administration state department has politicized this project and stalled it in order to kowtow to the far left environmental fringe. we need the jobs and we need the energy benefits. we need to lower cos for consumers and manufacturers. with that, i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: of course quantity affects price, economics 101. the disconnect here and the failure in the argument from the other side is this quantity is a rounding error in the global supply and the global demand. this has no impact on price. we're not talking about anything that actually moves the bar or reducing gas prices for consumers. with that, it's my honor to yield a minute to my colleague from michigan, mr. peters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. . mr. peters: i rise for my colleagues to reject this rule.

we have seen the impact of tar sands oil in my district. piles of petroleum coke, three stories call and a city block wide, are sitting on the banks of the detroit river. pet coke is much durt irthan coal and often sold to china. in detroit it's this uncovered and uncontained waiting to blow into the air and water. these piles of petroleum coke are a blight on our communities and could pose a threat to the environment and public health. i offered an amendment to require a study on the environmental impacts of petroleum coke and other byproducts. this amendment was rejected by the rules committee despite the studies' potential benefits to communities who may become host to their own piles of pet coke. the bill and the rule is taking us in the wrong direction. instead of selling dirty energy to china, we should be developing clean energy technologies here at home. for these reasons i cannot support the rule and urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 3.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i yield a minute to the gentleman from south carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in support of the rule because i think it's an illusion of energy independence that's been postponed by the very action that this rule -- the work against this rule represents. mr. sanford: we are talking here about five years of postponement. i think to have real energy solutions here in the united states means first off using the energy solutions -- represented in this continent. and with that i think it's by no means secure in deference to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, but it is an important step in the right direction. i think as well it represents a step toward energy independence which is also about national security. i think it's a step toward jobs which are vital in this country and needed at this time.

more than 20,000. i think ultimately it's a pocketbook issue. you think about driving this summer and a number of people will be filling up their tanks. this is a big step in the right direction toward energy independence and security. i rise and support the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm honored to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york whose amendment under this rule was also shut out from even a debate here on the floor of the house. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. ton could he -- mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: i thank the gentleman from colorado. i oppose the rule and underlying legislation. i submitted two amendments to the committee. i regret that neither was made in order. one rejected by the republican majority would have protected private property owners along the pipeline route from being bullied by transcanada into giving up their land. the other amendment would have required the secretary of transportation to provide

assurance that current pipeline safety regulations are . fficient to prevent spills i have represented communities that have been impacted by pipeline explosions. i know the price they pay. most of this will cross private lands not public lands. protection of private property rights is something we hear a lot about whenever government makes a decision to protect unique resource, but apparently if a foreign company wants to build a pipeline for export, private property rights can be bypassed. the tar sands are not going to disappear. our citizens should receive a fair chance to defend their property in state court. this legislation deprives them of that opportunity. 's julia testified last month before the committee on the judiciary subcommittee on the constitution and civil justice, in favor of limiting the of eminent domain and strong opposition to granting exemption

to transcanada i ask unanimous consent to include her testimony with my statement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chair. she's the only one of a number of landowners who were bullied by transcanada and she's now seeking a remedy in state court. miss crawford and all other property owners who have gone to the courts should have the opportunity to make their case. the transcanada wants access to our land, they should follow our laws put in place to safeguard our resources and our rights. i urge my colleagues to reject this rule and ill-conceived and unnecessary legislation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from neb be in is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. let's be honest, this permit is five years old. the average time of authorizing

the permits in these type of projects is 18 to 24 months. enough paralysis by analysis. some may say during the testimony -- the hearing today or the discussion that we are being impatient and we are rushing this through. 1,700 days? this delay has taken longer than it took the greatest generation to win world war ii on both fronts. it's longer than it took lewis and clark to do their exploration of the louisiana purchase to oregon and back. the keystone x.l. is a private infrastructure projectle with no government funds to create ongovernment jobs, by the way, $7 billion infrastructure projects, 20,000 direct jobs along this route over two-year

period. i want to make a very important point. those who oppose this legislation argue that it's unprecedented. this is not the first time congress has had to intervene to build a pipeline. the legislation was like-minded legislation as to this one was necessary 40 years ago to achieve the construction of the game changing transatlantic pipeline. included in that legislation was passed and signed into law where it deemed that the environmental studies, nepa, were sufficient, as this one does, that rights of way across federal lands, not state, but federal lands were processed, and judicial review was also included. then again in 2004 congress had to act to pass legislation to build the alaska natural gas pipeline. that legislation was passed and signed into law with a 60-day judicial review that the

pipeline was deemed to be in the national interest and unlike today, it expedited the nepa. here the nepa process has been finished. complete. the only way you can get more study is to have amendments requiring more study. because all of the legal requirements have been filled. today we just heard about mistreatment, and there was some misinformation from the last speaker regarding what this bill does. it gives a streamline judicial process in regard to the federal permits issued, and has nothing to do with states' eminent domain. but let's hear some facts. today transcanada has agreements with 60,000 landowners over 32,000 miles of pipeline, and under the original keystone pipeline that goes through nebraska, there were over 300

landowners involved in negotiations, four of which objected, three of those settled, one went to court. 300 versus four that were upset. and they got their day in court in the state of nebraska, just like this bill preserves. if there is a verifiable crop deficiencies, it's transcanada's policy to make them whole. now, what will compel the state department to complete this process? they have had it for five years. the studies have been completed. the original nepa, a supplemental, a nebraska supplemental, mr. speaker this in he most studied pipeline the history of mankind. history is our greatest educator

. in 1973, congress passed and president nixon signed the transatlantic pipeline authorization act two, quote, to ensure that because of the extensive governmental studies already made of this project, and the national interest in the delivery of north slope oil to domestic markets, the transatlantic pipeline be constructed properly without further administrating for judicial delay or impediment. that was 40 years ago. we had the same problem. 2004, we have the same problems. it took congress to act to resolve them. this will be the newest, most highly engineered pipeline in our history that resolves some of these questions from the gentleman from colorado, again three separate environmental studies were they studied. the point of those is to study what impacts on the environment, if there is -- additional minute. mr. webster: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. terry: what the impact, if there is a spill, to not only the soil, the ecosystem, but the ogallala aquifer as well. three different studies have dealt with that. all have scientifically concluded that there is negligible impact on the ecosystem. or in the artistic term, not significant. the most celebrated geologist in the state of nebraska has said that it is impossible for the oil to get to the ogallala aquifer, but if it did, water is still and won't move out of that and could be easily remedied. i'm not being impatient. the republicans aren't being impatient. our nation of builders need this pipeline and i urge approval of both the rule and the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr.

speaker. the gentleman cited studies, apparently addressed his concerns about environmental impact. i would draw his attention to the fact that there were three draft studies. one that was actually finalized. all of them were on the old routing. the project itself has been revised. there have been zero studies, environmental studies for health and water, with regard to the new routing of the pipeline. with that i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the rule. whether or not you support the pipeline, you should oppose this legislation. h.r. 3 is a reckless attempt to sideline environmental review and limit public input. the majority claims the keystone x.l. is the most studied pipeline in the history of pipelines. shouldn't a pipeline that is going to run the length of our country be exhaustively studied?

we need to know the environmental impact and truly weigh all the consequences .ntended or not of h.r. 3 and h.r. 3 would deny the american people and this congress that opportunity. over one million americans commented on the slell environmental impact statement -- supplemental environmental impact statement. it's time to analyze these comments, evaluate the impact of this massive project. h.r. 3 shuts that process down and says, it's ready to go. this can't be about making a president look bad or the bottom line of a canadian corporation. this is about doing what's right for this country. this is no ordinary pipeline. it will transport dirty tar sands to canada to texas. tar sand oil produces 40% more carbon pollution than conventional oils. pretending that this pipeline

has to be done and done immediately is to hide from the reality of the consequences of this pipeline. we don't need the oil. it is oil that will be primarily exported out of this country. a recent study by cornell university found the x.l. would contribute to climate change than any other project. and the claims of employment are hugely exaggerated. we are having the wrong conversation. we should be talking about the future, real energy independence , alternative and renewal energy -- renewable energy. i think the decision lays with the president. that's why i'm circulating a letter to the president to reject this presidential permit. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. royce. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes.

mr. royce: i thank the gentleman. as chairman of the foreign affairs committee let me make it abundantly clear here. the pipeline is going to be built. the question is whether it's going to be built west to vancouver. and then we are going to see the product shift to our economic competitors. . or will the pipeline be built south to our refineries in the united states. there's a second point. we've got the cleanest burning refineries in the world. that is not true in terms of our economic competitors. so from an environmental standpoint and from the standpoint of energy needs in the u.s., it makes no sense to advance the interests of our economic competitors. now the u.s. energy costs have been declining. china's energy costs have been rising. our country is becoming a more attractive place to manufacture

goods. we are also becoming more competitive. both with europe and with asia. u.s. gasoline prices right now are 30% lower than china's and u.s. electricity prices are 50% lower than europe's. for those of us involved in manufacturing in the past, we understand how important that is. we want energy prices lower here in the united states than they are overseas, not the other way around. a reliable and efficient energy supply is frankly vital to our economic competitiveness and unless we reverse course, we could squander the advantage we have right now. and the keystone pipeline will have a major positive impact on the economy at a time when millions of hard-pressed americans are searching for work. keystone will create an estimated 20,000 new direct jobs and we know hundreds of

thousands of indirect jobs not only in the states where the pipelines will be built and orped but throughout the entire country. keystone is going to enhance our national security. think about this for a minute. frankly, our foreign affairs committee members, 24 of our republican members, wrote to the president in february, saying by providing secure access to petroleum from canada, we would reduce reliance on energy from countries in the opec cartel. the u.s. would be less vulnerable to political and security-related disruptions of our energy supply. that's the point. that's the objective here. in the same vein, energy from canada will enable us to reduce our dependence on unstable and unfriendly oil exporters. for example, while the venezuelan regime remains openly hostile to the u.s., the countries -- the country is our

fourth largest source of oil. by contrast, canada has long been one of our closest allies. our economies are joined together with canada and our energy sectors -- sectors are already integrated, we want to spend the money in canada, have it circulated back over that border, 90% of what canada buys is made in the united states. we could have no better partner in our effort to ensure our energy security. by obstructing the approval process, the administration not only prevents the benefits of the pipelines from materializing, it also chills the development of new projects. at present time, canada and mexico are major sources of energy and offer enormous potential few -- for new oil and gas field and greatly expanded cross-border trade. yet if our existing federal bureaucracy is willing to impose excessive costs and

continued delays on a project as sound as keystone, what business will want to assume similar risks going forward? i tell you that pipeline will be built to vancouver, british columbia and -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. royce: the role of the state department and the approval process is to determine whether the project serves the national interest. no one familiar with the facts would deny it does. but the delays continue based on unfounded claims. the state department's own draft supplemental environmental impact statement concluded that in effect there was no environmental reason not to approve the pipeline. yet still no action has been taken. it is time to stop this charade. all reasonable objections to the pipeline have been fully addressed. please pass the legislation. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida

reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my honor to yield two minutes to one of our leaders on energy policy, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson re. -- ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from colorado for his leadership and i hope that we will continue this debate, my good friends on the other side of the aisle on this issue. it is just very challenging to have a structure of legislation that deems approval and does not do what i think all of us want to do, is to get move, to provide these jobs and to do what america is uniquely noted for, that we cross the tmbing's and dot the i's, that we make sure the environmental concerns are answered. i rise on this rule to make several points. mr. rush and myself offered an amendment to strike section 4. in this bill it does not allow

judicial review. it allows somewhere someone in kentucky or in arizona or in texas to come to the district of columbia to file their case in the court of appeals. as a member of the judiciary committee, i raise concerns about that and my bill struck the provision that eliminated judicial review so that some burdened individual citizen couldn't just go into the federal court. i had another amendment that is near and dear to me that wants to give new life to the jobs and businesses in the energy industry to create a report to ensure that women, small businesses, minority-owned businesses, get their fair shake and that we have an overall commitment to hiring new young graduates that are coming out, many of them from the diverse community which we see the industry is still seeking to outreach because there is a great need for increased diversity in many of these fields. i offer amendment number two,

would have added a nonseverability clause so if anything was found to be unconstitutional, we would go back to the drawing boards for this entire bill. again to have a major initiative be deemed approved, the secretary of state deemed approved, the presidential authority deemed approved. this is something, my colleagues, we should work together on and i would finally suggest that i hope my colleagues would support my amendment on extending it here. let's work together and make sure we've got something that will be a good bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i just want to say this, that i know there's a desire to have more t's and i's, t's crossed, i's dotted. there are over 450,000 t's and i's in those 15,000 pages. we've done enough. it's time to build this pipeline. keystone x.l. will help lower gas prices and help protect

against supply disruptions by putting downward pressure on oil prices, by increasing supply to the united states markets. in a memo from the department of energy regarding keystone x.l., it asaturdayed that gasoline price in all markets served by refiners on the east coast and gulf would reduce. and the other thing, it creates jobs immediately. 42,100 were estimated by the department of state in one of their four studies on this particular bill. we could go study after study, 10 different agencies looking over and over. there are no more studies to be done. it's time to make the decision. when should it be made? now. i reserve the rest of my time. the speaker: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from

minnesota, mr. nolan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. nolan: i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, and i lament the fact, because i support the keystone pipeline for the many reasons that have been stated here. i know people have concerns about oil stands -- sands, tar sands production processes, but that's a canadian decision. these oils will be moved by tens of thousands of railroad cars or trucks through the states or a pipeline to the west. pipelines are proven environmentally safe and sound way to move oil around north america and the country. i am in opposition to the bill because in committee it became apparent that the bill relieves a foreign corporation from all the same obligations that

