline providing an extremely safe way to transport energy products.
The Keystone pipeline will be the safest ever built, with 95 special
mitigation measures, including nearly 60 recommended by the Department
of Transportation. It is time to approve this project.
We can't afford any more delays. The American public deserves these
jobs, and we deserve to be energy independent.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Mr. Speaker, we know that building the Keystone pipeline will create
some jobs, and it can even help lower consumers' prices, but many of
these jobs are temporary, which is true in most capital cases anyway.
The price of oil has already fallen below $50 a barrel for the first
time since 2009.
We really got some good news about jobs today again. We added 252,000
jobs, and the unemployment rate is the lowest since 2008--I think May
or June of that year.
While we are going in the right direction, we need some serious
creation of jobs and at least a reach-out to the administration, ``Hey,
you are doing a pretty good job on this, on oil prices, on gasoline
prices,'' just a little bit of encouragement. We all roll on the same
ship, come on.
You boost our energy security, and you save consumers money at the
pump, but the debate over Keystone has become a symbolic issue. Come
on, let's admit it. It is clear that this fight is vastly greater than
the economic, environmental, or energy impact. It is the end of the
world if you listen to the extremes of both sides.

I could support the construction of this pipeline but do not believe
Congress should circumvent the administrative view.
Mr. Speaker, let me just recommend something perhaps through you to
the Chair. I believe that the reason why we have this problem is the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has nothing to say about oil
lines. They do on gas lines, but not oil lines.
I think we could have saved a lot of time if we used the same
situation. I am going to vote ``no'' on this, but I think there is some
good things that need to be done and could be worked out.
Mr. SHUSTER. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), a Nebraskan.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I thank the chairman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, as you all know, a major portion of the Keystone XL
pipeline will run through Nebraska's Third District. Nebraskans
overwhelmingly support this project to improve access to North American
energy and decrease the strain on our overwhelmed infrastructure
system.
As we all now know, the Nebraska Supreme Court has upheld the process
as established by the elected Nebraska officials.
I urge my colleagues to support approval of this project, and I urge
the President to sign off on the pipeline as a needed step to encourage
private investment in infrastructure.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock.)
Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the
Keystone XL pipeline. This bill is about good-paying jobs and energy
security.
Republicans and many Democrats agree on this, as well as the unique
coalition of unions like the Teamsters, LIUNA, the Tea Party, as well
as the Chamber of Commerce.
Listen to what the president of LIUNA said:

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

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for the passage of
this critical, bipartisan bill.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Reed).
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to
authorize the building of the Keystone pipeline. It is time. Enough is
enough. We agree, thousands of jobs would be created by this pipeline.
This will improve consumer prices. This will bring stability to oil
markets around the world. This will contribute to protecting us here on
American soil rather than relying on energy sources from hostile
nations of the world. It doesn't cure all the problems, but it is a
step in the right direction.
Our constituents sent us here, Mr. Speaker, to solve problems. This
is part of the solution. I rise in support of the Keystone pipeline and
ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reaffirm the
bipartisan message of the last Congress and approve this legislation
today.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Bucshon).
Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Keystone XL pipeline, the most studied pipeline in American history.
After 6 years and 22,000 pages of review, the President's own State
Department tells us that construction of this pipeline will support
over 42,000 good-paying jobs and do nothing to harm the environment.
Pipelines have been shown to be the safest way to transport oil.
Keystone has bipartisan, widespread support--Democrats, Republicans,
industry leaders, and labor. Unfortunately, the President issued a veto
threat, putting the wishes of environmental activists ahead of creating
jobs for the American public.
Mr. Speaker, let's say ``yes'' to much-needed jobs and approve the
Keystone pipeline without any further delays.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are exporting more than 60 percent of the oil that we
produce every day either as refined or even as crude product. In this
case, Canadian oil, exempt from a tax, will flow

