Amendment Text: H.Amdt.69 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (05/22/2013)

This Amendment appears on page H2879 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H2862-H2895]
                      NORTHERN ROUTE APPROVAL ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous materials on H.R. 3.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Joyce). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 228 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1416


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3) to approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the 
Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes, with Mr. Womack in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90 
minutes equally divided among and 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), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 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.
  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 am proud to say that I'm a cosponsor 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 XL 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 5 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 project's routing through Nebraska, the 
primary objection 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 
project in the history of this country. Given the nearly 5 years of 
study and review of the Keystone XL project--with four State Department 
environmental impact statements and over 15,000 pages of publicly 
released documents--we know the ins and outs and all about this 
pipeline.
  I believe in an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and this 
legislation is one piece of that puzzle to break America's dependency 
on overseas foreign oil.

                              {time}  1420

  Finally, it is important to remember that this project will be built 
with private dollars and create thousands of private sector jobs. This 
project has passed through all three committees with bipartisan 
support, and I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 2013.
     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman Shuster, I am writing concerning H.R. 3, 
     the ``Northern Route Approval Act.''
       As you know, H.R. 3 contains a section on judicial review, 
     which is within the Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X 
     jurisdiction. As a result of your having consulted with the 
     Committee and in order to expedite the House's consideration 
     of H.R. 3, the Committee on the Judiciary will not assert its 
     jurisdictional claim over this bill by seeking a sequential 
     referral. However, this is conditional on our mutual 
     understanding and agreement that doing so will in no way 
     diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary with respect to the appointment of conferees or to 
     any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters 
     contained in the bill or similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding, and would request that you include a copy 
     of this letter and your response in the Congressional Record 
     during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you in 
     advance for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                                         Chairman.

[[Page H2863]]

     
                                  ____
                                         House of Representatives,
                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2013.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     3, the Northern Route Approval Act. I appreciate your 
     willingness to support expediting floor consideration of this 
     legislation.
       I acknowledge that by forgoing a sequential referral on 
     this legislation, the Committee on the Judiciary is not 
     diminishing or altering its jurisdiction with respect to the 
     appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional 
     claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or 
     similar legislation.
       I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation 
     and I will include our letters on H.R. 3 in the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration of this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Shuster,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  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 something has happened along the way 
between then and now. 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 a 
permit for the Keystone pipeline, the pending measure completely 
eliminates the requirement for a permit. It waives a permit, and it 
deems a permit application 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, a license, to get 
married.
  So what right do the promoters of this bill have to jeopardize this 
pipeline with such a frivolous proposal? That is exactly what we're 
doing with this legislation.
  Make no mistake about it, this is a bumper sticker bill, ideology 
driven, born of fancy, not fact. Jobs hang in the balance here, an 
important supply of energy 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 that this is no laughing matter in the 
heartland of America.
  It is my hope that this bill can be approved during House 
consideration today and that I will be able to support it by the time 
we reach final passage. Otherwise, I will vote ``no'' in recognition of 
what this bill is as currently drafted.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  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? ten years? When will we 
utilize North American oil in North America?
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Northern 
Route Approval Act, which allows construction of the Keystone XL 
pipeline. I'm happy to say it passed out of full committee in 
Transportation and Infrastructure on May 16 with a bipartisan vote of 
33 to 24.
  My good friend from California is right: When is enough time enough?
  My good friend from West Virginia asked: What gives us the right? 
What gives us the right is the Constitution.
  The House of Representatives, the Senate, the legislative body, to 
pass laws, to move things forward, 5 years is way too long. We need to 
develop the energy in America. We need to bring energy from our good 
friends from Canada. This all adds to the regulatory burden that this 
administration has put on us.
  This pipeline is the lifeline that powers nearly all of our daily 
activities.
  The hallmark of America's 2.5 million-mile pipeline network continues 
to be that it delivers extraordinary volumes of product reliably, 
safely, efficiently, and economically. Pipelines are the safest and 
most cost-effective means to transport the products that fuel our 
economy. In fact, pipelines provide more than two-thirds of the energy 
used in the United States. The Keystone XL project will be a critical 
addition to this extensive network, increasing our Nation's supply of 
oil, and thus helping to reduce the cost of fuel used in the 
transportation sector.
  H.R. 3 is a commonsense bill that allows construction, maintenance, 
and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline to move forward. The pipeline 
has been subject to extensive environmental reviews already conducted. 
In fact, it is 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 
of 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. State Department estimates 
that Keystone XL will produce 42,000 jobs--jobs that will not be 
created unless this project goes forward.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DENHAM. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. SHUSTER. This project will have a significant positive economic 
impact, including an estimated $3.3 billion in direct expenditures for 
construction and materials and $2.1 billion in earnings.
  Finally, as noted throughout the process, the Keystone XL 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.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on 
our Transportation Freight panel, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Northern Route 
Approval Act, which would deem the Keystone XL 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 who doesn't 
want more Hurricane Sandys or more Oklahoma hurricanes would recognize 
that 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 that will allow Canada to deliver 830,000 barrels per day 
of tar sands oil to gulf coast refineries.
  Tar sands oil is difficult to extract, and the process is destructive 
and toxic. Producing tar sands oil results in at least 14 percent more 
greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil. For those concerned 
about climate change, the Keystone pipeline is a nonstarter. We cannot 
allow such a gigantic and irreversible step backward in the fight 
against global warming.
  H.R. 3 goes well beyond the merits of the pipeline itself. This 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 in the administrative