domestic corporations are expected to honor. they're exempted from having to comply with the e.p.a., with the army corps permits for construction and maintenance, they're relieved of the responsibility to pay taxes on the oil flowing through those pipelines. they're relieved of responsibility for cleanup in the event of accidents, that is a prescription for nothing but trouble and disaster. mr. chairman, thank you for the time and those are the reasons that i speak in opposition to this rule and to this bill. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: inquiry of the chair, how much time is left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has nine and a half minutes and the gentleman from colorado, 11 minutes. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, i reserve the balance of me time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire

if the gentleman has any remaining speakers? mr. webster: no. mr. polis: i have possibly one who if they come i'd love to yield to, other than that i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: it's been talked about impact on gas prices in the midwest. there's no taps on this pipeline in the midwest. gos from canada to the gulf of mexico, to china, and everywhere else. there can't even be taps on it in the midwest because we're talking about unprosessed tar sand crude. needs to be processed. a trop in the bucket in the global supply, no impact on gas prices, there are dozens of meaningful policies that we can talk about to reduce gas prices. let's get to it. rather than taking this decision, this important decision, out of the context of the administration and out of

the context of the process that congress itself set up, to co-opt that very process for purely political purposes. the northern route approval act exempts transcanada from multiple laws. including treaty acts that we have passed, clean water acts, many others that my colleague mr. nolan pointed out that american companies are subject to. yes, giving foreign companies preferential treatment over american companies. even though we don't know the cost of potential keystone tar sand spills, we do know that american taxpayers will likely be stuck paying the bill for cleaning up and for the economic costs of these spills. tar sands developers are exempt from paying into the oil spill liability trust fund. let me repeat that again. tar sands developers are exempt from paying into the oil spill

liability trust fund. that's this a fund that normally collects an eight cent per barrel excise tax on domestic crude oil to pay for spill prevention and mitigation efforts. they're exempt. they're not paying in like any oil that's pulled out of the ground in texas or across our country, they're paying in because we know that oil spills happen. we know they have real economic and health cost. we know they affect agriculture and water buff oh, no, this project is exempt. since tar sands are not considered conventional oil, transcanada is not required to pay into the trust fund for the oil it trps while the data indicates that the tar sand crude could actually have a worse economic and environmental impact when spilled than conventional oil. we can't summit more communities like mayflower to oil spills and then burden the u.s. tax play -- taxpayers at a time of record deficits to pay for the cleanup.

approving the keystone x.l. pipeline through this bill would simply benefit foreign oil companies at the expense of the health and safety of the american people. there's a process in place to protect the health and safety of the american people, the economic welfare of the american people, jobs, this bill sir kuhn vents that process that congress set up. if we want to change the process, let's have a debate about the process for approval and the statutory framework and work with the administration to come up with a better way to do it. let's not go around our own process. just because we may or may not like what we may or may not think is the outcome. i urge the majority to stop wasting the american people's time with bills that are going nowhere and turn toward addressing so many challenges we can agree on, redeucing the deficit, improving the economy, improving the efficiency of delivery of health care. let's talk about reducing gas prices. the bipartisan bill that i've

introduced with mr. gosar and others, if we defeat this rule, i'll bring up a bill to stop price gouging at the pump. i ask unanimous con sent to insert the language into the record along with relevant material immediate prior to the question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: i urge a no vote on the rule and the underlying bill. this rule doesn't allow for 10 minutes or debate or five minutes of debate or the one minute of debate on the very commonsense amendments brought forward by my colleagues like mr. peters of michigan and mr. tonko of new york. don't we have one minute to debate these important amendments? what are we doing that's so important? we didn't even go into session until noon. why not go into session of

11:59 and have one minute to debate the amendments. what are we doing here, mr. speaker? we have the time to get it right. let's do it. i urge a no vote on the rule and the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i would like to know if that is his close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. first of all the amendments that were talked about, mr. speaker, are amendments that would add to a process that we have said is very sacred. we don't want to change the process. we don't want to circumvent it. we are not circumventing any process. there is only one thing left to do. and that is because this crosses a national boundary, we need the president to ok it. every study that could be done, this started in 2008 and continued in 2009, 2010, 2011

and 2012, now here we are in 2013. it's out of opportunities to be studied. it's time. this rule provides for ample open debate and makes in order proposals from both sides of the aisle. as i stated before, this bill represents so much more than the approval of 875-mile long pipeline. it represents 42,100 jobs, greater energy independence, and will benefit our nation for generations to come. the keystone x.l. pipeline will allow 830,000 barrels of oil to flow each day to domestic refineries that employ hardworking americans. this number represents half of our current daily crude oil imports from the middle east. this will not only diversify our energy sources, but it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil from countries that in many ways do not share or respect our freedom and democracy.

as we speak, the southern gulf coast segment of the keystone x.l. pipeline is being constructed. it didn't require presidential approval for one reason. it didn't cross a national border. it was studied by the requisite state and federal environmental agencies. it was approved. and now it's approximately 50% complete. four years and 15,000 pages represent more than enough time and paper to study this pipeline. any more paper and we'll need an environmental impact statement to study the effects of the environmental impact statement. our nation is crying out for job creation, energy independence, and lower gas prices. today we have the opportunity to answer that call. and to remove the few remaining barriers that stand between americans and relief they desperately need. i ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this rule and passage of the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my

time, and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 223.

the nays are 194. the previous question is ordered. the house will be in order. would all members please take their seats and clear the aisle and remove your conversations rom the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask by unanimous consent to be allowed at the speak out of order for five minutes to conclude with a request. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

as you are all well aware of it's been a tough week in the southwest, and particular it's been a tough few days in the fourth district of oklahoma. to make mention briefly first thanks for your prayers, thoughts, and good will, but to note also the tornado that rolled through congressman tom cole's district in oklahoma from new castle, through moore, across the southern part of oklahoma city. mr. lucas: congressman cole is not with us today because he is still in oklahoma addressing the needs of and working with his fellow citizens and community members as they try to put themselves back together after this strike by an f-5 tornado. moore is particularly important to our colleague, congressman cole, because not only does he represent the community, he was raised there. his family's buried two

generations in the cemetery there. so it's a community that's important to him in many, many ways. with that said the good folks in moore and the other communities will over the coming days pull themselves back together. they'll finish sifting through every pile of rubble. they'll have made a determination that there's no one left to be saved as they work frantically to try to do that. and they'll begin the process of laying to rest those who were lost. and put their entire community back together. while many folks are well aware of the importance of fema and the federal response, moore is a classic example and this could be any community in the united states, of where in the greatest tragedy, most tragic loss of life, city government, county government, state government comes together to work

seamlessly to help those in need and recover those beyond help. we in the oklahoma delegation and our friends in the texas delegation appreciate everything that you have and you will help do in this effort. with that i'd like to yield the remainder of my time, mr. speaker, to the gentleman who represents part of that area just to the north of oklahoma city, the great fifth district of oklahoma, congressman lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford, is recognized. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. speaker. those in texas in the past week and oklahoma have experienced, lost six in texas, and two in oklahoma on sunday, and 24 in moore, oklahoma, including 10 children, 14 adults. we had been overwhelmed with the number of people that have come to us to say we are praying for you. i would like to make a request this body take a moment to pause and pray and experience a moment of silence in honor of those who

have been lost and the recover efforts there ahead. the speaker pro tempore: members will rise. mr. lankford: yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. johnson: i would like to speak out of order in order to address what we just talked about. the oklahoma situation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from texas is recognized. the house will be in order. the gentlelady will suspend. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. s the democratic side of the democratic -- of the texas delegation, i want to join the other republicans that came up

with the leads from oklahoma and simply say that this is not a partisan issue. we stand ready to be the assistance and whatever we can do to assist those people in oklahoma. i represent dallas. that is closer to oklahoma city than it is to houston. and no matter where occurrences might occur, we stand ready as american people to stand by those people who have been affected, not just standing party. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the question is on adoption of the resolution. as five-minute voting continues. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 228. and the nays are 185. the resolution is agreed to. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 982, to

prohibit the corps of engineers from taking certain actions to establish a restricted area prohibiting public access from waters downstream of a dam and or other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 228 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of house resolution 3. the chair appoints the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the

consideration of h.r. 3, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to approve the construction, operation and maintenance of the keystone x.l. pipeline, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is credit the first time. -- considered as read the first time. general debate shall not exceed 90 minutes controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority members of the committees on transportation and infrastructure, energy and commerce and natural resources. the gentleman from california, mr. denham, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. denham. mr. denham: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. denham: i thank the chairman for the time to express my views on h.r. 3 which will generate numerous benefits to the nation and its economic growth. this pipeline will create

american jobs, enhance our energy independence and strengthen our national security. i'm proud to say i'm a co-sponsor of this legislation because it represents a significant opportunity to create jobs and spur economic growth in our country. furthermore, this bill will help the nation become more energy independent. according to the department of energy, the pipeline will transport 830,000 barrels per day of oil from canada to the gulf coast totaling nearly half of our current daily imports from the middle east. this bill makes these numerous project benefits a reality. what this boils down to is breaking through bureaucratic hurdles and making this project a priority. the southern leg of the keystone x.l. pipeline has already been approved and this bill finishes the job allowing construction of the northern route of the pipeline to move forward. this bill also ensures that the environment and its historic resources are protected through

the five years of studies that have already been completed on this project. indeed, this has been the most studied project in our country's history. it also ensures that the projects routing through nebraska, the primary -- with the permit when it was denied in 2012 is the route chosen by the people of that state. simply put, as president obama said regarding the southern route, this bill cuts through the red tape. the project is the most extensively studied and vetted pipeline in the history of this country, given the nearly five years of study and review of the keystone x.l. project with four department -- state department environmental impact statements and over 15,000 pages of publicly released documents. we know the ends and outs and all about this pipeline. i believe an all of the above energy strategy, and this legislation is one piece of that puzzle to break america's dependence on overseas foreign

oil. finally, it's important to remember that this project will be built with private dollars and create thousands of private sector jobs. this project has passed three all three committees with bipartisan support, and i urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: last congress i voted for every piece of pro-keystone pipeline legislation that was brought before this body, every piece of pro-keystone pipeline legislation. but you know, something's happened along the way between then and now. and that something is called a hijacking of this bill by the right wing. i support the keystone pipeline project. i believe it will be an important element in our domestic energy infrastructure. last congress i was pleased to support and vote for keystone

legislation that was considered and passed by the house, including h.r. 1938. however, i am opposed to the pending measure primarily due to section 3 of the bill. the bill we are considering today is vastly different from h.r. 1938. that was reasonable, responsible legislation. h.r. 3 is absolutely not. instead of taking the straightforward approach that h.r. 1938 did which set a specific deadline for the president to grant or deny permit for the keystone pipeline, the pending measure compreetly eliminates the requirement for a permit. it -- completely eliminates the requirement for a permit. it deems a permit application by a foreign company, by a foreign company for a major undertaking in the united states to be approved. as i said, i want to see this pipeline built, but it will not be built under this proposal.

waiving permits, deeming permit applications approved for a foreign company? we don't even do that for our domestic companies. everybody in this country understands that you need a permit for certain activities. you need a permit to drive. you need a permit to mine coal. you need a permit to build a highway. you need a permit to construct a shopping mall. you even need a permit and license to get married. so what do the promoters of this bill have to jeopardize this pipeline, what right do they have to jeopardize this pipeline with this frivolous proposal, and that's exactly what we're doing with this legislation? make no mistake about it, this is a bumper sticker bill, ideological driven, born of fancy, not fact. jobs hang in the balance here. an important supply of oil held hostage. this bill is a mockery. it boils down to this --

right-wing politics trumping what is right, what is correct and what is just for this pipeline to proceed through the permitting process, to be built, to put people to work. so let's get serious. let's dispense with the kindergarten tactics. too much is on the line here. while the promoters of this bill play politics, i can assure them this is no laughing matter in the heartland of america. it's my hope this bill can be improved during house consideration today and i will be able to support it by the time we reach final passage. otherwise i'll vote no and recognition of what this bill is currently drafted. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. denham: this is a very serious matter. thousands of jobs, american jobs are on the line. energy independence is on the line. when is enough enough? five years, six years, 10 years? when will we utilize north american oil in north america? mr. chairman, i wish to yield

two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. shuster: i thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of h.r. 3, the northern route approval act, which allows construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline, and i'm happy to say it passed out of the full committee on transportation and infrastructure on may 16 with a bipartisan vote of 33-24. and my good friend from california is right, when is enough time enough? my good friend from west virginia asks, what gives us the right and what gives us the right is the constitution. the house of representatives, the senate, the legislative body to pass laws, to move things forward and five years is way too long. we need to develop the energy in america. we need to bring energy from our good friends from canada, and this all adds to the regulatory burden that this administration has put on us. so this pipeline is the lifeline of power of nearly all

of our daily activities. the hallmark of america's 2.5 million pipeline network is that it dwribts volumes of product reliably, safely and economically. pipelines are the most safe and cost-effective means to transfor the and fuel our economy. it supplies more than 2/3 of the energy used in the united states. and the keystone x.l. project will be -- will increase our nation's supply of oil and decrease the cost of oil used in the transportation sector. h.r. 3 is a commonsense bill that allows construction, maintenance of the keystone x.l. pipeline to move forward. the pipeline has been subject to extensive environmental reviews already conducted. in fact, it's the most studied pipeline in the history of america. the bill would require no presidential permit process for the approval of the pipeline and therefore avoids further political delays on this project. of particular interest to taxpayers, this pipeline doesn't require one federal

dollar. further, the very nature of infrastructure creates jobs and the keystone is no exception. in fact, the u.s. department of state -- the state department estimates that the keystone will produce 42,000 jobs, jobs that would not be created millions this project goes forward. this project has significant positive economic impacts, estimated at $3.3 billion. will you yield me another 30 seconds? mr. denham: yield an additional minute. he chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: $2.1 billion in earnings. finally as noletted throughout the he -- noted throughout the process, keystone x.l. will be the safest pipeline ever constructed. let me repeat that. the safest pipeline ever constructed. it should be approved without further delay. i urge all of my colleagues to vote for this pipeline to help secure america's energy independence. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the ranking member on our