[[Page H174]]

through the United States to a refinery.
It will be processed and exported overseas. Somehow, that is going to
lower prices further at the pump. Somehow, that is going to lead to
American energy security.
You have to blow the dust off those arguments. They are a little
dated, so we have raised a number of concerns here today.
Minimally--minimally--the Republicans should require this Canadian
corporation to pay the same tax that most U.S. corporations pay when
they transport products through pipelines and not put American
taxpayers at risk.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, the final hurdle has been removed. The
Nebraska Supreme Court has said that the Keystone pipeline can move
forward. That should be enough for my Democratic colleagues.
But there is more. It is safe. It is the safest way to transport this
oil, this natural resource. It is the most studied pipeline. It is
going to be safe and environmentally sound. It will protect the
environment. It creates jobs. Don't listen to me; listen to the five
unions that represent 3 million workers. Three million union workers
say the Keystone pipeline should be built.
Mr. Speaker, it provides energy security for us, it is good for our
economy, and it helps our allies--it strengthens our allies, and it
weakens our enemies.
The last point is it is fair to our best friends in the world, the
Canadians, who have allowed us to build a pipeline from Alaska to the
lower 48. We ought to return the favor to our best friend--our best
ally--and say: ``Yes, you can build a safe pipeline, you can build a
pipeline that will help all of North America, that will help all of our
allies around the world and weaken our enemies.''
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee has
shared jurisdiction over this issue with T&I, and we have a number of
members that would like to speak on the issue as well.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, do you like cheap oil? Most Americans would
say ``yes,'' and a number of us have strongly pursued a North American
energy independence plan for years, and our friend, Canada, is a big
part of that.
In August of 2009, President Obama signed off on a new pipeline
called the Alberta Clipper. Guess what? It brings 400,000 barrels of
oil a day from western Canada to the United States.
We have been waiting for the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline for
years--over 6 in fact. I remember well when President Obama promised to
do whatever it takes to create American jobs. That was followed by a
so-called year of action; yet here we are, 6 years later, and nothing
has happened.
By the administration's own estimates, tens of thousands of jobs will
be supported by this landmark project. Bringing oil from Canada to the
U.S. displaces imports from Venezuela and the Middle East. Isn't that a
good thing?
I also note that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled
that she was inclined to support the project, and that was way back in
2010.
In fact, in the summer of 2011, the White House issued its first veto
threat against congressional action on the Keystone XL, claiming that
legislation was unnecessary because their process was working and a
decision would be reached by the end of that year. Since then, we have
upgraded new oil and gas pipeline standards, and Keystone will exceed
those, Mr. President, as it should.
We used to be a nation of big ideas and big dreams. We imagined
building the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge and accomplished
both in far less time than it has taken the President to muster the
courage to simply say ``yes'' or ``no.'' We can do better.
The election, Mr. President, is over. There has been broad,
bipartisan support for this project from the very first day. The
President has been hiding behind the Nebraska court case to block the
critical jobs project called Keystone XL, and with that contrived
roadblock cleared, the White House is now out of excuses. Vote ``yes.''
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gene Green) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3, a bill to approve the
application for the construction of Keystone XL pipeline.
I rise in support of this bill because I support North American
energy development.
Today, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed that Keystone XL should be
built.
Keystone XL pipeline not the first cross-border pipeline project
built in North America.
But if some opponents had their way, Keystone XL pipeline would be
the last pipeline we built in North America.
Energy prices are at their lowest point in the last decade.
Energy imports from partners like Canada and Mexico, and domestic
production, have put more than $900 a year in the pockets of the
American people.
Keystone XL will continue this success in a time of struggle.
The United States still imports approximately 40 percent of the oil
we use domestically.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has decided
to directly challenge the new North American energy market by
maintaining, and in some cases, increasing production.
This is a direct affront to North American producers and an all-out
price war.
This, however, is a struggle we can win, with the help of our North
American partners.
Breakeven prices for North American crude, including Canadian oil
sands and United States shale oil, are as low as $40 per barrel.
Our producers can support our domestic demand while further driving
out more expensive competitors.
Unfortunately, our domestic producers cannot win without cost-
effective and environmentally sound transportation.
Keystone XL offers that advantage and I support it, although I do not
believe H.R. 3 is the perfect legislation.
I believe that oil sands should be subject to the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund.
Almost every other source of crude oil that transits the United
States is subject to the Trust Fund tax and oil sands should be as
well.
It makes fiscal sense, it makes environmental sense and it makes
competitive sense.
Oil sands should not be favored over any other sources in our
country.
The Keystone XL pipeline is the most scrutinized project in as long
as I can remember.
As we face the 114th Congress, we have real problems that require
answers.
Keystone XL pipeline is good for the United States, it's good for
North America and we should support this bill.