[[Page H2864]]

record as of a date certain, eliminates the requirement for a 
Presidential permit normally required for cross-border pipelines, and 
it mandates the issuance of permits, not just for construction of the 
pipeline, but for operation and maintenance as well, or, in other 
words, in perpetuity. It deems all the environmental and safety laws 
satisfied regardless of the facts.
  It also manages to undermine a citizen's fair access to judicial 
review. The bill appears to grant the right of judicial review by 
giving the D.C. Circuit jurisdiction to hear any challenge to the 
adequacy of the environmental impact statement. But the bill also 
states that the EIS ``shall be considered to satisfy all requirements'' 
of the National Environmental Policy Act. So, the court is told, you 
have jurisdiction, but here is what you are going to find; never mind 
your own judgment.
  The bill also states as a matter of law that section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act, section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Mineral 
Leasing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Endangered Species Act are all 
satisfied. So the fix is in before you ever get to court. I'm not sure 
what would be left for a court to review.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. 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. Keystone is 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 the lack of signature, is 
holding this up. Just this past week, our President stood and said he 
wanted to make sure that we shortened 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 in history in which you can sign 
this permit, create tens of thousands of jobs, and really prove to us 
that you're serious about reining in this regulatory process.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a valued member of our 
committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
  Mr. WALZ. I thank the ranking member for the time. I also thank him 
for his longtime commitment to American energy independence.
  I, too, share that. I have been the supporter of a bipartisan energy 
bill that brought environmental groups and The Heritage Foundation 
together and said maybe we can find some solutions to this. I have been 
a supporter 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 of 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 that the 
worst thing we can do is build this and have a problem with it. We hear 
about the number of pages of regulations that are there. Maybe we 
needed a couple more with BP, 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're going to do it. 
Unfortunately, that's not what we're doing. You deem it, and you give 
away those rights.
  It's personal for me. I grew up in the Nebraska Sandhills. It was the 
good people of Nebraska and the Republican Governor who told us to step 
back, to slow down, and to pick a different route--and finished it in 
January of this year. So when you hear about all of the process, 
process gets it right. I have to tell you--and I do agree with my 
colleague on this--that there are jobs to be created here. We send $1 
billion a day for oil to countries that hate us. They'll hate us for 
free. Keep it here. We don't have to do this. There have also been 
delays in this project. This bill is a bridge way too far.
  Be honest with the people--this is not by building it is going to 
lower gas prices. It's not the long-term solution to our energy needs. 
There is no guarantee we'll even get the oil in this country. But we 
can come together, build a piece of it, and expand our portfolio.
  We shouldn't be muddying it up with wedge issues. The last time we 
had this vote, I voted with it all these times; but 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 and isn't with 
America. They forgot and got it wrong. I voted with them. That press 
release today is already written, and they're sending it back. It's not 
going to do anything except to hurt the American people's faith in our 
democracy. You're not going to get cheaper gas prices. You're not going 
to have this thing built overnight; you risk danger.
  The American people aren't stupid. Don't treat them that way.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Members are reminded to heed the gavel.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I thank Chairman Denham for yielding me 
this time, and 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 direct jobs and about 100,000 
indirect jobs. The State Department estimated 42,100 direct jobs, and 
these are American jobs. We have millions of people--too many 
millions--who are unemployed, Mr. Chairman, and many millions more who 
are underemployed, who are having to work at jobs far below their 
skills, talents, and abilities. This will create good American jobs. 
There would be 830,000 barrels of oil a day being piped down. By 
itself, maybe it wouldn't bring down gas prices, but it certainly would 
keep OPEC and some of these other foreign energy producers from raising 
their prices as fast as they surely would like to and have done in the 
past.
  I can tell you that, if we don't pass this bill and similar bills to 
increase energy production in this country, all we're 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; and we need to pass this bill to help in that 
process.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, may I have a time check.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 8 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from California has 7\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his leadership on this and in 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.
  In 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 percent more carbon 
pollution than conventional oil and would 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 
every day, and that is just not right for America's future.
  H.R. 3 leaves Americans with all of the risk 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.
  Mr. DENHAM. There is a lot of confusion out there, obviously, on this 
very important issue.
  Some would say, Canada oil? We currently bring 590,000 barrels per 
day from Canada through the current Keystone pipeline. Keystone XL just 
gives us an opportunity to have another 830,000 barrels.

[[Page H2865]]