transportation freight panel, mr. nadler of new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the northern route approval act, which would deem the keystone x.l. pipeline approved. the national oceanic and atmospheric administration just measured almost 400 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide, well beyond the 350 parts per million many scientists warn is the level we must not cross to avoid severe climate impacts. any rational person, any rational person who doesn't want more hurricane sandies or more oklahoma hurricanes would recognize we must focus on developing renewable energy sources and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. and yet this bill mandates the approval of a pipeline to allow canada to deliver 830,000 barrels of tar sand oils to gulf coast refineries. tar sand oil is difficult to extract and the process is destructive and toxic. producing tar sand oils

releases 14% more green house gas emissions than ordinary oil. or those concerned, canada allowing a gigantic and irreversible step backward. the bill sets a dangerous precedent, undercutting our environmental laws and short-circuiting the review process. it deems the pipeline approved by congressional mandate. it locks of a date certain and eliminates the presidential permit, normally required for cross-border pipelines and allows the issuance of permits, not just for construction of the pipeline but for operation and maintenance as well. otherwise in perpetuity. it deems the environmental and safety laws satisfied regardless of the facts. it also manages to undermine the citizens fair act of judicial review. the bill appears to grant the right of judicial review by allowing loug the d.c. circuit -- it the bill states that the

e.i.s. should be considered to satisfy all requirements, unquote, of the national environmental policy act. the court is told you have jurisdiction but here's what air going to find. never mind your own judgment. the bill also states as a matter of law of section 404 of the clean water act, section of the 10 of the waters act, the deral land policy act of 1976, the indengered species act is all satisfied. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nadler: this bill goes in the wrong direction. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. denham: mr. chairman, i wish to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: thank you to the gentleman from california for yielding. many of my colleagues are correct, we do need a permitting process, but this bill is what needs to happen when the permit process breaks down. this is when a project like keystone that's going to create the tens of thousands of jobs that many of us in this chamber

go back to our home districts and talk about being created but a piece of paper with a lack of signature is holding this up. just this past week, our president stood and said he wanted to make sure that we shorten the time that permits like this take, that we shorten the process so that america can begin to put our trades and labor folks back to work again. this, mr. president, is your time, your time in history where you can sign this permit, create tens of thousands of jobs and really prove to us that your serious about reining in this regulatory process. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. walz: i thank the ranking member for the time. i also thank him for his long time commitment to american

energy independence. i, too, share that. i have been a supporter of a bipartisan energy bill that brought environmental groups and the heritage foundation together said maybe we can find solutions to this. i have been in support of this project from the beginning. the problem is today this bill has nothing to do with that. it has to do with politics. today is an example why this body is less popular than hepatitis amongst the american public. it's not only not going to do anything, it's going to set us back. many of us want this project done. but i have to tell you the worst thing we can do is build this and have a problem with it. we hear about the number of pages of regulation that are there. maybe we needed a couple more with b.p. and we wouldn't have been cleaning up after that mess. you don't have to choose between building it and compromising safety. you do it right if we are going to do it. unfortunately, that's not what we are doing. you deem t. you give away those rights. it's personal for me. i grew up in the nebraska sand hills. it was the good people of nebraska and the republican governor who told us to step

back, slow down, and pick a different route and finished it in january of this year. so when you hear about all the process, process gets it right. i have to tell you i do agree with my colleague on this, there's jobs to be created here. we spend $1 billion a day to countries that hate us for oil. they'll hate us for free. keep it here. we don't have to do this. and there have been delays in this project. this bill is a bridge way too far. but be honest with the people. this is not by building going to lower gas prices, it's not the long-term solution to our energy needs. there's no guarantee we get the oil in this country. but we can come together, build a piece of it, and expand our portfolio. we should shouldn't be muddying up the issues. the last time we had this vote i voted with it all these times. one time the political arm of my friends sent a notice out to my hometown newspapers asking why tim walz wants to raise your gas prices. they forgot they got it wrong, i voted with them.

that press release today is already written and sending it back. it's not going to do anything except hurt americans, people's faith in our democratcy. you are not going to get cheaper gas prices. you are not going to have this thing built overnight. you risk danger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. walz: the american people are not stupid. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to heed the gavel. the gentleman from california. mr. denham: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. duncan: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank chairman denham for dealing me this time. i want to commend chairman shuster and the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, for bringing this bill to the floor at this time. this is a very important bill, as speaker boehner said on the floor yesterday, it would create 20,000 great jobs and about 100,000 jobs.

the state department estimated $42,is00 direct jobs. these are american jobs. we have millions of people, too many millions that are unemployed, mr. chairman, and many millions more who are underemployed having to work at jobs far below their skills, talent, and abilities, this will create good american jobs. 30,000 barrels a day of oil being piped down. by itself maybe it wouldn't bring down gas prices, but it certainly would keep some of these other 230r7b energy producers from raising their prices as fast as they surely would like to and have them in the -- have been in the past. i can tell you if we don't pass this bill and similar bills to increase energy production in this country, all we are going to be doing is helping opec and other foreign energy producers. it's time we start putting our own people, our own workers first. start putting our own country first again.

we need to pass this bill to help in that process. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: a time check. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia has eight minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 7 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. rahall: i yield two minutes -- one minute -- 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for 90 seconds. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this and so many other areas. i rise in opposition to h.r. 3. it is a very bad deal. it's bad for our environment. our energy policy. american workers, and a bad deal for america in general. the way this bill is written, a foreign company pumping a very dirty form of oil all the way across this country would not have to pay a dime into our oil spill liability trust fund the way that american companies have

to do. under this bill the highly polluting tar sands that the pipeline carries would produce over 40% more carbon pollution than conventional oil. and increase america's dependence on one of the single dirtiest petroleum products there is. just as the predictions of climate change catastrophes grow more dire each and i ever day, and that is just not right for america's future. h.r. 3 leaves americans with all of the risks of spills, environmental damage, and air and water pollution, but none of the lasting rewards. it's a bad idea and it's bad policy, and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. denham: been a lot of confusion out there on this very important issue. some would say canada oil? from canada in the

current keystone pipeline. this is another opportunity for 830,000 barrels. why are you going to do this? this has never been done before. my colleague has already voted for a piece of legislation like this dealing with the alaskan pipeline. where they expedited the nepa process. it was included by a voice vote of the entire house. when the project is ripe to get it done, it's ripe. these are american jobs we need. mr. chairman, i wish to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for 90 seconds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gas and groceries, ask yourself, is there anything else that eagles more into your budget day in and day out? when we talk about your family budget, wouldn't it be great if your dollar could go further? better yet, at least the price cost stay normal instead of changing every single -- think about it. gas and grocery prices are all over the place. one week you go pay for your gas, maybe have some extra money in your pocket for date night. mr. raddle: the next week the

prices shood up and you barely have enough money to pay for your rent. cheaper prices at the pump and less expensive grocery bill starts right here and now with the approval of the keystone pipeline. this issue really, is as bipartisan an issue can get. why? because it means jobs, jobs, jobs. we are not talking republican or democrat. red or blue. we are talking about green. meaning more money in your pocket. mr. radel: in that bipartisan spirit, even union members support this pipeline because they know how many jobs will be created with republican leadership, we are going to get this done. union members, this is about you. this is about your opportunity, your jobs. not only is this about jobs, it's about our national security here in the united states. ask yourself, do you really want to continue sending money to countries that really don't have the best intentions for us in mind? or do you want energy independence?

meaning a safe and secure united states for you and your family for generations to come? of course, more money in your pocket the next time you go to get some gas in your car or buy your groceries. this is about you, your family, thank you. i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. denham: mr. chairman, i wish to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from south carolina. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. rice: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to express my support for this legislation. american competitiveness is my primary focus. the nameplate on my desk says jobs, jobs, jobs. we created a regulatory morass in this country that stifles progress on all fronts. we got to get the government off the backs of our job creators. i hear this project has been studied for more than 1,700 days, five years, that it would create more than 40,000 american

jobs at a time when jobs are so desperately needed, and it would drive down the cost of energy and cut our oil imports from opec in half and the state department has reviewed it and found it exhibits no significant environmental hazards, yet the administration still refuses to issue the permits. we can study this project forever and we'll never resolve every possible question. this used to be a can-do country. if the administration will not make a decision, congress should. let's top wringing our hands, approve this progress, and move forward. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield two minutes now to the gentleman from texas, mr. green, who like me is a supporter of the keystone pipeline. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. thank our ranking member from transportation and infrastructure for allowing me to speak. i have been a long-time supporter of the keystone x.l. pipeline i'm frustrated the

pipeline has still not been approved after four favorable environmental impact statements. it's time for the administration to approve the project. i represent refineries where most of the oil sands product will go. the fact these refineries will continue to seek supplies of crude oil when the x.l. pipeline is approved or not. the bottom line is if the president does not approve the keystone pipeline, he will force these facilities to continue to purchase oil from unstable foreign countries with very few environmental regulationings. i want my democratic colleagues to understand even if we made all the investments we want to in alternative energy, and i support that, we still need to rely on oil for the next 25 or 30 years. this number comes from our administration, so if we have to purchase oil from someone, doesn't it make sense to purchase it from a province that regulates carbon? let me be clear about a couple things. i support the bill because it's a message bill and it's time for the administration to stop stalling and make the decision.

there are provisions of the bill i don't like. -- section port the 4 through 8 or why we continue to send bills that doesn't have chance in the senate except to tell them again the house will support the pipeline. i hope this vote will put us -- this you shall shoe behind us because our refineries are ready to use that heavier crude because they are importing it from other countries like venezuela, which i would rather have it import interested canada, our closest neighbor. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. denham: mr. chairman, i wish to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. mullen. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. thank you. i rise today to thank you this is a great opportunity for oklahoma and the rest of the state. in oklahoma we know the value of hard work and dedication to one another makes commonsense decision when is we are given the opportunity. common sense tells us that the

keystone pipeline should be approved. however during my short time in washington i have found that common sense is one thing this town lacks. my congressional district is one of the hardest working in the nation. the southern leg of the keystone pipeline and significant job creator and economic developer directly to our local communities. listen to these figures. the southern project is bringing in $5 million a month in production and other expenses plus 1,000 jobs in my state alone. a permit will bring similar economic benefits to areas along the northern routes. every cup of coffee those workers buy in a small town adds up. completion of the pipeline would result in 830,000 barrels of oil a day from canada and the fields in north carolina and montana. these are reliable north american sources. with the approval and completion of the keystone pipeline, we'll significantly reduce our he dependency on crude oil from regions such as the middle east and africa. pipelines are a protch, safe way

to transport crude oil. our country is at a crossroads. will we take the path that leads to energy independence and job growth and prosperity? or will we continue to delay? the keystone pipeline is an opportunity for america to lead. the time has come to put the interest of the country first and not the party and approve the keystone pipeline. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from west virginia. mr. rahall: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. denham: mr. chairman, how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from california has 2 /4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from west virginia has five minutes remaining. r. denham: thank you. yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman. five years.

five years and still no decision. what does five years mean? well, world war ii, where we mobilized america, we went to war, we fought for our liberty and our national security on two fronts, thousands and thousands americans worked in our factories, went off to war in less than five years. but yet we can't get a decision out of the white house for five ars on this project, are you kidding me? if we had to wait for the environmentalists to make up their mind, we never would have made the panama canal. 20% of the refineries is a national security interest. some of my friends on the other side have been badmouthing canada. let me tell you something, if canada, the united states and mexico work on an energy policy and make a north atlantic,

north american energy policy, we can make middle eastern politics irrelevant. this pipeline will bring in as much crude oil as we get from saudi arabia. mr. president, pick a horse and ride it. sign the deal, and i yield ack. the chair: the chair reminds members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close. although i do have a couple members lurking in the hallways here threatening to come to speak so maybe i'll slowly close unless the gentleman from california wants to use his time. mr. denham: mr. chairman, i'm ready to close as well. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: all right. mr. chairman, we've had a short debate here and i'm sure it will continue during the

amendment process. my concerns as i stated in my opening comments, the fact we're deeming a foreign company the right -- outright right, giving them a permit without any further requirements or actions needed is of deep concern to me. as i said, i have many coal companies that mine in a responsible way in west virginia. they've bon through the responsible processes of obtaining a permit. -- they've gone through the responsible processes of obtaining a permit. at least they know they have to obtain a permit to mine. they're not asking to outright be deemed to have a permit without having to show how responsible they are in their operations. but in this legislation, to give a foreign company an outright application is truly

disconserning to this -- disconcerning to this particular member. we've had a discussion in committee last week of what i and others view as preferential treatment to a foreign company. and some on the majority side of the aisle refuse to concede that transcanada is a foreign company or even that canada is a foreign country. well, you know what, the last time i checked, you do need one of these to enter canada. it's called a passport. so that's really beside the point, but i did want to raise it since i'm sure it will come up when the debate is concluded. the point is this bill waives a permit for such an undertaking, and these companies that are producing these tar sands in canada, like exxon, shell,

valero, cnrl, conoco for transcanada, i dare say they have to obtain a permit from the canadians to undertake such operations to build this pipeline. and yet we're saying they don't have to in our country. that's for a foreign company, then that is troubling we would rant such a permit outright to deem they have met all safety and environmental requirements when we don't even do that for our own domestic companies. so with that i would urge a no vote on h.r. 3 today unless, of course, during the amendment process my amendment, which is to strike section 3, were to miraculously be adopted to this body, then perhaps i can support this legislation. but other than that i would urge a no vote on the