{time} 1145

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we are voting once again to grant special
treatment--and I stress ``special treatment''--to TransCanada's
Keystone XL pipeline. It is the 10th time since Republicans took
control of the House.
American families face many pressing problems, and they want us to
use this new Congress to work together to solve them. Unfortunately, we
will begin this new year with a bill crafted solely to help the
Canadian tar sands industry. The administration issued a statement in
opposition to this legislation and indicated that the President will
veto the bill. I heard my Republican colleagues talk about the action
or inaction, whatever it was, by the Nebraska Supreme Court today; but
I would stress that the White House press office still says in a
statement that regardless of the Nebraska ruling today, the House bill
still conflicts with longstanding executive branch procedures regarding
the authority of the President and prevents the thorough consideration
of complex issues that could bear on U.S. national interests, and if
presented to the President he will veto the bill. So the bill will
still be vetoed by the President, which is another indication why we
are wasting our time today.
Mr. Speaker, oil prices are at their lowest level in more than 5
years. Gas prices are now below $2 a gallon. Domestic U.S. oil
production is skyrocketing. Tar sands are among the dirtiest and most
carbon-intensive of

[[Page H175]]

all fossil fuels. Approving the Keystone XL pipeline will create a
dependence on tar sands crude, reversing the carbon pollution
reductions we have been working so hard to accomplish. According to
some experts, building the Keystone XL pipeline will triple production
of the tar sands, and that is totally inconsistent with any future
scenario for avoiding catastrophic climate change.
We don't need this oil. Approving and constructing this pipeline
won't lower gas prices for Americans. In some areas, it may even raise
prices. This pipeline is a terrible deal for the United States. We get
all of the risk while the oil companies will reap all of the rewards.
I was at the Rules Committee the other night and all I kept hearing
was how wonderful Canada is, how we have to help Canadian companies.
This is all about Canada. Frankly, I don't know why we are so worried
about a Canadian corporation. It wasn't clear during the Rules
Committee hearing, based on the conversations and debate we had with
the Republican side, that this pipeline would even ever be built. And
yet here we are rushing to basically say to the President: We don't
care what you or the State Department or the Department of the Interior
says what is in the national interest; we are just going to do this
because of some Canadian interest.
Mr. Speaker, this is a new year and a new Congress. We have new
Members who will vote on this bill without the benefit of any hearings
or markups or floor amendments, without the benefit of learning how our
changing energy picture alters the need for this pipeline, and without
considering whether our time might be better spent on efforts to
promote other cleaner energy sources.
We need sound energy policy in these challenging times. As the
ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I am anxious to
begin working with all of my colleagues on pragmatic energy policy; but
we need a balanced energy policy, one that takes into account current
circumstances, one that takes into account our need to combat climate
change, and one that works with the President rather than against the
President to actually deliver legislation that the President can sign
rather than veto. This legislation doesn't meet any of these criteria,
so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman and friend.
Mr. Speaker, I speak today as a former naval aviator who flew
alongside Canadian Armed Forces as we won the cold war. We have no
greater ally than our neighbor to the north--Canada. We were attacked
on September 11 and went to war in Afghanistan; they went with us. To
date, nearly 200 of their precious sons have come home in coffins. That
is a true ally.
When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in August 2005, within 3 days
our neighbor to the north authorized three military vessels, a Coast
Guard vessel, numerous planes, 25 military divers, and tons of tents,
blankets, beds, water, and medical supplies. That is a true ally.
And yet this strong alliance is being weakened dramatically because
President Obama has chosen to listen to a small group of wealthy
radicals who want no drop of oil coming from our neighbor to the
north--Canada.
In November, I met with officials from Canada, officials from all
over, from Leeds-Grenville and Nova Scotia. They were dismayed because
we are telling them: We don't want your oil; don't help us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. OLSON. It is a bad world, Mr. President, with terrorists in
Paris, and ISIS. Terrorists hit our country from North Korea. We need
strong allies.
Today, pick up two things, Mr. President:
Pick up the phone, dial Mr. Harper and say: I am going to approve
this pipeline;
After it passes in the Senate, pick up that pen and sign this bill
into law.
Let's have a strong alliance with Canada forever.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy and Power
Subcommittee.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, and I strongly disagree
with this abhorrent process that the majority side has undertaken in
order to hastily bring H.R. 3 to the floor after only 1 hour of debate
and denying the minority the ability to offer one single, solitary
amendment.
Truth be told, Mr. Speaker, it is unclear how this legislation would
actually be of benefit to the American people. A 2014 report by the
State Department concluded that the Keystone pipeline would create 35
permanent, full-time domestic jobs, which is roughly the same amount of
jobs that would be created by opening a new corner fast-food burger
joint, albeit with more risk to the American environment.
And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill is unnecessary because there
is already an independent process that is taking place at this very
moment, and H.R. 3 short-circuits this approval process.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, let it be fully understood by all Members
of this House, the President has indicated that he would veto this
bill. This bill is dead on arrival if it ever reaches the President's
desk.
The State Department has already released its final supplemental
environmental impact statement and has begun the review period to
determine whether the pipeline is in the national interest.
Mr. Speaker, more than 2.5 million Americans have contributed
comments on how this foolhardy project would impact the national
interest, and their voices, the voices of 2.5 million Americans,
deserve to be heard.
I have said it before, Mr. Speaker, and I say it again: this bill is
about seizing power away from the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. RUSH. This bill is about seizing power away from the American
people by seizing power away from our duly-elected President. It will
prevent the thorough, sober consideration of complex issues that could
have serious security, safety, environmental, and other ramifications.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this body to vote ``no.'' The
Keystone XL pipeline is a Republican pipe dream.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy).
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as we stand on the floor debating a bill to approve the
Keystone pipeline, we all need to admit that we shouldn't be doing
this. We should not have to be here today.
It is 2,303 days after the application for Keystone was first
submitted to the State Department. We shouldn't be debating it; we
should be building it.
For years, approval has been stuck in the Senate. Well, now the
Senate is open. The Senate is changed. It moved through committee.
Mr. Speaker, for the longest time, the President hid behind the
lengthy and delayed review process saying he wanted to wait to make a
decision. He said he was waiting because of environmental and legal
considerations. But Keystone won't harm the environment; it will help
protect it. The people know that. Mr. Speaker, the President knows
that.
Mr. Speaker, the President, before we even started the debate today,
has submitted a threat of a veto. I take these seriously as a majority
leader, so I wanted to read it. Mr. Speaker, one of the rationales why
the President wants to veto it is because this bill also authorizes the
project, despite uncertainty due to ongoing litigation in Nebraska.
Well, hallelujah. We have good news for the President, Mr. Speaker. The
Nebraska Supreme Court solved that problem for him today.
So we should move forward just as we have done before on a bipartisan
basis.