  Some would say, Why are you going to do this as this has never been 
done before? But my colleague has already voted for a piece of 
legislation like this dealing with the Alaskan pipeline in which they 
expedited the NEPA process, and it was affirmed by a voice vote of the 
entire House. When the project is right to get it done, it's right. 
These are American jobs that we need.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Radel).
  Mr. RADEL. Gas and groceries. Ask yourself: Is there anything else 
that eats 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 prices could stay 
normal instead of changing every week.
  Think about it: gas and grocery prices are all over the place. One 
week, you go pay for your gas and buy your groceries and maybe have 
some extra money in your pocket for date night on the weekend; but the 
next week, the prices shoot up, and you barely have enough money to pay 
for your rent.
  But I've got great news--cheaper prices at the pump and a less 
expensive grocery bill start right here and right now with the approval 
of the Keystone pipeline.
  This issue is really as bipartisan as you can get. Why? Because it 
means jobs, jobs, jobs. We're not talking Republican or Democrat, red 
or blue. We are talking about green, meaning more money in your pocket. 
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 job.
  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, it's 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, your dreams.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, 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've created a regulatory morass in this country that stifles 
progress on all fronts. We've got to get the government off the backs 
of our job creators.
  When I hear that this project has been studied for more than 1,700 
days--5 years, that it would create more than 40,000 jobs at a time 
when jobs are so desperately needed, and that it would drive down the 
cost of energy and cut our oil imports from OPEC in half, and that the 
State Department has reviewed it and found that it exhibits no 
significant environmental hazards, and yet the administration still 
refuses to issue the permits, I'm appalled.
  We can study this project forever, and we will 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 stop 
wringing our hands, approve this project and move forward.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), who, like me, is a supporter of 
the Keystone pipeline.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member 
from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for allowing me to 
speak.
  I've been a longtime supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline. I'm 
frustrated that the pipeline has still not been approved after four 
favorable environmental impact statements. It's time for the 
administration to approve the project.
  I actually represent the refineries where most of the oil sands 
product will go. The fact is that these refineries will continue to 
seek supplies of heavy crude oil whether the Keystone XL pipeline is 
approved or not. The problem is that 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 regulations.
  I want my Democratic colleagues to understand that 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 somewhere, doesn't it make sense to purchase it from a province 
that regulates carbon?
  I plan to support the bill this afternoon. But let me be clear about 
a couple of things: I support the bill because it's a message bill, and 
it's time for the administration to stop stalling and make a decision.
  There are provisions of the bill I don't like. I do not support the 
precedent and policies laid out in section 4 through section 8. I also 
don't know why we continue to send bills that don't have a chance in 
the Senate except to tell them the House again will support the 
pipeline.
  I hope this vote will put this issue behind us because I have 5 
refineries in east Harris County that are ready to use that heavier 
crude because they're importing it from other countries like Venezuela. 
I would rather import it from Canada, our closest neighbor.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  Mr. MULLIN. I rise today as I think of this as a great opportunity 
for Oklahoma and the rest of the States.
  In Oklahoma, we know the value of hard work, dedication to one 
another and making commonsense decisions when we're given the 
opportunity.
  Common sense tells us that the Keystone pipeline should be approved. 
However, during my short time in Washington, I've 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 is a significant job 
creator and economic developer directly to our local communities.
  Listen to these figures. The southern leg of the project is bringing 
in $5 million a month in construction and other expenses, plus 1,000 
jobs, into my State alone. Approving the northern leg will bring 
similar economic benefits to areas along the northern route. 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 Bakken oil fields in North Dakota and Montana. 
These are friendly and reliable North American sources. With the 
approval and completion of the Keystone pipeline, we will significantly 
reduce our dependency on crude oil from regions such as the Middle East 
and Africa.
  Pipelines are a proven safe way to transport crude oil.
  Our country is at a crossroads. Will we take the path that leads to 
energy independence, 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 interests of the country first, not the party, and 
approve the Keystone pipeline.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\3/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from West Virginia has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, 5 years and still no decision.
  What does 5 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 of Americans worked in 
our factories, went off to win a war in less than 5 years, but yet we 
can't get a decision out of the White House for 5 years on this 
project? Are you kidding me?
  If we had to wait for the environmentalists to make up their mind, we

[[Page H2866]]

never would have built the Panama Canal.
  This pipeline needs to go down to Texas near my district, 20 percent 
of the Nation's refineries. It's a national security interest.
  Some of my friends on the other side have been bad-mouthing Canada. 
Let me tell you something. If the United States and Canada and Mexico 
can work together on an energy policy and make a 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.
  The CHAIR. The Chair reminds Members to address their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to close, although I do have a 
couple of Members lurking in the hallway here somewhere 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, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We've had a short debate here, and I'm sure it will continue during 
the amendment process. My concerns are as I stated in my opening 
comments. The fact that we are deeming a foreign company the 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 gone through the responsible processes of 
obtaining a permit. Granted, they're having trouble in some areas. At 
least they know that 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 concerning to this particular Member who supports the pipeline 
project.
  We had some discussion in committee last week about what I and others 
view as preferential treatment for a foreign company, and some on the 
majority side of the aisle refused to concede that TransCanada is a 
foreign company or even that Canada is a foreign country. You know 
what? The last time I checked, you do need a passport to enter Canada.
  That's really beside the point, but I did want to raise it since I'm 
sure it will come up before this debate is concluded.
  The point is that this bill waives a permit for such a major 
undertaking. And these companies that are producing these tar sands in 
Canada like Exxon, Shell, Valero, CNRL, Conoco for TransCanada, I 
daresay that they have to obtain a permit from the Canadians to 
undertake such operations to build this pipeline, and now we're saying 
they don't have to in our country. For a foreign country, it is 
troubling that we would grant such a permit outright, to deem that they 
have met all safety and environmental requirements when we don't even 
do that for our own domestic companies.
  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 by this body. Then, perhaps, 
I could support the legislation. But other than that, I urge a ``no'' 
vote on the legislation.
  So I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  A lot has been talked about here, but let me get back to the facts. 
This legislation, if passed, would be passed in the same way as in 2004 
when the Alaskan natural gas pipeline was passed by the entire body on 
a voice vote. Members who are complaining about this bill voted for 
that very same type of legislation. The thing that gets talked about is 
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 is a reason to 
expedite this, let alone waiting 5 years. We can't afford to wait 
another 5 years to have an expedited NEPA process like it was that the 
gentleman had supported in the past.
  It has been talked about that this is a Republican bill; it's a 
Republican end-around. Yet the AFL-CIO is supporting the bill; the 
National Brotherhood of Teamsters; the International 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 are 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 and 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.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Keystone pipeline and 
in strong support of the Northern Route Approval Act, which will 
finally make this project a reality for the American people.
  There may be a few of my colleagues who are tired of Keystone bills, 
but the American people are also tired. And they're tired of $3.70 a 
gallon of gasoline. They're tired of unemployment above 7 percent. 
They're tired of 4 years of delays that continue to block this critical 
jobs and energy project. Remember that the President said only last 
year that he would do ``whatever it takes'' to create U.S. jobs.
  Every stated reason for previous delays has now been addressed--most 
recently, a 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 to Baltimore manufacturer 
Ellicott Dredges, at that factory the President declared:

       One of the problems we've had in the past is that sometimes 
     it takes too long to get projects off the ground. There are 
     these permits and red tape and planning and this and that, 
     and some it's important to do, but we could 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 would 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 delays we have already encountered for a 
project that has 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 a 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-Alaska 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 would be temporary. Tell that to the labor unions and the 
American

[[Page H2867]]

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 would be 
paid for by the private sector, not taxpayer dollars.
  Some also claim that Keystone won't impact gas prices. Well, the law 
of supply and demand still stands. Keystone is going to deliver up to a 
million barrels a day of Canadian oil to American refineries. And 
remember, already today, we're getting 1.5 million 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 would be. This will be the 
most technically advanced and safest pipeline ever constructed. It will 
cost probably $4 million to $5 million a mile, adhering to the new 
pipeline safety standards that we worked together on on a bipartisan 
basis, signed by the President last year, adding 57 additional safety 
standards specific to the project. So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, we 
need to support the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Today, the House Republicans are making their fourth attempt in 2 
years to grant special treatment to TransCanada's Keystone XL tar sands 
pipeline. That's what happens when you let the oil companies set the 
agenda.
  Rather than tackling the real problems facing American families, 
we're passing legislation to exempt a foreign company from the rules 
that every other company in America has to follow. And, 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, and it may even raise them. 
It will lock us into more global warming and risk our farmlands and our 
water supplies. No wonder Americans are cynical about Congress.
  I oppose the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline because it will worsen 
climate change.
  Keystone XL 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 XL will triple production of the tar sands, and that's simply 
not consistent with any future scenario for avoiding catastrophic 
climate change. We don't need it. We have our own sources of oil here 
in the United States, and we're 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.

                              {time}  1500

  H.R. 3 is an extreme bill. It grants a regulatory earmark to 
TransCanada, 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 fiat, lock out the public, 
eliminate the President's authority to balance competing interests, and 
stop Federal agencies from ensuring that, if the project does go 
forward, we do it as safely as possible.
  The Keystone XL 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'd urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, at this point I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, 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 
timelines 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 is delaying ad infinitum.
  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 
were doing the same thing that this bill is, this isn't breaking new 
ground. These were the Alaska natural gas pipeline and 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 5 
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, 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 of legislation where delays and bureaucratic morass has 
delayed them, and it's time, after almost 5 years, to get the Keystone 
pipeline working and the people working.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), our ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Energy.
  Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly disagree with the majority side's process of 
trying to usurp President Obama's authority by immediately approving 
the Keystone XL pipeline, even before the State Department of the 
United States of America completes its due diligence, as our laws 
require.
  Mr. Chairman, 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 and 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. Chairman, H.R. 3 will remove the Keystone pipeline out of the 
jurisdiction of State and local courts and will give only one court, 
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, exclusive jurisdiction over this 
project, causing undue hardship on ordinary American families, small 
businesses, and landowners who may or may not have the resources to 
retain a D.C. lawyer, to travel to Washington, D.C., in order to have 
their American legal rights heard by this American justice system.
  Mr. Chairman, I sought to amend this atrocious bill. My amendment 
would have struck section 4, the judicial review clause, so that 
ordinary American citizens could keep their legal rights intact, but my 
Republican colleagues wouldn't allow us to vote on that amendment here 
today in full view of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, as the White House notes in its Statement of 
Administration Policy, and I quote: ``H.R. 3 conflicts with 
longstanding executive branch procedures regarding the authority of the 
President, the Secretaries of State,''----

[[Page H2868]]

  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.
  Mr. RUSH.----``the Interior, and the Army, and the EPA 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 XL pipeline. The bill prevents the thorough 
consideration of complex issues that could have serious security, 
safety, environmental, and other ramifications.''
  Mr. Chairman, I share these concerns of the President and, for that 
reason, I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this egregious 
bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the chairman of the Energy and Power 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much for yielding. And I would 
reiterate, once again, that the application to build the Keystone 
pipeline 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 was to be built only 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.
  Labor 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, a $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.

                              {time}  1510

  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 Port Arthur, 
Texas, will be exported. 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 other than in America.
  They've also said that 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'll produce jobs, 
it'll help control gasoline prices, and it won't be exported. I would 
urge everyone to support this important legislation today and pass the 
Keystone pipeline legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from the State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  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 lifestyles and, ultimately, the lives of 
generations at peril. No one will view this notion as radical in the 
near future, 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 change. Our atmosphere can only absorb about 
565 gigatons more of carbon dioxide before global temperatures rise 2 
degrees Celsius. If that happens, the planet faces catastrophic 
consequences. Keystone XL would push us toward that cliff.
  TransCanada's application is to run a pipeline filled with the 
dirtiest oil through the middle of our country, refine it, and then 
export it on the world OPEC market. Even those who support the pipeline 
should agree to examine the consequences of its construction. 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.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time we have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 6 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield 1 minute to the chairman emeritus of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  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 are at the 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.
  The Keystone pipeline would simply make it possible to take oil from 
Canada and 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 and 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, and it's a win for the workers in 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 I hope that we support Mr. 
Terry's bill and send it to the other body.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to my colleague from the State of California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. 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, harming public health, and 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 build a sustainable energy future, but they can't do 
it on their own. 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 family. 
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 USA that cannot be shipped 
overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3 is a giant step in the wrong direction on both 
counts. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, 
Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, it has been 1,706 days since 
the