legislation. so i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. denham: mr. chairman, how much time -- the chair: 1 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. denham: i will conclude and i yield myself such time as i may consume. a lot has been talked about here but let me get back to the facts, this legislation, if passed, would be passed the same way that in 2004 the alaskan national gas pipeline which the entire body passed on a voice vote. members that are complaining about this bill voted for that very same type of legislation. talked about the pipeline was deemed, that legislation was deemed. the pipeline was deemed to be in the national interest. this is in our national interest. energy independence, american jobs. there's a reason to expedite this. let alone waiting five years,

we can't afford to wait another five years to have an expedited nepa process then like it was that the gentleman had supported in the past. this has been talked about it's a republican bill. yet the afl-cio is supporting the bill. the national brotherhood of teamsters, the national union of operating engineers, the national electronic contractors association as well as the u.s. chamber and national taxpayers union. this is about american jobs, whether you're union or nonunion, whether you're a member of the chamber of commerce or not, this is about getting people back to work and being energy independent. this is a bipartisan bill that simply cuts through the very red tape that the president continues to complain about. it helps this nation realize the benefits of this project, the energy independence of our nation. mr. chairman, i encourage all members to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

ack the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan and the gentleman from california each will control 15 minutes. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that i might use as much time as i may consume? the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: i rise in strong support of the keystone pipeline that will finally make this project a reality for the american people. there may be a few of my colleagues that are tired of the keystone bills but the american people are also tired d they're tired of 37 -- $3.70 a gallon gasoline,

they're tired of four years of delays that continue to block this critical jobs and energy project. remember that the president said only last year he would do whatever it takes to create u.s. jobs. for every stated reason for previous delays has now been addressed. most recently, the reroute of a portion of the pipeline through nebraska. in fact, you can count nebraska's governor among the many americans who want to see the keystone pipeline built. and while some may try to make this a partisan issue here in the congress, it is not a partisan issue across the country with a majority of americans, democrats, republicans, independents supporting the pipeline, including a vote last march on the senate budget. i give credit to president obama for saying some of the right things as of late. just last week during a visit r, at imore, manufacture

a factory, the president declared, one of the problems we had in the past is that sometimes it takes too long to get projects off the ground. he added there are these permit and red tape and planning and this and that and some of it is important to do but we can do it faster. those are his words. well, guess what, the very day before, the president of that same company was here on capitol hill testifying in support of the keystone pipeline and how it will help his business. the president has it exactly right and exhibit a is the keystone pipeline. some are trying to claim this bill is an unprecedented attempt to rush the process. give me a break. in truth, the only thing that is unprecedented is the lengthy delay that we've already encountered for a project that's been the subject of over 15,000 pages of federal environmental review and, yes, found to be safe.

congress faced much of the same dilemma 40 years ago when the federal red tape was holding up this project called the alaska pipeline. at the time congress realized that the bureaucratic process had gotten out of hand and that a pipeline that was clearly in the national interest was being subjected to never-ending delays, but thanks to the bipartisan 1973 trans-atlantic pipeline authorization act, the red tape was cut, the ground was broken and the project was built. it became an incredible success story, a game changer for american energy policy, providing thousands of jobs, billions of barrels of oil while safeguarding alaska's environment. guess what, h.r. 3, this bill, takes much of the same approach for the keystone pipeline. unfortunately, while the delays over the keystone grow longer, so do the excuses. some argue that keystone won't create very many jobs and most of them will be temporary.

tell that to the labor unions and american workers who are begging for this pipeline to be built. even the administration's own state department found that keystone would support over 40,000 jobs during the pipeline's construction. that's a lot of jobs to me, and the paychecks created by the keystone pipeline will be paid for by the private sector, not taxpayer dollars. some also claim that keystone won't impact gas prices. well, while supply and demand still stands, keystone's going to deliver up to a million barrels a day of canadian oil to american refineries. and remember, already today, today we are getting a million and a half barrels from canada from the oil sands. so if the pipeline isn't built, guess what, the oil is going to come by truck or by rail, certainly a riskier form of transport, not nearly as cost efficient as the keystone pipeline will be. this will be the most technically advanced and safest pipeline ever constructed.

probably about $4 million, $5 million a mile, adhering to the new pipeline safety standards that we worked together on a bipartisan basis, signed by the president last year, adding 57 additional safety standards specific to the project. so for that reason, mr. speaker, we need to support the bill and i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: today, the house republicans are making the fourth attempt in two years to ant special treatment to the trans-canada's keystone x.l. tar sands pipeline. that's what happened what happens when you set the oil companies setting the agenda. we're passing legislation to exempt a foreign company from the rules that every other company in america has to follow.

of course, last week we voted for the 37th time to repeal the affordable care act. we're trampling our rule of law to speed canada's dirty tar sands oil to the gulf where it can be refined and sent to other countries tax-free. that's great for the tar sands developers and refiners like the koch brothers and valero, but this bill will hurt american families. it won't lower gas prices by a single penny. it may even raise them. more lock us in to global warming and risk our farmlands and our water supply. no wonder americans are cynical about congress. i oppose the keystone x.l. tar sands pipeline because it will worsen climate change.

keystone x.l. will lock the united states into decades of dependence on dirtier tar sands crude, reversing the carbon pollution reductions we have been working so hard to accomplish. experts tell us that this keystone x.l. will triple production of the tar sands, and that's simply not consistent with any future scenario for avoiding can stroffic climate change. we done -- catastrophic climate change. we don't need it. we have our own sources of oil here in the united states, and we are using less oil because of our efficiency in new cars that are getting better mileage. so i oppose this bill for these reasons, but even if you support the pipeline, you should oppose this bill. h.r. 3 is an extreme bill. it grabts a regulatory -- it grants a regulatory earmark to

trans-canada, exempting it from all environmental requirements. it's also unnecessary. the state department is carrying out their review of this highly controversial project. h.r. 3 would approve the pipeline by locking out the public, eliminate the president's authority to balance competing interests, stop federal agencies from ensuring if the project does go forward we do it as safely as possible. the keystone x.l. tar sands pipeline is a bad deal for america. we get all the risks while the oil companies reap the rewards. but even if you support it, this bill is harmful and unnecessary and i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 3 and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. speaker, at this point i would yield 2 1/2 minutes to the sponsor of the bill, mr. terry from nebraska. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for 2

1/2 minutes. mr. terry: thank you, mr. chairman. and i rise in support. let me quote the president from his speech last week. today i'm directing agencies across the government to do what it takes to cut time lines for breaking ground on major infrastructure projects in half. and what that will mean is construction workers will get back on the jobs faster, it means more money going back into local economies, and it means more demand for outstanding dredging, the particular business that he was visiting that day. the president's right. but look at the keystone project that he has purposely denied at one time and now elaying. so, the nearly 1,705 days is more than double the time that the traditional transborder

pipelines have taken. what this is is a $7 billion privately funded infrastructure project that puts immediately 20,000 workers, 2,000 of which come from my state of nebraska, downstream with the new expansion of refineries that could go up to 118,000. you have to ask when there's been two other times in history , two of them both supported by the democrats, sponsored by the democrats, that is doing the same thing that this bill is, this isn't breaking new ground, this is the alaska natural gas pipeline, the transatlantic pipeline. both are doing the same things that are here. so you have to ask the question, why, mr. chairman, has it taken five years to get to the point where all of the studies are done and completed but yet they're still finding ways to delay? we know what it is.

the agenda has been taken over by the left-wing extremists. the nrdc and the extreme environmental groups are dictating the delay here in the hopes of killing it. they have stated that their hope is to kill. that's their number one issue is to kill this pipeline. and then they're going to go after other things. after this is done. so, that's what the real agenda is here. so let's stop saying that this is just an extraordinary piece of legislation. this is modeled on past pieces f legislation where delays and bureaucratic morass has delayed them and it's time after almost five years to get the keystone pipeline working and the people working. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i am pleased now to yield to our subcommittee on energy, ranking

member congressman bobby rush from the state of illinois, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized and forgive me but for how much time? mr. waxman: three. the chair: three minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. rush: i want to thank the ranking member for yielding. mr. speaker, i strongly sagree with the majority's process of trying to usurp president obama's authority by immediately approving the keystone x.l. pipeline, even before the state department of the united states of america completes its due diligence as our laws require. mr. speaker, this is not an issue about jobs for americans, but rather it is a question of whether this congress should exempt one foreign company from

the laws of america. this bill is about seizing power from the president of the united states. this bill is about curtailing all federal environmental permitting requirements. this bill is about limiting the ability of average u.s. citizens to seek justice through the court system of our nation. mr. speaker, h.r. 3 would remove the keystone pipeline out of the jurisdiction of states and local courts and would give only one court, the d.c. circuit court of appeals, exclusive jurisdiction over his project, causing undue

hardship on ordinary american milies, small businesses and landowners who may or may not a the resources to retain to travel to washington, d.c., in order to have their american legal ights heard by this american justice system. mr. speaker, i saw to amend this atrocious bill. my amendment would have struck section 4, the judicial review clause, so that ordinary american citizens could keep . eir legal rights in tact but my republican colleagues

wouldn't allow us to vote on that amendment here today in full view of the american people. mr. speaker, as the white house notes in its statement of administration policy, and i ote, h.r. 3 conflicts with longstanding executive branch procedures regarding the authority of the president, the secretaries of state -- 30 more seconds? the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. rush: the interior and the army and the e.p.a. administrator. in addition, this bill is unnecessary because the department of state is working right now diligently to complete the permit decision process for the keystone x.l. pipeline. the bill presents the thorough

consideration of conflict issues, does it have serious security, safety, environmental and other ramifications? and i end the quote. mr. speaker, i share these concerns of the president and for that reason i urge all of my colleagues to vote against this egregious bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would yield two minutes to the chairman of the energy and power subcommittee, mr. whitfield from kentucky. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for two minutes. mr. whitfield: thank you very much for yielding. and i would reiterate once again that the application in the bill was filed on september 19, 2008. since that time over 15,500 and some odd pages of environmental studies have been conducted. as a matter of fact, the secretary of state, who is involved because this pipeline crosses international

boundaries between canada and america, and by the way, if this pipeline had been built only -- was to only be built in america, it would have been approved a long time ago. the only reason it has not been approved is because president obama has made a decision not to approve it. waiver unions support it. every time we've had a hearing, the four international labor union presidents have come and said, we want this pipeline. not one dime of federal or taxpayer dollars will be in this pipeline. and $8 billion -- an $8 billion project, 20,000 jobs. we have the opportunity to be independent for our energy needs in america. the international energy agency said just recently that more oil will be produced in america by 2020 than even in russia today. and with this pipeline coming in, the additional pipeline oil that will be coming from canada, we have an opportunity to be independent even more

quickly perhaps. now, our friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, one reason we are opposed to this is because this oil when it gets to texas, will be exported. well, the head of the department of energy's office of policy and international affairs wrote a letter just recently saying that there's no economic incentive for any of this oil to be going anywhere than in america. they've also said that, well, it will not reduce gasoline prices in this same letter. the gentleman says we expect midwest gas prices to go down if we build this pipeline. so, the american people support this pipeline, it produce -- it will produce jobs, it will help control gasoline prices and it won't be exported. so i would urge everyone to support this important legislation today and to pass the keystone pipeline legislation. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i'm pleased now to yield two

minutes to the gentlelady from the state of illinois, ms. schakowsky. the chair: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: mr. chairman, we are privileged to be members of the single legislative body in the entire world that has the greatest opportunity to actually address the biggest challenge humankind has ever faced. the warming of our tiny planet and the devastating consequences that will follow. i'm not asking anyone to agree that humans are the cause. i'm only asking that regardless of the cause, adding more carbon to the atmosphere does put our lifestyle, ultimately the lives of generations, at peril. it won't be long before anyone -- no one will view this notion as radical and we will all be judged. we can choose now to shift toward cleaner fuel sources that will make our country forever energy-independent. or we can continue to leave american consumers subject to

unpredictable oil prices and severe public health and climate changes. our atmosphere can only absorb about 565 gigatons more of carbon dioxide before global temperatures rise two degrees celsius. if that happens the planet faces catastrophic consequences and keystone x.l. would push us toward that cliff. transcanada's application to run a pipeline filled with the dirtiest oil on the planet right through the middle of our country, refine it and then export it on the world opec markets. even those who support the pipeline should agree to examine the consequences of its construction. and this bill would prevent that from even happening. i ask my colleagues to take your heads out of the tar sands and let's all work together to collaboratively address the crises that we face. we can meet our energy and environmental challenges together. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from

michigan. mr. upton: may i ask the speaker how much time we've consumed on this side? the chair: the gentleman from michigan has six minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. upton: i would yield a minute to the chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. barton: thank you and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. barton: let me say before i rise in support of this particular piece of legislation that if we want to have a debate on global warming, let the record show that the greenhouse gas emissions in the united states is at its lowest level since 1995. that's without cap and trade, that's without command and control. it's based on the ingenuity of the american people and the market at work here in the united states. keystone pipeline would simply make it possible to take oil from canada, transport it down to the gulf coast of the united states to be refined into products that would either be sold in the united states or in some cases perhaps exported

overseas. it would create tens of thousands of jobs in the construction phase, maintain and probably increase the number of jobs in our refinery and petrochemical complex on the gulf coast of the united states. it's a good piece of legislation. only in america would this be controversial. it's a win for the canadians, it's a win for the consumers in america. it's a win for the workers of america that would be able to do the construction and also work in the refineries, in those particular industries. so i would rise in strong support and hope that we support mr. terry's bill and send it to the other body. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i'm please at this time to yield to my colleague from -- i'm pleased at this time to yield to my colleague from california, mrs. capps. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3. the keystone proposal itself is a bad idea. this bill simply makes it worse. it's no secret that we are dependent on oil and other