[[Page H176]]

Why? Because of 42,000 jobs. Those are American jobs created here, an
economy continuing to move forward.
And rest assured, the oil in Canada will be produced. The question
before us today: Will that oil move down through America, refined in
American refineries, built by American women and men, or will it go to
a whole other continent?
We take up many issues here on this floor, but we have to look to the
future and we have to build for a strong future. I want North America
to be energy independent. We all know the strength of that. I want an
environmentally sound way to do it. Today does it.
I listened to the President's concerns, Mr. Speaker. We have had
2,303 days. We have studied it. Our departments have studied it. They
have come back and said, environmentally, we are safe. There was a
legal concern. Well, the Supreme Court dealt with that.
So today we can join together, just as we have done before, in a
bipartisan manner and pass this bill. There is a change in the Senate
with an open process. They can pass it there, and it can go to the desk
and be signed so 42,000 Americans can get back to work.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this issue are two questions:
First, is climate change real? Is it a threat to our economy, to jobs,
to our environment, and to our security?
Speaking for Vermont, climate change is real. In the past 5 years,
Vermont has had 10 Federal disaster declarations from severe weather,
including Tropical Storm Irene that did nearly $1 billion worth of
damage. Our farmers, ski area operators, and maple sugar producers are
all trying to contend with the changing climate.