[[Page H2869]]

Keystone XL application has been submitted to our State Department. 
Instead of moving towards energy independence and job creation by 
approving this pipeline, we've learned that this administration has 
been spending its time wiretapping journalists and targeting 
conservative groups for their political beliefs.
  Within the past 10 days, the Obama administration has spent much more 
time defending its violations of the First Amendment than seeking to 
add 830,000 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 XL pipeline. This behavior is 
simply unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time that this body take action to bolster our 
economy, move our Nation towards energy independence--areas where this 
President has failed miserably.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to another Member of the 
House from Georgia, the very distinguished gentleman, a member of our 
committee, Congressman John Barrow.
  Mr. BARROW of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm a proud cosponsor of this bill with my colleague 
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). These are the main reasons why:
  First, 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 us to bid good riddance to countries like Venezuela 
is a good policy in my book.
  Critics say that it will increase our dependence on oil as our 
primary source of transportation energy, but we're already totally 
dependent on oil for our transportation energy. This pipeline will only 
make us less dependent on hostile rivals and more reliant upon friendly 
allies for the transportation energy that we need.
  Critics say it will increase CO
2
 emissions, but this oil 
is going to be produced and refined and consumed by somebody. The only 
question is whether we get first dibs on it or whether or not we move 
to the back of the line behind countries like India and China for our 
own North American oil.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation today and once and for all make the Keystone XL pipeline a 
reality.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the vice chair of the 
Energy and Power Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding. I thank Congressman Terry from Nebraska for bringing this 
bill forward.
  I rise in strong support of the bill to green-light the Keystone XL 
pipeline. Look at the facts about what this means to America: 20,000 
jobs immediately and energy security. We're going to be getting 830,000 
barrels of oil a day from a friend in Canada that we don't have to get 
from Middle Eastern countries who don't like us.
  Of course, what's the answer by President Obama? For 5 years now, he 
said ``no.'' He said ``no'' to American jobs and he said ``no'' to 
American energy security just because some radical environmental 
extremists have told him that they don't want this. But even the labor 
unions say they want this.

                              {time}  1520

  Of course, who's to benefit by the United States not doing the 
Keystone XL pipeline? China. China wants those jobs. And 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 the $7 
billion of private investment.
  How can this happen? With the stroke of a pen. Today, President Obama 
can approve the Keystone pipeline, but he won't. So if he won't, then 
here Congress is taking action to get those 20,000 jobs. Instead, we 
ought to approve this bill and get the Keystone XL pipeline built.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to our colleague from 
New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of one of our Energy 
Subcommittees.
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, we are once again debating a bill that, thankfully, 
will go no further than this House.
  Even if you support the pipeline, this bill is the wrong approach to 
build it. This bill elevates the financial needs of tar sands 
developers and the pipeline's builder above the needs and concerns of 
the citizens who live along the pipeline's path.
  I regret that my amendment on pipeline safety was not made in order. 
We now have ample evidence from the disastrous spills in Kalamazoo, 
Michigan, and Mayflower, Arkansas, that concern about pipeline safety 
is well justified.
  Cleaning up a spill is an expensive and difficult task. Three years 
after the spill in Kalamazoo, the oil is still not cleaned up. Families 
evacuated from their homes in Mayflower are still living in temporary 
housing. The spill is not just messy; it is dangerous. The fumes, 
liquids, and the solids are a toxic brew. The resources damaged by 
these spills will take years--probably decades--to restore.
  Congress recognized the unique nature of diluted bitumen and asked 
the National Academy of Sciences to examine questions related to its 
safe transport and to assess the adequacy of current pipeline safety 
regulations. This information would be valuable, especially in light of 
these recent spills; but we are not waiting for it. And if the 
proponents have their way, we will have no opportunity to act on any 
recommendations that NAS 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 for 
evaluating this project.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.
  Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, which would approve the 
Keystone XL pipeline.
  The Keystone XL pipeline has been studied ad nauseam. It's now been 
1,706 days since the application to build the Keystone XL pipeline was 
submitted to the Obama administration.
  The Keystone XL pipeline is nearly 1,200 miles long. At the average 
speed a human being could walk--three miles an hour--it would take 393 
hours to walk the pipeline's route. That means you could walk through 
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 from energy security. America needs the Keystone XL 
pipeline. Let's pass this bill now.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Gardner), a member of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the chairman for yielding time and leading this 
great debate.
  You know, we've heard a lot of talk today about job creation, about 
the number of jobs that would be created by the Keystone pipeline.
  As somebody who actually lives above the Ogallala Aquifer, I hate to 
break it to people in this Chamber who apparently don't believe it, but 
we actually have pipelines already above the Ogallala Aquifer.
  We have jobs being created right now because of energy opportunity in 
the United States and Canada. 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, 
manufacturers, the labor unions support the construction of this 
pipeline.
  It saddens me to think that this debate has come down to a debate 
over job snobs, people who believe that these aren't the kinds of jobs 
that we want, the kind of people that we want working on these jobs. 
It's not about whether this is a pipeline that is good