fossil fuels for our energy needs. but it's also no secret that this dependence is polluting our planet. it's harming public health. and it's threatening our national security. but rather than reduce this dependence, h.r. 3 and the keystone pipeline just make this problem worse. we have the greatest innovators and entrepreneurs in the world. and they're eager to mr. a sustainable energy future -- to build a sustainable energy future. instead of doubling down on fossil fuels, we should be encouraging development of clean, renewable energy resources and technologies. these investments protect our planet for future generations and they improve the health of our friends and our families. and they create permanent local jobs that can't be shipped overseas. finally, there's no denying that construction of this pipeline would create jobs. but they're mostly temporary jobs. and while we're facing estimated job losses of 750,000

due simply to sequestration, creating a few thousand temporary jobs, though helpful, does not constitute the comprehensive jobs legislation our nation really needs. this congress needs to take steps to move to a clean energy economy and create millions of permanent jobs right here in the u.s.a., that cannot be shipped overseas. mr. speaker, h.r. 3 is a giant step in the wrong direction on both counts. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the chair: the gentleman from ichigan. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, dr. gingrey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gingrey: 1,706, i repeat, 1,706 days since the keystone application has been submitted to our state department. instead of moving toward energy independence and job creation by approving this pipeline we learn that this administration

has been spending its time wiretapping journalists and targeting conservative groups for their political beliefs. within the past 10 day the obama administration has spent much more time defending its violation of the first amendment than seeking to add 830 barrels of product per day. the white house seems to care more about their own jobs than the 20,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs created by the keystone x.l. pipeline this behavior is simply unacceptable. mr. chairman, it is time that this body take action to bolster our economy, move our nation toward energy independence, areas where this president has failed miserably. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield to another member of the house from georgia, the distinguished gentleman, a member of our committee, congressman john

barro, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barro: thank you, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm a proud co-sponsor of this bill and these are the main reasons why this pipeline will move an estimated 840,000 barrels of oil per day. that's about how much we import every day from venezuela. any policy that allows taos bid good ridance to a country like venezuela is ok in my book. critics say -- this pipeline will make us less dependent on hostile rivals and more dependent on friendly allies for the transportation we need. critics say it will increase co-2 emissions. but it's going to be produced by somebody and the only question is whether we get first dibs on it. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation today and once and for all make the keystone

x.l. pipeline a reality and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. -- the chair: the gentleman from michigan. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding and i thank congressman terry from nebraska for bringing this bill forward. i rise in support of the keystone x.l. pipeline. if you look at the facts about what this means to america, 20,000 jobs immediately, energy security where we're going to be getting 830,000 barrels of oil a day from a friend in canada we don't have to get from middle eastern countries who don't like us. what's the answer by president obama, for five years now, he's said no. he said no to american jobs, he said no to american energy security because some radical environmental extremists told him they don't want this but the labor unions say they don't want this who's to benefit by

the united states not doing the keystone x.l. pipeline? china. china wants those jobs. if president obama gets his way, china will get those jobs. we don't want china to get those jobs, we want america to get the 20,000 jobs and $7 billion in private investments. how can this happen? with the stroke of a pen. today, president obama can approve the keystone x.l. pipeline but he won't. here congress is takinging action to get those 20,000 jobs, we ought to approve the bill and get the keystone x.l. pipeline bill. i yield back. the chair: i yield two minutes to our colleague from new york, the gentleman -- mr. waxman: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the gentleman from california. we are once again debating a bill that thankfully will go no further than that house.

even if you support the pipeline this bill is the wrong approach to build it. this bill elevates the needs of the tar sands developers above the concerns of the citizens who live along the pipeline's path. i regret my amendment on pipeline safety was not made in order. we have ample evidence from spills in kalamazoo, michigan, and mayflower, arkansas, that concerns about safety are well justified. cleaning up after a spill is a big task. three years after the spill in kalamazoo, it's still not cleaned up. families in mayflower are still living in temporary housing. the spill is not just messy, it's also dangerous. it's a toxic brew. the resources damaged by these spills with ill take years, probably decades, to restore. congress asked the national academy of sciences to assess

the adequacy of current pipeline safety regulations this information would be valuable, especially in light of these recent spis, but we are not waiting for it and if the proponents have their way, will have no opportunity to act on any recommendations that n.a.s. may provide this bill promotes reckless development of a pipeline that provides little public benefits to our citizens while increasing the risk to their communities, their property, and to our natural resources. we should not bypass our laws and the administration's process when evaluating this process. with that, i urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 3 and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield -- mr. upton: i yield one minute to the gentleman who is a member of the energy and commerce subcommittee.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olson: the keystone x.l. pipeline has been studied add nazz yam. it's been 1,706 days since the application to build the keystone pipeline was submitted to the obama squad mrgs. the keystone x.l. pipeline is nearly 1,200 miles long. at the average speed a human being can walk three miles an hour, it would take 393 hours to walk the pipeline's route. that means you could walk the entire pipeline route, round trip, about 53 times, in the days since the application was submitted for approval. at least walking would be some sort of action. america needs action. america needs 20,000 jobs. america needs 800,000 barrels a day coming from canada. america needs national security

that comes -- energy security. america needs the keystone x.l. pipeline, let's pass this bill now. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, we reserve. continue to reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner a member of the energy and power subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gardner: i thank the chairman for leading time and leading this great debate. we've talked about job creation the numb of jobs that would be created by the pipeline, as someone who lives above the ogallala aquifer, we have pipelines already above the og la la opportunity. -- aquifer. the fact that we can create 20,000 jobs is a good thing. the fact that the national federation of independent businesses support this pipeline, the u.s. chamber of

commerce, the labor unions, support the construction of this pipeline. it saddens me to think that this debate has come down to job jobs. people believe these aren't the kind of jobs we want. it's not about whether this is a pipeline that's good or bad for the environment. it's people who believe that these aren't the kind of jobs that we want in this country. i think it's a shame that we're having that debate on the house floor right now. these jobs are good enough for america. these are the kinds of jobs we want, high paying jobs to put people to work, to present opportunities for the american people in a country that's seen unemployment far too high for far too long. it's time the hijacking of this agenda ends. let's develop our own energy in north america. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i'd like to inquire how many speakers are on the other side. mr. upton: how much time do we have left on our side?

the chair: the gentleman from michigan has one minute remain, the gentleman from california has two minutes remaining. mr. upton: we have two speakers, unless yud like to yield some of your time to us. we still have two speakers so -- you have just one speaker left? why don't we do one, one, one to finish up. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. lance: i rise in strong support of h.r. 3, construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline is a significant element of america's all of the above energy policy and it will help lower energy costs, create jobs, and reduce our dependence on dangerous sources of foreign oil. it's supported by both business and labor alike, i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california.

mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: killer tornadoes in oklahoma, hurricane sandy in new york and the northeast, droughts in the southwest part of this country, record heat with waves are now the new normal. we've seen floods, we've seen wildfires, haven't you noticed that we've been experiencing a change in the climate? and it hasn't been good. we don't know if all of this is because of greenhouse gases. we do know enough, however, that we don't want tar sands with the e a chance only planet we live in. we want jobs, of course we want jobs, and we don't say jobs are not good enough if they're working in the pipelines, in construction. but we also want to protect

this country and this planet, it's the only one we have. and the tar sands are the dirtiest oil we could possibly get. we don't need it, we shouldn't go after it, and put ourselves at a greater dependence on a source that will pollute this planet with more greenhouse gases, more carbon emissions, more climate change, that will not be something we could look at with pride. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. johnson: it's coincidental that here we are talking about the environmental concerns that have been overexaggerated about the keystone x.l. pipeline. i stand in strong support of h.r. 3, the president himself

has acknowledged that the environmental concerns have been overexaggerated. this is the right thing to do for america. this is a job creating opportunity. this is an opportunity to take energy resources from a friendly ally in canada, use it here in america or make sure that it goes to our friends and allies, rather than our competitors like the chinese. mr. chairman, h.r. 3 is an important step move forward in bringing energy independence and security to america and i urge my colleagues to support it. the chair: the gentleman's time as expired.

the chair: debate will continue on each side -- and each side will control 15 minutes each. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 3, the northern route approval act. this important legislation would remove road blocks to allow for the approval and construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline, a project that is vital to america's energy future. the keystone x.l. pipeline has been tied up by red tape by the obama administration for nearly five years. just over 1,700 days ago, the application to build this important energy project was

submitted to the state department and for 1,700 days the american people have been waiting for the obama administration to stop leading from behind. this bill will create tens of thousands of american jobs, it will lower energy prices. the building of it will invest billions of dollars into our economy and make america more energy-secure. the keystone x.l. pipeline will transport over 800,000 barrels of oil per day from alberta, canada, down to the american refineries in the gulf of mexico. that's half the amount that the u.s. imports from the middle east. this bill was approved by the natural resources committee with bipartisan support. the provisions under our jurisdiction will help ensure that the construction of this pipeline takes place in a timely manner without the threat of lawsuit or unnecessary delay by the secretary of interior. this important project has gone through extensive environmental reviews, including two separate and over 15,000 pages of nepa

reviews. president obama's own state department has stated that this project will have no significant impacts on the environment. there's no credible reason for the president to continue holding up this project. that's why this project enjoys bipartisan support in both the house and the senate. it's not a democrat issue, it's not a republican issue. energy security and job creation is an american issue. this administration is the only road block that's standing in the way of american jobs, lower energy prices and increased american energy security. the northern route approval act makes the keystone x.l. pipeline a reality. it declares that no presidential permit shall be required to approve this pipeline and it prevents the obama administration from imposing further delays. so i urge my colleagues, mr. chairman, to support this important legislation and i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: does the gentleman reserve his time? mr. hastings: i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. >> mr. speaker, i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i thank the chairman. let me begin where the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, completed his remarks. we are experiencing climate change. mr. holt: it is very expensive in lives and dollars. it is the result of the way we produce and use energy. we must make these points clear. what we are talking about with this legislation is going further down this dangerous, deadly road. now, beyond that this legislation we are considering today represents a complete disregard of the affect of tar

sands oil on our environment and our economy. this bill would ask the united states to bear all of the vironmental risk without any appreciable awards -- rewards. less than two months ago, in may flour, arkansas, -- mayflower, arkansas, a typical small american town, the 2,234 residents of that arkansas river town learned what we mean by risk from an oil pipeline. as much as 7,000 barrels of oil spilled into neighboring communities and the environment. this oil was tar sands oil. this pipeline was part of this canadian pipeline system that we were talking about today. but rather than ensuring that

if we're going to build the keystone pipeline to transport this particularly dirty oil across the united states, that we first ensure that we have proper protections for our environment, this bill would take us in completely the opposite direction, while doing nothing to ensure that keystone oil would enhance our energy security. there's nothing whatsoever in this bill to require that the keystone oil actually stay in the united states. the jobs that will be created by this, according to the environmental statement prepared by the u.s. state department, the jobs that would be created over the long-term number in the few dozen, like 35. not in the thousands. yes, there will be some construction jobs and i want to assure our working americans that we want jobs for them. but we want sustainable jobs

that come from clean energy. they are available, they are available today. if we would stop going down this mistaken road. the proposed pipeline would transport tar sands oil from canada through the united states to free trade zones in texas for export. all risk, no reward. we're just a bypass. this is not oil that's coming to improve the lives of americans, to give us energy to power our cars or our industries. no, this is just passing through us. with the risk of a spill, with the problems of -- to the environment that might result. it ignores the lessons of the recent pipeline spill in arkansas and the tar sands spill in michigan, does nothing

to close a loophole that currently allows tar sands oil to allow paying taxes into the oil cleanup fund. that's right. because this product that comes out of the tar sands is defined as not oil for the purposes of paying into the oil spill liability trust fund. so it gets a free ride through the united states on its way to foreign countries. if we're going to consider this bill, at least let's use it as an opportunity to close the tar sands loophole and ensure that when the oil spills occur, i'll grant to the other side that this may be a safe pipeline, that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe pipeline, and when the oil spills occur, let's have the money there to clean it up. this bill goes on to declare that a presidential permit is transporter or project, and that all

requirements of the national environmental policy act, the endangered species act, the migratory bird treaty, would be deemed to have been satisfied. even if they haven't been satisfied. this is a bad deal for our country, this legislation does nothing to guarantee our energy security, all risk, no reward. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield three minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn: i thank the chairman. i rise in strong support of had this legislation. from day one, the obama administration has inexplicably put up road block after road block to prevent the construction of the keystone pipeline, a pipeline that would create tens of thousands of american jobs and securely bring 800,000 barrels of oil a day to american consumers. and these numbers are according to the administration's own departments of energy and

state. the project also would lead to billions of dollars of investment into the u.s. economy. besides on structing the construction of the -- obstructing the construction of the pipeline, president obama had no shame in taking credit for construction of the southern section of the pipeline which did not require his approval. sadly, canadian prime minister steven harper has announced that due to delays by the obama administration, canada has no choice but to consider alternative options for bringing its oil to market, including constructing a pipeline from alberta to the pacific coast for export to china. if we don't take advantage of this opportunity, somebody else will. probably china. after four environmental impact statements, all of which have concluded that there will be minimal environmental impacts, the administration continues to stall construction of the pipeline. it would lessen our dependence

on foreign oil from dangerous parts of the world, by integrating our friendly northern neighbor into our energy economy. with each day that passes, we slowly lose one of the best opportunities this country has had in a generation to secure our energy independence. since the president refuses to act, congress will. the northern route approval act removes the president's veto and will ensure that after years of extensive studies, construction of the pipeline can move forward so america can begin to benefit from this tremendous opportunity. i urge adoption of the act and i yield back to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, a senior member of the committee and one who understands that this pipeline does not help our energy security and puts our environment at risk.