{time} 1200

Also, we know that that oil is the same. This is not sweet Texas
crude. Tar sands produce about 20 to 40 percent more carbon emissions
than that Texas oil, and extracting it is going to produce about 27
million metric tons of carbon emissions.
The second question is this: Should Congress now or should Congress
ever pass a major piece of legislation without any committee hearings,
particularly when that legislation is only about oil going through our
country, not to our country?
And this legislation includes a special provision that exempts a
foreign corporation from contributing to an environmental cleanup fund
all our domestic corporations are required to pay into.
On the issue of jobs, these are good jobs, about 2,000 jobs. But if
this Congress would do its job, we would pass a surface transportation
bill that would create 200,000 jobs and put those 3 million men and
women in our labor unions to work on good things that are going to
rebuild this country.
Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong bill, it is passed in the wrong way,
and at exactly the wrong time.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman from
Kentucky for his tenacious work on this issue. This is the 10th time
this has come to the floor and he has been diligent and has continued
to push it, and we thank him for those efforts.
I have to tell you, listening to this debate, it just goes to show
you why the American people are so tired of what they consider to be
the political games that are played here in Washington.
They said they wanted us to come and get some things done. This is
getting some things done. It is appropriate that we take up this bill
today. And here is why: Do you realize 88 percent of all Americans
support energy independence--88 percent? Sixty-five percent of all
Americans think that building the Keystone pipeline is what this
country should do.
Now, I have to tell you, I listen to the President and to the excuses
that come out of the administration, and I think that with the Supreme
Court decision in Nebraska today the President is out of excuses. He is
out of excuses. He has run the gamut on it. No more excuses. It is time
that we pass it, the Senate passes it, and that this legislation goes
to the President's desk.
One of my colleagues said that being here on the floor today is a
waste of time. I really disagree with that, Mr. Speaker. The President
vetoing this legislation is a waste not only of the American people's
time, but of the resources and the taxpayer money that come into the
coffers for this government to function.
Create 20,000 new jobs, increase our energy supply, move us to energy
independence. Pass the bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time is
available on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 6 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. David Scott).
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a labor
economics jobs bill. The American people need jobs. The labor unions
who founded and built the middle class of this Nation need jobs.
But, ladies and gentlemen, nobody needs jobs like young Black men. I
see this as an opportunity here today. The highest unemployment rate is
with Black young men. For Black young men between the ages of 19 and
35, the unemployment rate is 38 percent--38 percent--and in some
communities it is 50 percent.
That is why I come before you today. I support the bill. But I want
you all to help me support an amendment. You all know the amendment
process is going on over in the Senate.
Over in the Senate, Senator McConnell said he is open to amendments.
Here is the amendment: the amendment would just put language in this
bill that would put the apprenticeship programs, what they
affectionately call ``earn as you learn'' on-the-job training--no
Federal money--and target those and guide and direct and encourage in
this language that our labor union partners bring in these young
African American men to learn these trade building skills. Each of the
labor unions are ready. They have the apprenticeship programs, they
have them there.
We need this desperately, ladies and gentlemen. Do you know that
sitting in the prisons right now are 1 million Black men. Every week,
thousands of our Black men are going into prison. The number one
reason: they don't have jobs. This is a jobs bill. Yeah, it has got
maybe, some people say, 4,000, some people say 2,000, but there will be
other jobs that they can learn these skills from when we rebuild our
infrastructure.
You all have seen the sign. Black lives matter, but Black lives with
jobs.
Help me get this amendment in on the Senate side and let's pass this
bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3 and the construction
of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Part of the existing pipeline system actually supplies the Wood River
Refinery in the 12th Congressional District in Illinois.
In anticipation of the construction of this pipeline, the owners have
spent $4 billion upgrading the facility and created about 2,400 jobs
over a 4-year period. Construction of the Keystone XL extension would
deliver similar benefits to other regions of the country, creating over
42,000 jobs in construction, manufacturing, transportation, and
services industries.
It is for these reasons that a diverse coalition of businesses and
labor unions in the construction and building trades industries have
come out in support of H.R. 3, and I encourage all of my colleagues to
do the same.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, how does this one project, the
Keystone XL pipeline, get so much outsized attention? We currently have
a sprawling, 185,000-mile network of oil pipelines in the United States
and a regulatory process to ensure that they are operating safely.