[[Page H2870]]

or bad for the environment. It's people who believe that these aren't 
the kinds 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 
that we want--high-paying jobs to put people to work, to feed families, 
to present opportunities for the American people in a country that has 
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.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how many speakers there 
are on the other side.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have 
left on our side.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 1 minute remaining. The 
gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. We have two speakers--unless you'd like to yield some of 
your time to us. We still have two speakers. Do you just have one 
speaker left? Why don't you do one speaker, then we'll do one--one-one-
one, and finish up.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lance).
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3.
  Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline is a significant element of 
America's all-of-the-above energy policy that will help lower energy 
costs, create jobs, and reduce our dependence on dangerous sources of 
foreign oil. It's supported by business and labor alike.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Killer tornadoes in Oklahoma, Hurricane Sandy in New York and the 
Northeast, droughts in the southwest part of this country, record heat 
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 oil to take a chance 
with the 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 pipeline construction. But we 
also want to protect this country and this planet; it's the only one we 
have.
  The tar sands are the dirtiest oil we can 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, and more climate change. That will not be 
something we can look at with pride.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 45 seconds.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  It's coincidental that here we are talking about the environmental 
concerns that have been overexaggerated about the Keystone XL 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 our allies rather than our competitors, like 
the Chinese.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3 is an important step forward in bringing energy 
independence and security to America, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Northern Route 
Approval Act. This important legislation would remove roadblocks to 
allow for the approval and construction of the Keystone XL pipeline--a 
project that is vital to America's energy future.
  The Keystone XL pipeline has been tied up in red tape by the Obama 
administration for nearly 5 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 it will make America more energy secure. The 
Keystone XL pipeline will transport over 800,000 barrels of oil per day 
from Alberta, Canada, down to 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 threat of lawsuit or unnecessary delay by the Secretary 
of the Interior.
  This important project has gone through extensive environmental 
reviews, including two separate EIS's 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 is 
no credible reason for the President to continue holding up this 
project.
  That is why this project enjoys bipartisan support in both the House 
and the Senate. This is not a Democrat issue; this is not a Republican 
issue. Energy security and job creation is an American issue. This 
administration is the only roadblock 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 XL pipeline a 
reality. It declares that no Presidential permit shall be required to 
approve this pipeline and prevents the Obama administration from 
imposing further delays.
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to support this important 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me begin where the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
completed his remarks.
  We are experiencing climate change. 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 effect of tar sands oil on our 
environment and our economy. This bill would ask the United States to 
bear all of the environmental risk without any appreciable rewards.
  Less than 2 months ago, in Mayflower, Arkansas--a typical American 
small 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 are talking about today. But rather than 
ensuring that, if we're going to build the Keystone pipeline to 
transport this dirty, 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 
Impact 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.

[[Page H2871]]

  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 are 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 to the environment that might result. It 
ignores the lessons of the recent Exxon pipeline spill in Arkansas and 
the tar sands spill in Michigan. It does nothing to close a loophole 
that currently allows tar sands oil to avoid paying taxes into the oil 
spill cleanup fund--that's right--because this bitumen, 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, but 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 not 
required for a trans-border project and that all requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation 
Act, the Endangered Species Act, and 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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this 
legislation, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. From day 
one, the Obama administration has inexplicably put up roadblock after 
roadblock 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. 
These numbers are according to the administration's own Departments of 
Energy and State. This project also would lead to billions of dollars 
of investment into the U.S. economy.
  Besides obstructing the construction of the northern portion 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 Stephen 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.

                              {time}  1540

  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 the adoption of the act.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 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.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Repetition has become sort of the cause celebre here in the House of 
Representatives. Last week, we totally repealed ObamaCare for the 
fourth time, and 33 other times we partially repealed it. Of course, 
none of those things have come true or have happened.
  This will be the seventh attempt by the House of Representatives to 
expedite--in this case, they've gone one step further--or to mandate 
the building of the XL 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, sadly, apparently, are going to destroy their boreal 
forests, 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, which, as the gentleman said, 
will be exempt from the excise tax that all other oil companies and 
pipeline companies pay--American companies and some foreign companies, 
but everybody else pays it. They will be exempt. They will not 
contribute to the oil spill liability trust fund. It's going to go to a 
refinery located in a foreign trade zone that is 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. Right now, we are in the annual traditional Memorial Day 
price gouging by the oil industry. It just happens magically every May 
that they're up to do a little periodic maintenance or unexpected 
maintenance on their plants. Gasoline has gone up 50 cents a gallon on 
the west coast in the last 3 weeks. This is not a free market. It is 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.
  There are things we could do to bring real relief to American 
consumers--get the speculators out of the market and a number of other 
things--that would provide more immediate relief. 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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to a member of the Natural Resources Committee and a 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, ever since the Arab oil embargoes of 
the 1970s 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.
  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. Now, 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 that some of that oil might enter 
that market. Well, that's possible, but I think it is far more likely 
that it will push Middle Eastern oil out of the American market.