the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding time. this will be, you know, repetition has become sort of the cause celeb here in the house of representatives. last week we totally repealed obamacare for the fourth time, 33 other times we've partially repealed it. of course none of those things have come true or happened. and this will be the seventh attempt by the house of representatives to expedite or in this case, they have gone one step further, to mandate the building of the x.l. pipeline. that's right, mandate. we're going to deem that an environmental impact statement done on a very different route is good for this pipeline. now, if you follow that logic, we could just have one generic environmental impact statement for any project anywhere in the united states of america and congress could just deem it to have met the law and the

environmental requirements. that's incredible. to go that much further in this political dealing here. now, what's going to happen? the canadians, you know, sadly, apparently are going to destroy their boreal forest, which are irreplaceable, to extract one of the dirtiest fossil fuels. they're then going to ship this tar sands oil through a pipeline, crossing the united states of america, that as the gentleman said will be exempt from the excise tax that all other oil companies and pipeline companies pay, american companies, some foreign companies. but everybody else pays it. they'll be exempt. they will not contribute to the oil spill liability trust fund. and it's going to go to a refinery located in a foreign trade zone, not paying export taxes, and that refinery is half owned by the saudis and this is going to give us energy

independence and lower prices. i mean, is it april fool's day? really? come on. this is not going to give any american a single penny off per gallon at the pump. i mean, right now we're in the annual traditional memorial day price gouging by the oil industry. it just happens magically every may, they're up to do a little periodic maintenance or unexpected maintenance on their plants. gasoline's gone up 50 cents a gallon on the west coast in the last three weeks. you know, this is not a free market, it's a manipulated market. we pay the so-called world price. so even if this refinery does produce and it will export this product, it's not going to lower the world price. because the saudis over the last couple of years have tracked our increased oil production with decreases in their oil production to keep the prices high. you know, there are things we could do to bring real relief to american consumers, get the

speculators out of the market, you know, and a number of other things we could do that would provide more immediate relief. but it will -- but this will not provide relief, it will not be a boost for our economy. yes, there are temporary construction jobs but guess what? we could create a heck of a lot more construction jobs in this country if we met our obligations to better fund the surface transportation trust fund and began to deal with the crumbling infrastructure in america. those would be real jobs that would really benefit this country. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to a member of the natural resources committee, a subcommittee chairman, mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, ever since the arab oil embargos of the 1970's that ravaged our economy and produced mile-long lines around gas stations, an avowed goal of our nation has been to reduce our reliance on middle eastern oil. well, in addition to the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity, the keystone pipeline will bring up to 830,000

barrels of canadian crude oil a day into the american market. about half of what we currently import from the middle east. that bears repeating. the keystone pipeline could cut our reliance on middle eastern oil by half, all by itself. the left makes much of the fact that our markets are international and some of that oil might enter that market. that's possible but i think it is far more likely that it will push middle eastern oil out of the american market. the fine point is this, in the next international crisis, which -- would you rather rely on canada or iraq to meet our etroleum needs? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: thank you, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. huffman who understands that oil passing through this country on the way to other countries does not improve our energy independence. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for two minutes. mr. huffman: what a wonderful bill if you happen to be the canadian oil company that reaps all the benefits but it comes at the expense of the american economy and the global environment. we should reject this bill out of hand this sweetheart deal approves the northern route of the keystone x.l. pipeline and exempts it if the rigorous public analysis and scientific standards that american companies are held to, including the national environmental policy act, the clean water act and the migratory bird treaty act of 1900. they're already exempt from paying into the fund that pays for cleanups. my colleagues are saying we front end no pay in for problems or any other way to collect for thins that go

wrong. transcanada, the canadian corporation proposing to build this pipeline is on record before the canadian energy board saying that this project will increase the price of oil in the united states system of let's be clear about what we're doing this house is considering a bill to cut corners for a foreign corporation to transport dirty fuel and raise gas prices for americans. why would we spend our time on this? well, we're told it's about jobs. but the fact is we don't know how many job this is pipeline project will creeafmente the estimates are all over the map. you could believe fox news which says it will create a million jobs or transcanada which says around 13,000 construction jobs or the state department which says it will create directly fewer than 4,000 jobs and less than three dozen of those will be permanent jobs. we don't even know the massive security risks and security cost this is project will foist on american taxpayers.

at a minimum we should approve the connolly amendment to generate a threat assessment if this bill is to move forward. this bill is a betrayal of our priorities as the congress of the united states of america. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from oklahoma, somebody who knows the energy industry well, the gentleman from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rides today as a proud oklahoma -- i rise today as a proud oklahoman. the keystone x.l. pipeline southern route which runs correctly -- directly but think -- through my congressional district is already creating good-paying jobs back in oklahoma. i've seen with my own eyes how it's putting millions of dollars into the economies of small towns directly in my district. mr. speaker, this is a time for

congress to act. this project has been delayed long enough. we have studied the environmental impact of keystone over and over again we feel know we can safely transport crude oil from our friends in canada and sources in the u.s. to places along the gulf coast. mr. mullin: the statement about the recent environmental review is more of the same from this administration who continues to claim it supports an all of the above approach but fails to follow through when it's time to act. let's put our country on the path to energy independence and off of foreign oil from those countries that do not have our best interests in mind. i urge my fellow members to do what is right not for the party but for this country and vote for h.r. 3. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i'd -- i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson. the chair: the gentleman is --

is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. grayson: i urge the republicans on the other side of the aisle to stop faking it. we have a bill here that deem this is, deems that, and deems the other thing. a bill that deems the environmental impact statement required by the national environmental policy act is deemed approved. it's not. a bill that says that the requirements of the endangered species act are deemed satisfied and opinion deemed issued. they're not. a bill that says that the required right of way and use permit on a mineral leasing act is deemed issued, not. and a bill that says the requirement for the water pollution control act and the migratory bird treatment act are deemed issued. not. why are we doing this? while we're at it, why don't we deem a balanced budget? why don't we deem full employment? why don't we deem world peace? it's it's farcical. it's a violation of the

separation of powers under the constitution. it's not our job to deem thins, it's our job to pass things of general application, not favors to foreign oil companies. >> i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. -- >> it's an earmark for a foreign oil corporation, a right of way that's valued at millions and millions of dollars when you tell us that you're not in favor of earmarks when the other side tells us they're not in favor of earmarks, stop the hypocrisy. i yield. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from montana, another member of the natural resources committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. daines: montanans understand how important this project is for our economy and our future. in eastern montana we've seen tremendous potential for jobs and economic growth that comes the il production in the field, and in glass glow, montana -- in glasgow, montana, they are slated to provide electricity to one of the pump stations. what this means to middle class, hardworking americans, this rural electric co-op will be able to spread their cost burden so the pipeline and supplying electricity to that pipeline will hold rates steady for their 3,000 customers. if the pipeline is not approved, norval customers will see an increase in utility rates over the last 10 years.

if the president isn't willing to listen to the voice of the people, then the house will. it's time to build the keystone x.l. pipeline. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: may i ask the time remaining. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has three and a half minutes remain, the gentleman from washington has seven and a half minutes remaining. the chair: the -- mr. holt: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hurt: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the northern route approval act, another house initiative to pave the way for construction of the keystone pipeline. i support this measure because approval of the pipeline will lead to lower fuel prices and it will create jobs. as i have traveled my district, my rural virginia fifth district, i have spoken with our small business owners, small farmers, volunteers, our students, our parents, and there can be no question but that the energy policies coming out of washington under this president are hurting our local

communities. that is why the immediate approval of the keystone pipeline is so important because it will reduce our dependence on foreign dictators, it will give us affordable energy and will create the jobs that we desperately need. after four long year, this bipartisan plan to create jobs and lower fuel prices should wait no longer. it is high time for the president to heed the wirns of the mrp people. stop the excuses and approve the keystone pipeline. i thank the chair and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i continue to reserve until the other side is ready to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: if i may inquire, d i hear my friend from new jersey has only one speaker left. mr. holt: yes, i believe that's correct, mr. chairman. mr. hastings: i hope that belief is true, then. you're waiting, i guess. well i have only one more speaker so if the gentleman is prepared to close then he'll close and i have one more speaker left.

the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: thank you, mr. chairman. so as we've heard, this is a bill that gives a canadian company a sweetheart deal. it deems that all of the conditions have been met even if they haven't been. takes a very dirty product, ships it through the united states, where we bear the risk of an oil spill. it's shipped to other countries. the u.s. consumer, the u.s. businessperson, the u.s. economy, derives little to no benefit from this. all risk, no reward. the transcanada keystone pipeline, the existing part of it, which would be connected to

this proposed pipeline, experienced 12 separate oil pills in 2010. in the united states, there are typically more than three million gallons spilled from pipelines. so don't tell me that this is without risk. and as for helping the economy, we would like to have good, long-lasting jobs for americans. this is not the way to do it. it does not do it. the long-lasting jobs number in the dozen -- the -- in the dozens, not the thousands. so this very dirty oil will not increase u.s. energy security, it certainly will not low energy prices, which are determined on the world market, and through various

manipulations here. so this clearly is not in the interest of the american consumer or american business. there's nothing in this bill to require that oil from this pipeline stay in the united states. there's nothing to close the tax loophole that allows tar sands oil to avoid paying for oil cleanup. in fact, i note with some irony here that some members of the majority who have spoken today n favor of this legislation to expedite the pipeline construction have asked the chairman of ways and means to fix this oil spill liability trust fund loophole. in other words, to see that tar sands, that this is not exempt from paying into the oil spill

trust fund. but the irony is, they don't want to fix it now. they want to fix it sometime in he future, in a as yet imaginative or con jectyurel tax reform. or con ject injural -- on tax reform. rather than take a bill and ask for streamlined, no questions asked approval, take the executive branch out of the decision, give this sweetheart deal to the canadian company and close the books, we would regret it if that happened. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 6 1/2 minutes. the chair: i'm pleased to yield the balance of my time to the majority whip, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of this bill. if you're like me and you go across the country, you want to listen to the american people. two things they talk about when you tell them you're a member of congress. they first say, where are the jobs? the second, talk about washington, why cant you work together? why can't you solve this problem together. it's not often that we get to mesh those two together on the exact same thing. but today's an opportunity. last week, i watched our president of the united states go to a small business, i love it when he goes to a small business. i was a small business owner. he went to a small business to talk about job creation. to move america forward. i'll be frank. lots of time misphilosophy doesn't seem the same as this president. but i want to work together. especially when we agree. so i listened to his words and

i listened to them closely because he talked about what was holding back job creation in america. and i quote, the president said, one of the problems that we had in the past is that sometimes it takes too long to get projects off the ground. there are all these permits and red tape and planning and this and that and some of it is important to do but we could do it faster. you know what? i agreed with these words of president obama. and i looked for what could make that change. and you know what he spoke -- when he spoke at that small business, it happened the c.e.o. of that small business was there with him. but do you know where he was 24 hours before? he was here in congress. was here testifying as that small business what could get

america moving. you know what he talked about? build the keystone pipeline. build it. so when the president said that sometimes projects take too long to get off the ground, i hink he was referring to, if it was more than 1,700 days that was too long. when the president said it was too much red tape, some is important but we could do it faster, i think the president probably meant that 15,000 pages of review we've done for keystone is probably too much. so there's a unique ability that, yes, we can move something that can create 20,000 jobs in america today. you know what? we could be less reliant on the mideast. for our energy as well. you know what's important when you listen to the american people they say why can't we do this in a bipartisan man her it'll come off this floor in a bipartisan vote, but you

question, can it come off the senate in the majority of the senators voted for it. 17 democrats on the other side as well. so i stand today as the majority whip saying i agreed with president obama's words. the only thing that is missing is the action. today we will do our job, we'll send it to the senate, and it will be the start of a new beginning. to put people before politics forward. nd i yield back. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committees on transportation and infrastructure, energy and commerce, and natural resources printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the

five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print 113-11. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those rinted in house report 113-88. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in the house report 113-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. webster: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 ffered by mr. webber of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 228, the gentleman from texas, mr. webber, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. weber: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. weber: mr. chairman, thank you for recognizing me to speak in favor of my amendment on this very important legislation. i want to thank mr. terry for leading on an issue that is crucial to our economic recovery and our energy future. rather than wait around for further delays, 1,700 days and counting, and excuses from the president, mr. terry has taken action to deliver the jobs and energy security that this administration so frequently promises to the american people. last week marked 1,700 days, that's 4.65 years, since the

first permit application was filed for. now let me put that in perspective. i have a granddaughter that will be 2 years old in july. had she been born when this permit was filed, she would be entering kindergarten. kindergarten this coming fall. her name's cate liberty, by the way. she's the cutest thing on this side of the atlantic. during that time the state department has produced, as the whip said, over 15,000 pages of environmental impact assessment. which have been endlessly discussed, debated and deconstructed. hundreds of thousands of public comments were made on these documents. and public meetings were held across the country in multiple ates. however, in 2012 president obama rejected the first permit application for keystone pipeline, claiming that the deadline was required -- that the deadline required of him to make a decision prevented him from making a full assessment of the pipeline's impact.

i would conclude that the state department study of keystone x.l. has gone far above and beyond the threshold required of a, quote, full assessment, end quote. in fact, this unprecedented degree of scrutiny has led many to conclude that the keystone x.l. is the most studied pipeline in our nation's history. despite this exhaustive environmental review, the administration has yet to make a decision on a project that will create american jobs, stimulate the economy and enhance our energy security. in the meantime, opponents of the project continue to rely on false assumptions and misconceptions to urge its rejection. my amendment simply sets the record straight on these accounts by adding findings of our own state department that attest to the safety and environmental soundness of this project. there are those who oppose the project saying it hasn't been studied enough. that's laughable. that we are proceeding hastily, 4 1/2 years, really?