[[Page H177]]

So why are we spending so much time trying to exempt a Canadian
company from the environmental reviews that every other company in
America has to abide by?
And the big question, Mr. Speaker: Who will pay for any future oil
spills? Not Keystone. This bill exempts Keystone from contributing the
same 8 cents per barrel that every other oil company is required to pay
into the oil spill trust fund.
Tell me, Mr. Speaker, why is this? If the authors are so certain that
this pipeline does not carry any environmental risk, won't they allow
the review process to run its course?
I stand with my colleagues. I want those jobs, I want them around the
country. We can do this, we can do better.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this dangerous precedent, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say congratulations again to
my friend Congressman Pallone for assuming the ranking position. We
look forward to working with you.
Today is a great day. This pipeline should have been approved 6 years
ago, like so many other transnational pipelines in our history. A
pipeline is the safest way to move bulk liquid product, more than any
other means. It will be from an ally, a trusted ally. More crude oil on
the world market lowers prices for everybody. It is more money in the
individual citizen's pocket. It actually is a very great day.
Let's just debunk this myth. This oil is going to go in refineries in
my district, Mike Bost's district, Ohio, Indiana, and in the gulf
coast. We are going to get the double effort because we are going to be
able to refine this, put it on the U.S. market, and lower energy prices
for all our citizens. It is a great day.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing it to the floor.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition.
We have been promised thousands of jobs, but the U.S. State
Department estimates that this will create only 35 permanent jobs. Yes,
they will be construction jobs, but they are not permanent. They are
for a year, maybe 2 years.
Let's be clear about what we are getting with Keystone: a dirty and
dangerous pipeline running through the heart of our country which will
help Canadian oil companies export their oil, and it happens to be the
filthiest possible energy form.
I would like to say that if we put the same time and energy into a
transportation bill as we have to this Canadian pet project, we could
upgrade our crumbling roads and bridges, expand our mass transit
system, provide a huge boost to the American economy, and create jobs
in almost every single congressional district in this country,
thousands and thousands of permanent jobs in our good country.
We don't need another pipeline dividing our country, polluting our
water, pushing us closer and closer to the climate tipping point. A
transportation overhaul will actually create jobs that Americans can
live off of. Keystone will not, unless what they are considering with
these jobs are just the 35 permanent jobs. And maybe they are
considering that there will be jobs to create the leaks and the
pollution and treat the pollution and illnesses that may be associated
with the pollution.
I urge a ``no'' vote. We should invest in American companies. We
should invest in American pipelines. We should invest in American jobs
that are here in America for Americans and are permanent.
Again, the State Department estimates that there will be only 35
permanent jobs. So what are we getting? No jobs and pollution from the
dirtiest oil source and energy source that is on the Earth at this
point.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, would you explain again the amount of
time remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Harper), a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
Here we are again working to pass a bill to approve construction of
the northern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline. Again, with the facts
on our side. Again, with bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress.
And again, under threat of a veto. But with the new Republican majority
in the Senate, the President just might get to make good on his veto
threat this time, and we should force him to make that decision.
I urge my colleagues to support this job-creating, North American
energy-producing, bipartisan, labor union- and Chamber of Commerce-
supported, shovel-ready project. The American people asked for H.R. 3.
We have waited long enough.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).

{time} 1215

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

[[Page H178]]

far, in the national interest. The President is just asking for more
time to make that determination.
Vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to address a couple of things.
First of all, I will place in the Record letters I received from the
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council and Caterpillar.