[[Page H2872]]

  The fine point is this: In the next international crisis, would you 
rather rely on Canada or Iraq to meet our petroleum needs?
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 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.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I thank the gentleman.
  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 XL 
pipeline and exempts it from 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, among others. Bear in mind that tar sands 
oil is already exempt from paying into the trust fund that covers oil 
spill cleanup.
  So with this bill, my colleagues are saying we should have no front-
end environmental protection for this project and no backstop funding 
for when things go wrong--and things will go wrong. You just have to 
look at what happened at the Mayflower, Arkansas, spill a month ago. 
When that happens, American taxpayers are going to be on the hook for 
cleanup, and where is the offset for that? Meanwhile, TransCanada, the 
Canadian corporation proposing to build this pipeline, is on record 
before the Canadian energy board as saying that this project will 
increase the price of oil in the United States.
  So let's be very clear about what we are 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 even know how many jobs this pipeline project will create. 
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 
directly create fewer than 4,000 jobs, and fewer than three dozen of 
those will be permanent jobs.
  We don't even know the massive security risks and security costs that 
this project will foist upon the American taxpayers. At a minimum, we 
should approve the Connolly amendment to, at the very least, generate a 
threat assessment if this bill is to move forward.
  This bill, colleagues, is a betrayal of our priorities as Members of 
the United States Congress.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
1 minute to another member of the Natural Resources Committee, somebody 
who understands the oil industry well, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Mullin).
  Mr. MULLIN. I rise today as a proud Oklahoman, calling for this body 
to act on a commonsense bill that will put this country on the path to 
energy independence.
  The Keystone XL pipeline's southern route, which runs directly 
through my congressional district, is already creating good-paying jobs 
back in Oklahoma. I have seen with my own eyes how it is putting 
millions of dollars directly into the economies of small towns in my 
district.
  Mr. Chairman, 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 know that we can safely transport 
crude oil from our friends in Canada and sources in the U.S. to our 
refineries along the gulf coast. EPA's latest opposition to the State 
Department's recent environmental impact review of this project is more 
of the same from this administration, which 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 
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 to vote for H.R. 3.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Republicans on the other side 
of the aisle to stop faking it. We have a bill here that deems this, 
deems that, and deems the other thing.
  This is a bill that deems that the Environmental Impact Statement 
required by the National Environmental Policy Act is deemed approved. 
It's not.
  This is a bill that says that the requirements of the Endangered 
Species Act are deemed satisfied and opinion deemed issued. They're 
not.
  This is a bill that says that the required right-of-way and temporary 
use permit under the Mineral Leasing Act is deemed issued. Not.
  This is a bill that says that the requirements of the Water Pollution 
Control Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are deemed approved and 
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 farcical. It's a violation of the separation of powers under the 
Constitution. It's not our job to deem things. It's our job to pass 
laws of general application, not favors to foreign oil companies.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HOLT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRAYSON. And having been lectured endlessly by the other side 
about the profundity of earmarks, we come across a bill here where, in 
fact, it's an earmark for a foreign oil corporation. We are issuing to 
a foreign oil corporation a right-of-way that's valued at millions and 
millions of dollars when the other side tells us they're not in favor 
of earmarks.
  Stop the hypocrisy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Montana, another member of the Natural 
Resources Committee, Mr. Daines.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, it took Canada just 7 months to approve the 
Keystone XL pipeline; meanwhile, Americans have been waiting 4\1/2\ 
years for President Obama to act.
  Montanans understand how important this project is for our economy 
and for our energy future.
  In eastern Montana, we've seen the tremendous potential for jobs and 
economic growth that comes with oil production in the Bakken field. In 
fact, this pipeline will transport up to 100,000 barrels per day of 
Bakken oil--that is Montana and North Dakota oil--through a connecting 
on-ramp in Baker, Montana. And in Glasgow, Montana, the NorVal Electric 
Co-op is slated to supply electricity to one of the Keystone XL pump 
stations.
  Let me tell you what this means to middle class, hardworking 
Americans. If this pipeline is built, this rural electric co-op will be 
able to spread their cost burdens with the pipeline and, consequently, 
hold rates steady for their 3,000 customers. But if the pipeline is not 
approved, NorVal customers will see upwards of a 40 percent increase in 
their utility rates over the next 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, if the President isn't willing to listen to the voice 
of the people, the House will. It's time to build the Keystone XL 
pipeline.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the time remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 3\1/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today 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've traveled my rural Virginia Fifth District, I have spoken to 
our

[[Page H2873]]

small business owners, our small farmers, our volunteers, our students, 
and our parents, and there can be no question 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 it will 
create the jobs that we desperately need.
  After 4 long years, this bipartisan plan to create jobs and lower 
fuel prices should wait no longer. It is high time for the President to 
heed the wishes of the American people. Stop the excuses and approve 
the Keystone pipeline.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time 
until the other side is ready to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire, did I 
hear that my friend from New Jersey has only one speaker left?
  Mr. HOLT. Yes, I believe that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I hope that belief is true, then. You're 
waiting, I guess.
  So if the gentleman is prepared to close, I reserve the balance of my 
time, as I have one more speaker left.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  As we've heard, this is a bill that gives a Canadian company a 
sweetheart deal. It deems that all the conditions have been met, even 
if they haven't been. It 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 spills in 2010. In the United States, there are typically more than 
3 million gallons spilled from pipelines, so don't tell me that this is 
without risk.
  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 dozens, not the thousands.
  So this very dirty oil will not increase U.S. energy security. It 
certainly will not lower energy prices, which are determined on the 
world market and through various manipulations here.
  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 in favor of this legislation to expedite 
the pipeline construction have asked the chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee to fix this oil spill liability trust fund loophole, in other 
words, to see 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 the future in an as-of-yet imaginative or 
conjectural tax reform.
  If they really wanted to fix it, this would be the time to do it, 
rather than to take a bill and ask for streamlined, no-questions-asked 
approval: take the executive branch out of the decision, give the 
sweetheart deal to the Canadian company, and close the books. We would 
regret it if that happened.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holding). The gentleman from Washington has 
6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I'm very pleased to yield the balance of 
my time to the majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McCarthy).