4 1/2 years and 15,000 pages prove otherwise. others allege that the pipeline is a safety risk. the state department findings proved these allegations unfounded. in farkts the state department concluded that -- in fact, the state department concluded it has 57 extra safety features and with that the keystone x.l. would have a degree of safety over any other domestic pipeline. there are those who try to argue that the pipeline would threaten water resources, wildlife and the community as i long the route. -- communities along the route. however the state department disagrees. concluding that there would be, quote, no significant impacts, end quote, to resources along the proposed route. some insist that the pipeline will lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions. as if halting the project will somehow combat global warming or reduce carbon emissions. however again our state department estimates of incremental emissions are marginal. and would have negligentble impact on climate change, if any. moreover, the concluded that

canadian oil sands production will continue regardless of whether or not we build the keystone. a global oil market and the statements of canadian officials reinforce this reality. the science supports approval of keystone x.l. and i agree. given the facts, i see no reason the administration should make the american people wait any longer for a project whose construction will support up to 40,000 jobs and generate $2 billion in earnings. thank you, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from california, for what purpose do you rise? mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i rise to take the time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: this amendment selects some statements from the state department's draft supplemental environmental impact statement to try to suggest that the keystone x.l. tar sands pipeline poses no threat to the environment. i only wish that were the case.

this is a matter of basic chemistry. tar sands don't contain oil. it takes a lot of energy to melt and process the tar sands into something that we can use like oil. that extra energy means more carbon pollution. the state department estimated that a gallon of gasoline from tar sands is responsible for about 17% more carbon pollution than the average u.s. gallon of gasoline. and it estimated that shifting to tar sands crude could add as much u.s. carbon pollution as 4.5 million more vehicles. not surprisingly, these findings are not in this amendment. but the real problem with this amendment isn't what it leaves out. the real problem is that it tries to argue that the

keystone x.l. tar sands pipeline does not pose real and serious environmental harm and that's dangerously wrong. the fact is we may be able to avoid the worse consequences of climate change or we may be able to fully develop the tar sands without capturing the carbon. but we can't have both. and building keystone x.l. is critical to oil companies' plans to triple production of the tar sands. the state department's review rests on a key assumption. they assume that if keystone x.l. isn't built, the additional tar sands production would be moved by rail. they also assume that the extra costs of rail wouldn't be high enough to affect investments in new tar sands projects. with all due respect to the state department, this is one

case where many experts think they have just got it wrong. a recent reuters report found big flaw notice state department's analysis. among other things, state assumed that rail shipment would cost about $10 per barrel. but current costs are closer to $30 per barrel. the former alberta energy administrator said, if there's something that kept me up at night, it would be the fear that before too long we're going to be landlocked imed by minute, end quote. a report said, quote, unless key transportation challenges are overcome, that new oil will have nowhere to go, end quote. and here's t.d. economics, quote, production growth cannot occur unless some of the planned pipeline projects out

of western canada go ahead, end quote. and here's what a.j.m. petroleum consultants have said, unless we get increased market access like with keystone x.l., we're going to be stuck. our production is going to be the one backed out of the system. and here's what the former editor of "oil week" said. essential to a diminishishing hopes for an oil sands bonanza are three proposed pipelines. the canadian energy research institute said, quote, with keystone x.l. in place and operating at capacity,ed by men production could increase --ed byman production could increase substantially, end quote. keystone x.l. pipeline is the key to enabling a massive increase in tar sands production and locking in our dependence on this very dirty oil. this would be catastrophic for

the climate. this amendment tries to downplay the climate impacts of keystone x.l., but even under the state department's flawed analysis, there isn't another project in america with bigger climate impacts. i urge a no vote on this weber amendment and on h.r. 3 and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. weber: mr. chairman, how much time -- the chair: one minute. mr. weber: one minute. well, i appreciate the gentleman from california's comments. it's interesting that we are going to belie the state department's assessment when it's advantageous to the argument, but we're going to try to rely on it, -- i'm sorry when it's not advantageous but try to rely on it. it's admirable he's concerned about the cost per barrel of bidemen. the oil companies that produce jobs and wealth for this company will decide on whether it's too costly. the previous gentleman from new jersey said there was no proof

that even the oil would stay here in this country. i submit this to you, mr. chairman, in a -- and state members, to what company do we say, we don't want you exporting your products? do you tell nike that? do you tell ford that? who do you tell that? and then to his statement, said it's going to increase greenhouse gases. the experts have done the math and they come up with, if at one one hundred thousands in global warming. and finally we heard it saves 400 to 500 truck as day off the highway. i yield dish reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california has 30 seconds. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, and my colleagues, the issue is if we don't build this pipeline, can those tar sands oil be trucked? can they be taken to market?

and i submit that if they're not -- if we don't build these tar sands pipeline, they're not going to be able to afford to truck it anywhere else. they're trying to get us to help bail them out with this dirty tar sands oil so they can use the united states to help canadian oil production and we ought to say no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment -- mr. weber: i request the yeas and nays, please. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. weber: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be ostponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-88.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i seek recognition in support of the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-88 offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 228, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, this month we passed a grim milestone. scientists recorded atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide of more than 400 parts per million. the last time carbon tie oxide concentrations were at -- dioxide concentrations were at that level was three million years ago. seas were 63 feet higher and human beings did not even exist. this milestone is yet another urgent reminder that we need to

take immediate action to build a clean energy, low-carbon future. the keystone x.l. pipeline takes us precisely in the wrong direction. this pipeline will expedite production of the dirtiest and most carbon intensive crude oil on the planet and lock in our dependence on this dirty fuel for decades to come. i'm strongly opposed to the keystone x.l. pipeline for that reason, but if the house is going to pass a bill that approves the keystone x.l. pipeline, the least we can do is try to minimize the harm. that's the point of this amendment. tar sands don't contain oil. it takes a lot of energy to melt and process the tar sands into something that we can use, like oil. that extra energy means more carbon pollution. this isn't in dispute, although

we hear arguments it is, but it is not dispute. the state department has estimated that a gallon of gasoline from tar sands is responsible for about 17% more carbon pollution than the average u.s. gallon of gasoline. other studies suggest that numbers could be even higher. to protect our nation from droughts, wildfires, extreme weather, we need to be reducing carbon pollution. but according to the state department, using tar sands crude from keystone x.l. could increase u.s. carbon pollution by up to 20 million metric tons per year. that's why the keystone pipeline is a huge step in the wrong direction. my amendment simply holds transcanada and the tar sands producers accountable for their carbon pollution. it says they have to reduce other carbon pollution to offset the extra pollution from

keystone x.l. this won't get us closer to meeting our climate goals and building a clean energy future, but at least we won't be increasing the u.s. carbon pollution. this amendment is not a cure-all. approving keystone x.l. will allow the oil industry to triple tar sands production. during the energy and commerce committee hearing on this bill, we heard testimony that there is no plausible scenario in which tar sands production triples, and we don't avoid a catastrophic level of climate change. so make no mistake, even with this amendment, the keystone x.l. pipeline would be a disaster for the climate, but this amendment would help. it would minimize extra carbon pollution. it will send a message to the tar sands producers and alberta that they need to do a lot more to address climate change, and

it would signal that the united states government takes the threat of climate change seriously. we need to start holding oil executives accountable for the pollution that is threatening our health and welfare. we need to make the polluters accountable for the damage they are inflicting on our children and our grandchildren. our generation has an obligation to protect the earth for future generations. this amendment is at least a small step in that direction. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote no on the final bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: i rise in opposition and claim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. terry: i'll ask the gentleman, did you yield back? mr. waxman: no. mr. terry: then i reserve. i'm going to close. i have no other speakers. so i reserve. mr. waxman: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from

california has one minute remaining. mr. waxman: who has the right to close on this amendment? the chair: the gentleman from nebraska has the right to close on this amendment. mr. waxman: well, my colleagues, i think that this amendment says if you're going to go ahead with this pipeline, at least look for other ways to reduce carbon emissions. t the burden on x.l., canada x.l., keystone x.l. pipeline producers and alberta, canada. don't accept all of the pollution. if it can be minimized by other carbon reductions, that will help reduce the harm that this whole project will cause for the climate change that's threatening us, that we're seeing it today throughout this country every day in the news. it will help minimize aggravating the problem. it's not a solution but it's something if we're going to

have the x.l. pipeline, at least get some offsets on carbon so we're not just increasing it to the maximum levels possible of all the green house gases going into the air. so i urge support of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. terry: thank you, mr. chairman. and two realities here. number one is that on the processes of obtaining the crude that comes will be put into the pipeline, that process is becoming more efficient all the time and decreasing its carbon footprint. but what's produced is equal to heavy crude. that's a state department under the appropriate rules stated or concluded based on the environmental impact studies that it's in essence equal to what we're importing from venezuela today, so it's in essence neutral. now, the state -- that's the

state department's own conclusions and analysis that it would have no real impact on climate change. so the study's been completed, and this amendment's not necessary. it's just another way to keep delaying, and i would request a no vote. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. terry: i just yielded back but if the chair allows me to reclaim. the chair: by unanimous consent, the gentleman may reclaim. mr. waxman: my question to you is how would this delay the project. it says if they develop this pipeline, they have to look for other ways. they convinced without delaying the project, as i understand it. mr. terry: and we interpreted that requesting that information could be used as a tool to further delay it, and that's how we've reached that conclusion. they've used so many things to

delay this area that we're just suspicious this would be another opportunity. so at that point i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. waxman: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. speaker, i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-88

offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 228, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. this bill is about profits over people. this bill puts koch brother's profits above people's health. no one knows how much pollution this pipeline will cause or how the pollution will impact public health. my amendment, which has been endorsed by the national resources defense council and by the sierra club, is common sense. i'm simply requesting a thorough analysis of the potential health risks. i'm essentially asking that

that analysis be completed before any decision is made on the pipeline. even though the state department has submitted two environmental impact statements on the keystone x.l. pipeline, the environmental protection agency has found that neither statement included a satisfactory evaluation of the increased air mution that would come as a result of the pipeline's operation. communities surrounding the oil refineries that would be transporting tar sands crude through this proposed pipeline are already exposed to dirty air. approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline will only make it worse. the rough tar sands crude is more toxic and acidic than other types of crude, mr. speaker. rough tar sands crude produces

significantly more harmful pollutants and green house gas emissions than conventional crude oil due to the complex refining process it must go thue before it reaches the gas pumps. as this type of crude has only been exported from canada through a relatively short period of time, there has not been a thorough study on how its transport would affect air quality in our nation. it is troubling that the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline, which would transport 900,000 barrels of this crude oil daily, should take place before such a study that would evaluate its effects on health has ever been done. we have a responsibility to the american people to properly assess what risk the construction of this pipeline may pose to our health. it would be irresponsible of us

to sweep these concerns under the rug just to rush this project to the finish line. valid questions have been raised about the health risks associated with the increased air pollution this pipeline will produce, and these questions deserve legitimate answers. for this reason, i'm requesting that a study on the health impacts of tar sands crude pollution -- excuse me -- the health impact of tar sands crude pollution in our communities surrounding the refineries where the keystone x.l. pipeline will operate. i urge my colleagues to share my commitment to safeguarding americans' health and i ask you approve my amendment and allow for such a study to be done before we make any decision on the pipeline's construction. the chair: does the gentleman

yield back? mr. johnson: i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? mr. terry: to rise in opposition and claim the time and i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. terry: thank you. and i rise in opposition to the study. it requires another additional study around the refineries. keep in mind that the refineries have already been through extensive research and studies to obtain their permits. yes, the refineries, many of . em are expanding right now also, under the tute ledge and permitting -- tute lidge and permitting process of the e.p.a. they're already been studied.

it is not necessary to include as a condition prior to the construction of the keystone pipeline which in essence this bill does. the gentleman from georgia mentioned that the two people -- entities that are encouraging this amendment are the two entities that have been at the forefront of causing most of these delays. so it's no surprise to me that the sierra club and the nrdc are throwing another tool out there to continue these delays. that's the whole purpose. and after 1,700 days, almost five years, three major environmental studies on this pipeline, it's time to just get this done. enough is enough and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4

printed in house report 113-88 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 228, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this commonsense amendment that seeks to protect the pipeline from a possible terrorist attack and to ensure our national security. this simple amendment requests that the pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration in consultation with the department of homeland security , consistent with its existing m.o.u., conduct a study of the vulnerabilities of the keystone x.l. pipeline to a terrorist attack and certify that necessary protections have been put in place. across the united states, more than half a million miles of pipelines transport natural gas, oil and other hazardous liquids. within this network, nearly