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

January 8, 2015.
Hon. Kevin Cramer,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Cramer: On behalf of Caterpillar Inc., I
write today in support of H.R. 3 the ``Keystone XL Pipeline
Act'', which would authorize construction of the Keystone XL
Pipeline. Caterpillar has long supported the construction of
the Keystone XL Pipeline because of its significant economic
and energy security benefits to North America.
As the world's leading manufacturer of construction and
mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, industrial
gas turbines, and locomotives; along with our commitment to
providing leading financial, remanufacturing, logistics and
rail services, Caterpillar has been making sustainable
progress possible on every continent for more than 80 years.
With energy related products and services accounting for
over one-fourth of our business, Caterpillar, our dealers,
and our customers are uniquely positioned to provide
solutions to the world's energy challenges. Through our core
business and through new innovative technologies, Caterpillar
is one of the world's leading technology suppliers to the
diverse energy market and leverages its technology and
innovation to meet the world's growing energy needs.
In the United States, the approval and construction of the
Keystone XL Pipeline would result in billions of dollars of
investment, create tens of thousands of jobs, and would allow
for the movement of hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil
per day. Pipelines are a safe, reliable, economical, and
environmentally favorable way to transport oil and petroleum
products, as well as other energy liquids throughout the U.S.
America already depends on thousands of miles of liquid
pipelines to move the energy and raw materials our country
relies on for everything from heating homes to powering
manufacturing facilities. This additional pipeline capacity
will help consumers and business throughout the United States
and increase American competitiveness.
Caterpillar commends you for your leadership on this
critical issue and looks forward to working with you on the
approval of this important project.
Sincerely,
Kathryn D. Karol,
Vice President.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the climate change issue
because I think it is an important issue to a lot of people.
The argument that the other side makes is based on the false idea
that somehow oil sands are not going to be developed without the United
States. It is. Moving anything by rail is 1.9 times more the emissions
of CO<inf>2</inf> than moving it by pipeline. Moving it by truck
creates 2.8 times the CO<inf>2</inf> emissions as moving it by
pipeline. Moving it by barge to China is priceless.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In conclusion, I would like to point out a couple of things. First of
all, this was a significant issue in the last election just a couple of
months ago. This is a piece of legislation about the American people,
not a Canadian oil company. In polls, 72 percent of the American people
say they support this legislation.
This is about jobs for people in America who need jobs. This is about
increasing the energy infrastructure of our country. This is also a
project that would not include one dime from the Federal Government. It
is going to be at a cost of approximately $7 billion of private funds
that will create a lot of jobs and make us less dependent on foreign
oil.
The application for the Keystone pipeline was filed in September of
2008. There are 2.6 million miles of pipelines in America. Most of
those pipelines do not have to be approved by the President of the
United States, but in this particular pipeline, since it crosses into
the country from Canada to the U.S., the President must approve it.
The President has said that one reason he is not going to approve it
is because of litigation in Nebraska, which ended today in favor of the
Governor of Nebraska who supports this pipeline.
The second ostensible reason for the President to oppose it is
CO<inf>2</inf> emissions; yet the Secretary of State's office under
Hillary Clinton and Mr. Kerry in their final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement have said on three occasions that it will have minimal
impact on the environment.
Today, we want to pass this legislation once again for the American
people. The U.S. Senate said that they will pass it, and we would ask
the President to join us and sign this legislation.
I would urge the passage of H.R. 3, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, the majority has chosen the
first week of the 114th Congress to relitigate the battles of the
previous two Congresses. This time, we're here debating whether or not
to approve a pipeline, through our nation's Heartland, carrying
Canadian tar sand oil.
There are many reasons why I'm opposed to this legislation, Mr.
Speaker, the fact that oil produced from tar sands creates 17% more
carbon emissions than other crudes; the potentially devastating impact
wrought by this heavy crude should a pipeline rupture occur; or that my
constituents are enjoying the best prices at the pump in several years
without the completion of this pipeline due to the record glut in
global oil supply.
Without even getting into the disappointing number of permanent jobs
created by this project, which is 50, Mr. Speaker; the President has
already clearly stated that he will veto this measure should it ever
make it to his desk.

[[Page H179]]