180,000 miles of pipeline carry hazardous liquids, including more than 75% of our country's crude oil and 60% of all of its petroleum products. this important network connects our power plants, ports, refinery, airports and military bases. while these pipelines are no doubt critical to the u.s. energy supply, we must also recognize the potential threat. sadly, as the recent bombing in boston, my hometown, demonstrated, america must always be on the alert to a terrorist attack on our own soil, sometimes even a native-born one. all it takes is a few bad actors to inflict terrible damage. unfortunately our nation's pipelines remain an easy target. both domestically and globally, pipelines have been a favorite of terrorists. they've been -- there have been attempted attacks on pipelines throughout the world, including in colombia, canada, london, nigeria, mexico, to name a few. the oil field in colombia has

been bombed more than 950 times since 1993, for example. here in the united states, fortunately, we don't face that kind of threat every day, but the threat is still real. since september 11, federal authorities have continued to acknowledge that our pipelines are a possible target. in june of 2007, the department of justice actual ily arrested members of -- actually arrested members of another terrorist group planning to attack j.f.k. in new york. in 2011 a u.s. citizen was arrested for planting a get vice under a pipeline in oklahoma. and in june of 2012 managers was arrested for trying to blow up a pipeline in texas. even a single individual with a grudge can wreak havoc with a pipeline and cause substantial harm. in 2001 a vandsle armed with a

high-powered rifle sought a section of the trans-alaska pipeline, causing extensive economic and environmental damage. recognizing that this threat is real, my simple amendment asks that the pipeline hazardous materials administration work with homeland security to study the vulnerabilities of the keystone x.l. and certify -- keystone pipeline and certify protections are put in place to with stand such attacks. keystone ted, the will represent a 1,700-mile target. the very least we can do, if we're going to do that, is to ensure we have protections in place to protect both the source of our energy and our national security and i reserve he balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i do rise in opposition to the amendment. my good friend from virginia, i understand his need to make

sure that our pipelines are safe. but this amendment is redundant of existing transportation security administration guidelines. it's unnecessary and simply attempts to further delay the project. t.s.a. guidelines bring a risk-based approach to the application of the security measures throughout the pipeline industry. as stated in national infrastructure protection plan, d.h.s. assesses risk as a function of threats, vulnerabilities and consequences. mr. shuster: with this in mind the most effective security program employs a risk-management process that facilitates protective planning and decision making to migrate the risk for pipeline assets. the operators risk assessment methodology is subject to review by the t.s.a. therefore risks and vulnerables of pipelines are already covered under current guidelines. there's no need to specifically single out this pipeline for further study. clearly this is intended to delay keystone pipeline from being built so i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized, he has a minute and a half. mr. connolly: i thank the chair. and i would simply say in response to my friend from pennsylvania for whom i have great respect, that the review process is not -- this is not redundant. because the review process looks at a lot of things. stress corrosion and proper operation, weather-related disaster, even vandalism. it does not however address acts of terrorism. and that's why i do not believe that my amendment is redundant. and frankly, in light of recent events in this country, we must double, double check and be double sure that that which we build, as sensitive as a pipeline, is secure. and i think americans are entitled to that extra security, i don't consider it a redundancy and i urge passage of the amendment. and with that i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

the amendment is not agreed to. mr. connolly: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: on that matter i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, designated as amendment number 5 in the rules. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-88 offered by mr. rahall of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 228, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i'm offering this amendment on behalf of myself and peter defazio of oregon. this amendment simply strikes section 3 of the bill. this is a section which states

that the keystone x.l. pipeline does not require a permit to cross the international border between canada and the united states. under this amendment all other provisions of the bill remain in tact. including those related to judicial review, rights of way and the clean water act. i believe that getting into the business of waiving permits for a foreign company to do business here in the united states is not the way to facilitate the construction of this pipeline. american interests are at stake here and to allow this extensive, massive pipeline project to proceed with a permit is ludicrous. as i said in comments earlier today, we do not even do that for domestic companies here in this country. section 3 also creates a very convoluted and confusing regime. it references a final environmental impact statement issued on august 26, 2011, as satisfying nepa for the project. yet that i.e. -- e.i.s. was done for a different permit application than the one currently pending.

i repeat, that e.i.s. was done for a different permit application than the one that's currently pending. in february, 2012, transcanada split the project into two pieces, the northern route and the southern route. the company then reapplied for permit for the revised route, limiting it to the northern route that is the subject of h.r. 3. yet pending legislation references an e.i.s. from august, 2011, again for an entirely different permit application. as a supporter of the keystone x.l., i find it difficult to see how this convoluted process set forth in section 3 would facilitate the construction. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition of the amendment and yield two minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. err mr. terry: thank you. i want to clarify that that was done for a different permit. the study that was done that's

referenced in there is the environmental study and the requested supplemental for the route except for the state of nebraska. there's another sentence in there that he didn't mention and that's the now second supplemental for the state of nebraska new review, there was an earlier statement that there was never one done on the nebraska -- that's just absolutely false. so the reality is we've done all of the environmental statements on this route for this permit that were required. so i want to make that clear. and the other point that i'd like to make is the language that's taken in this bill about deeming it in the national interest and deeming the environmental studies as they've been done for this route in total have been done before, including the language taken out of a bill that the gentleman that's speaking right now supported in 2004. and i yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i appreciate the gentleman from nebraska's comments. i understand the e.i.s. to which he refers, it was done for the state of nebraska. but not for the current pending application. i yield the balance of my time to the co-sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding on this. you know, i spoke earlier today. this is the seventh attempt by this house to expedite or now in this case we're not expediting a permitting, we're mandating permitting. now, the gentleman just said that there's some disagreement here. the bill clearly states that it's the 2011 e.i.i.s. which is deemed to be sufficient which does not contain the current routing for the line. i mean, we could create

somewhat of an extraordinary precedent here. we we could just have one generic national pipeline e.i.s. that was done somewhere for something and went through the process and was approved. and then deemed that any other pipeline that wants to be built can use that generic pipeline permit that. would certainly expedite things. with into protect the public? no, i'm sorry, i don't have enough time. i'm sorry, i don't. we would just deem that pipelines anywhere and everywhere met national interests, public safety and that. i also raise the point earlier that this will transport tar sands oil through a pipeline which the i.r.s. has deemed not to be oil. so it won't pay the normal excise tax to go to the trust fund which takes care of leaks like the one we just recently had in kansas. it will go to a tax-free export zone, to a refinery half owned by saudi arabia and this will

bring us energy independence. independence for whom? you know, every time we pump up another barrel, the saudies and opec drop a barrel. they're keeping the price up. there's no free market in oil. you guys all know that. this is not going to save americans one penny at the pump. if you want to stop, you know, save americans money at the pump, let's go after the speculators on wall street who are adding 75 cents or $1 to the price of a gallon of gas, let's go after the collusion by the oil companies who shut down all their refineries all at once every year at the beginning of the refining season for periodic maintenance which they couldn't predict was going to happen or sometimes there's a little accident. except it turned out last year they just jacked up the price 50 cents a gallon like they always do in may and just like they did two weeks ago. so to pretend that somehow, by deeming this to be sufficient, mandating it happen, allowing a foreign company to build this pipeline across the united states of america, transport tar sands oil to a refinery half-owned by the saudis, to be

exported out of the united states, perhaps to china, we say we don't want to go to china, well it may well go to china. goes through the panama demal. you're not going to stop that. and it's going to save the american taxpayers money at the pump and put people to work, yes, there will be temporary construction jobs. but we can do better. particularly as this committee, if we made the investments we need to make in our water infrastructure, our port infrastructure, our roads, bridges, highways and transit systems, we could put millions of people to work permanently in this country and rebuild our infrastructure and once again claim world leadership there. we got better things for this committee to be doing. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california s recognized for four minutes. mr. denham: this declares that no permit is needed. already completed. given that this project has

already had five years of 3 is g, section necessary, to ensure the keystone x.l. project is done in a timely manner. we need these american jobs. i yield the balance of the time to the chairman of the full transportation and infrastructure committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. denham. my good friend from oregon is right about this committee building infrastructure, but there's nothing more important right now than making sure our pipelines are in place to bring the energy safely to millions of americans and efficiently to millions of americans. so this is a core of what this committee does. that's why we have primary jurisdiction. that's why we're here debating this issue today. but this bill simply takes back congressional authority, constitutional congressional authority for us to be able to pass legislation, to move things forward. and in this case to move this pipeline forward.

this permit, process was set up by executive order, taking away congressional authority. i'm proud to stand here today and urge my colleagues to take a vote today to take back part of our constitutional congressional authority, move this pipeline forward, creating jobs and giving us more energy security in the world. ith that i would yield back to -- the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not passed. mr. rahall: i ask for the yeas and nays, recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-88. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? ms. esty: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-88 offered by ms. esty of connecticut. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 228, the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. esty, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. esty: thank you and i yield myself two minutes. my amendment would strike the words operation and maintenance from section 7 of the bill. this section requires the army corps of engineers to approve all permits under section 404 of the clean water act and section 10 of the rivers and harbors act within 90 days of receipt of a permit application. to mandate approval of all permits would apply regardless of whether the project meets the needs of the law or not and

would cover not only the initial construction of the project but takes the unprecedented step of applying to all future operation and maintenance in perpetuity. not only is this unprecedented, it is unwarranted and reckless. each time the house has debated the keystone x.l. pipeline, the focus has always been on expediting the construction. this amendment does not affect or delay construction. i repeat, this amendment does not affect or delay construction of the pipeline. whether you support the pipeline or not, section 7 goes far beyond that. it would require the corps to grant any permit request for operation and maintenance of the pipeline for all eternity. we do not provide this special treatment to any other pipeline operator in the u.s. domestic companies are required to go through the proper process for obtaining permits for construction, operation and maintenance acktift --

activities. why would we treat a foreign company differently and give a free pass of a multidecade life span of the pipeline? my amendment would eliminate this reckless loophole and a few others to ensure that all operation and maintenance activities on this pipeline should be built are subject to the same review and mitigation requirements that the other 2.6 million miles of pipeline in the united states must meet. i urge support of this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. denham: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: this amendment would further delay the keystone x.l. pipeline and create additional uncertainty for the project. this amendment would basically gut the bill by allowing the construction but not the operation of the pipeline. it makes absolutely no sense for the federal government to permit a project to be instructed but not operate it -- construct it but not operate

it. this would be like getting a build permit to construct a house but not being able to certify the occupies to actually live in the -- occupancy to actually live in the house. this would make sure that other operators would comply with the permit requirements. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. ms. esty: i yield to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski. the chair: the gentleman from llinois is recognized. mr. lipinski: i thank ms. esty for yielding, for offering this amendment. i have been a supporter of the keystone x.l. pipeline. i voted for it every time it's come to the floor anytime it's come to the floor. this, however, this bill goes beyond simply completing the

environmental review and the presidential order. it approves projects, not just for construction but for maintenance on the pipeline. army corps permits -- the southern portion of this pipeline, which i'm very happy is underunder way, is currently being constructed without having to waive laws and automatically approving permits like this. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and we can really come together in a strong bipartisan fashion to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline and get this done and get these jobs created in america. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: mr. chairman, reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. ms. esty: i yield myself such time as i may consume. when a version of this amendment was offered in committee, the majority opposed it claiming that the corps permits are intended to cover both the construction and the ongoing operation and maintenance of a project.

this is simply not accurate. following the markup, i consulted with the army corps which stated very clearly that ongoing operation and maintenance activities beyond the initial five years are not authorized upped the initial permit for construction of the project. in fact, according to the corps, operations and maintenance activities that occur in the future beyond the initial five years need to be authorized under separate permit at the time the activity takes place. in addition, any permit that's issued today by the corps for construction or maintenance would expire in five years and need to be renewed. i have a copy of the army corps' explanatory document nationwide permit 12 describing the permitting procedures and i ask unanimous consent that it be entered into the record. so the language in the underlying bill would give construction at all future operation and maintenance under the clean water act and the rivers and harbors act, get a free pass from review by requiring the corps to approve them regardless of whether they

minimize or mitigate the impact. in addition, this amendment would eliminate another loophole to ensure that operation and maintenance activities comply with the endangered species act, just like all other pipelines. further, the amendment would strike maintenance from section 4 on judicial review to prevent a small family farmer or a property owner from being forced to travel to a d.c. court to seek redress from future harm to their land or to their children's rights for the duration of the life span of this pipeline. regardless of your views on the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline, i urge my colleagues to vote yes on my commonsense amendment to prevent new loopholes and quite possibly to prevent the creation of regulatory earmark for one foreign corporation. i urge a yes vote on my amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady's previous requests will be covered by general leave and the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california, for what purpose does he rise? mr. denham: i rise for closing

remarks, mr. chairman. i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman. i thank the chairman and i thank the gentleman for yielding. once again, this amendment is nothing more than to delay or gut the bill, and it is correct what the gentlelady from connecticut says that this amendment does not impact the construction at all. it does not, but as the gentleman from california pointed out, and i think all those that are listening to the debate today, this is the analogy here, if you build a house, this amendment would say you can't live in the house. you can't operate in the house. so, again, this amendment is nothing more than gutting the bill. it's a delay tactic. as i said earlier, this bill allows congress to regain its constitutional congressional authority and congress has the expressed authority under article 1, section 8 of the

u.s. constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the nation states. so this bill does that. i urge all my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and yes on the underlying bill and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. denham: yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. esty: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from connecticut will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 113-88. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 113-88 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 228, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman very much, and i thank authors of this legislation because i know their intent is a purposeful intent, and i have made public statements that i believe the moving forward with the right approach, ensuring that the necessary protections are in place, the necessary environmental protections are in place and permitting is in place will create an enormous amount of jobs. in fact, i oppose the rule because i offered amendments that would provide opportunities for minority contractors, women-owned contractors, opportunities for recruitment of new generation of workers in the energy industry which i thought would

be a contributing factor to this legislation. but i offer a very simple amendment that has nothing to do with stopping any aspect of the construction. i would hope, however, that the regular order would proceed with the state department's permitting process and the president's approval. my amendment does not speak to that. my amendment is seeking to be fair. my amendment is simple, straightforward. it extends the time period for filing a claim from 60 days to one year after the date of the decision or action giving rise to the claim. this amendment is especially needed because h.r. 3, the underlying bill, vests exclusive jurisdiction over any and all claims arising under the act in a single court. the u.s. circuit court of appeals for the district of columbia. thousands of miles from many of those who may be impacted. think about that. the keystone x.l. pipeline is proposed to run from alberta,

canada, through the great states of north dakota, south dakota, kansas, oklahoma, my state of texas and all the way to the gulf. and there may be collateral impact as well. any court who will hear this who seek justice for any claim or injury is located more than 1,000 miles away from their homes. mr. chairman, they cannot go to a district court. they cannot go to the southern districts. this will impose an undue hardship and financial burden on ordinary americans seeking justice. instead, the bill requires them to find and retain a high-priced d.c. lawyer that they don't know, may have never met, to represent their interest in a court far, far away. remember, this is after the passage, construction of this particular entity, to file a claim from 60 days to one year because by lodging the court in

the d.c. court of appeals, it goes to the homeowners, small businesses, grandma, grandpa, and all of those individuals will have to travel 1,000 miles. this is because the burden that must be shouldered by a plaintiff is very steep. the challenge evidentiary determination made in the environmental impact statement, for example, a plaintiff must demonstrate they are not supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. to meet the standard, plaintiffs will have to retain experts, locate and prepare witness and gather and review documentary materials. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. mr. denham: i claim time in