So at the end of the day Mr. Speaker, what are we really talking
about here?
It would seem to me that instead of trying to score political points
and refighting old battles, the 114th Congress should be using its
first week to bring legislation to the floor that fosters an
environment of innovation, energy diversification and an investment in
clean, domestic forms of renewable energy. Policies that would create
hundreds of thousands of new, permanent jobs while also ensuring energy
independence for years to come.
While I understand that some of my Democratic Colleagues are in
favor, I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this misguided
legislation.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, the
Keystone XL Pipeline Act. For far too long, President Obama has impeded
construction of the Keystone XL pipeline--costing the American people
thousands of good-paying jobs and blocking an affordable source of
energy. In the face of his continued obstruction, I proudly joined a
strong bipartisan group of my colleagues voting to put an end to
Obama's obstruction and approving the Keystone XL pipeline.
This legislation is not only good for America, but it is also
uniquely important to the 36th District of Texas. The pipeline will
bring an economic boost to our area through its construction and new
energy supply. For six years President Obama has put politics above
what is good for the American people and our local and national
economy. This is an important step in putting more Americans back to
work, creating opportunity to good jobs and growing our national
economy.
Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of The
Keystone XL Pipeline Act.
The Keystone Pipeline represents a critical asset in our efforts to
increase energy security and reduce our dependence on Mid-East oil. It
would also further lower prices at the pump for American families.
Most importantly, the Pipeline would create thousands of jobs in
Texas and across the United States.
The President has threatened to veto this legislation and ignore the
will of the American people. Six years of stalling is enough.
The Administration should stop standing in the way of a stronger
energy future and thousands of new American jobs. Keystone must be
approved immediately.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, the
Keystone XL Pipeline Act. While I welcome an open and transparent
debate about whether building this pipeline is in our national
interest, that is not what this legislation is about. Instead, we are
being asked to circumvent the administration's permitting process and
pass legislation that has been rushed to the House floor, without
consideration by any committee or proceeding through regular order.
This is no way to legislate.
The people of Michigan sent me to Congress to fight for our shared
values. And no one knows better than the people of my state the
importance of protecting our natural resources. This legislation puts
those resources at risk by exempting the operators of the pipeline from
paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which helps the federal
government respond to oil spills. It also waives all the requirements
of the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy
Act, both of which contain critical environmental protections that
cannot be ignored. I simply cannot support legislation which sets these
landmark laws aside.
Congress needs to have a real and thoughtful debate on how we promote
clean energy in the United States. I am ready to have that debate, but
until then, I cannot support flawed legislation that puts our natural
resources at risk.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 3.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 19, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

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

Mr. Garamendi moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3 to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:

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

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

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

[[Page H180]]

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

{time} 1230

But that did not happen. We didn't get tax reform.
So as this bill comes forward, a review does have to be made in terms
of how to treat crude oil derived from oil sands for the purposes of
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. But I have to say that really is a
Ways and Means issue, now a Transportation issue, not an Energy and
Commerce issue.
I know that this issue is going to be raised in the Senate with an
amendment probably in the next week. I would just say to the gentleman
and those that support this idea, I look forward to working with our
Senate colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, as well as Republicans
and Democrats in this body to, in fact, address this situation that
does need to happen.
But as a motion to recommit, we shouldn't do it now. So let my
Democrat friends vote ``yes.'' I would urge my Republicans on this side
to vote ``no.'' I just want to give them the assurance that, in fact,
as this bill moves into the conference, as what I expect to happen,
that I certainly intend to see an understanding go forward.
Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster),
the chairman of the Transportation Committee.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman.
I am in agreement with the chairman of Energy and Commerce. This is,
again, something to be dealt with on a tax bill.
Two things that are good have happened today. One, the Nebraska
Supreme Court has removed the final hurdle to move this bill forward;
and number two, my good friend from California and I agreed today on
something--that this thing should be dealt with. But this is not the
place or the time to deal with it.
Moving forward, we want to make sure that this is dealt with in the
proper way, and I believe that the Ways and Means Committee will do
that.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you so very much.
I have enormous respect for the two of you, and this issue has been
before us many, many times. If we wait for a comprehensive tax reform,
the tar sands may be totally eliminated and used up. We have an
opportunity today to get it done.
Mr. UPTON. Reclaiming my time, we understand that this will not be
part of a comprehensive tax reform bill. We need to act earlier than
that.
With the Senate now passing a bill, in all likelihood next week,
likely with an amendment addressing this situation, we can deal with it
as part of that conference report, and I look forward to supporting
that and the inclusion of such in the final package.
I would again urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the procedural
motion to recommit so that we can get to final passage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 180,
nays 237, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 15]

YEAS--180

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

NAYS--237

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)

[[Page H181]]

King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--12

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

{time} 1256

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

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

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

[Roll No. 16]

YEAS--266

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

NAYS--153

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

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Amash

NOT VOTING--9

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1305

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

____________________