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
this bill. Now, if you're like me and you go across the country, you 
want to listen to the American people. The two things they talk about 
when you tell them you're a Member of Congress, the first thing is: 
Where are the jobs? The second thing they say: Why can't 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 day. But, you know, today is that 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. 
He wants to move America forward. And I'll be frank, lots of time my 
philosophy isn't the same as the President, but I want to work 
together, especially when we agree. So I listened to his words and I 
listened to him closely because he talked about what was holding back 
job creation in America. The President said:

       One of the problems we've 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's important to do, but we could do it 
     faster.

  You know what? I agreed with those words of President Obama. And I 
looked for what could make that change. And you know when he spoke at 
that small business, it just so happened that the CEO of that small 
business was there with him. But you know where he was 24 hours before? 
He was right here in Congress. He was here testifying, as that small 
business, about 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 think he was referring to if it was more than 
1,700 days, that was too long. So when the President said that there's 
too much red tape, some is important, but we could do faster, I think 
the President probably meant that 15,000 pages of review that 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 Middle East for our energy as well.
  But you know what is more important when we listen to the American 
people and they ask, Why can't we do this in a bipartisan manner? You 
know what? It will come off this floor in a bipartisan vote. But you 
question, can it come off the Senate? Well, you know what? A majority 
of the Senators have 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 and jobs and 
bipartisanship forward, and I look forward to the opportunity to do it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3, which is quite 
simply a waste of this chamber's time. Like the 37th vote to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act last week, we are again wasting Americans' time and 
money doing the bidding of corrupt, private industry--selling jobs that 
will never materialize, while exposing American land, air, and water to 
dangerous pollution.
  I understand my friends across the aisle have water--or oil--to carry 
for the energy industry, but this bill is not going to bring the 
environmentally damaging pipeline they support to fruition. Regardless 
of the outcome of this vote, the decision to approve or reject the 
Keystone XL pipeline will rest with the president.
  Unfortunately for my friends across the aisle, President Barack Obama 
knows the dangers of not going far enough or fast enough to stop the 
climate crisis. History will celebrate his decision to lead us toward a 
clean energy economy that solves climate change and creates long-term, 
sustainable jobs for Americans. We understand then, that achieving this 
awesome goal requires that the United States reject the TransCanada 
Corp.'s proposal to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would cut 
through the heartland of America.
  Returning our economy to stable growth requires Americans to move 
forward toward the future, not back toward the past. We must put 
Americans to work building, implementing and maintaining a clean energy 
infrastructure that

[[Page H2874]]

will power the economy of tomorrow. The Keystone pipeline is dirty 
energy infrastructure, reflecting a generations-old approach to energy 
and environmental questions.
  TransCanada Corp. is a Canadian company that wants the Obama 
administration to provide it with a permit to build the pipeline, which 
would run oil from Canadian tar sands all the way through our country 
to the Texas Gulf Coast. According to the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, tar sands oil is an environmental catastrophe--creating three 
to five times the global warming pollution of traditional oil.
  After refining the oil here in the United States, TransCanada plans 
to export this oil for sale to other countries, enriching Canadians and 
oil companies but doing little or nothing to decrease America's 
dependence on foreign oil. In the meantime we get to store dirty energy 
waste products like petroleum coke in our neighborhoods while we wait 
for billionaires like the Koch brothers to ship the global-warming 
byproduct overseas to China.
  Common sense demands that the president reject this pipeline. Most 
Americans want our country to be investing in energy solutions for the 
future--not outdated, polluting infrastructure that will do nothing to 
solve our energy problems.
  According to the State Department, the total number of jobs projected 
to result from Keystone is 3,900 direct temporary construction jobs 
over a one- to two-year period, but only 35 permanent and 15 temporary 
jobs will remain after those two years of construction.
  Those who are making the case for the pipeline--TransCanada, oil 
lobbyists and special interest advocacy groups funded by the oil 
lobby--are spreading misinformation about the numbers of jobs that 
would be created. TransCanada claims that the project will create 9,000 
construction jobs and 7,000 manufacturing jobs; meanwhile, their 
spokesmen and advocates have been quoted in the media suggesting that 
``tens of thousands'' or ``over a hundred thousand'' direct and 
indirect jobs would be created.
  This willful misrepresentation about jobs numbers speaks to how 
little these oil industry leaders, and those who they are funding, 
actually care about Americans who need jobs. They are selling a jobs 
pipe dream, so they can build a polluting pipeline.
  Consider the struggles of those who have lost their jobs in the 
recession. Consider the families who cannot pay their bills, who cannot 
access health care, who cannot send their children to college and who 
have lost their homes. Then consider how irresponsible it is for oil 
company lobbyists and their friends to sell this pipeline using 
inflated job estimates.
  According to a national study from the Political Economy Research 
Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, every dollar put 
into clean energy creates three times as many jobs as putting that same 
dollar into fossil fuels. Further, median wages are 13 percent higher 
in the green energy sector than those in other parts of the economy. 
Over the past two years, jobs in the solar industry have grown nearly 
10 times faster than jobs in the rest of the economy, with only modest 
investment from federal and state governments. If we were to commit 
fully to supporting clean energy and putting an end to global warming, 
then we could create even more jobs. Research from the Brookings 
Institution has found that job quality is better in the clean energy 
sector, which is creating medium- and high-credential jobs at twice the 
rate as the fossil fuel industry.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote against this bill, and 
turn their efforts instead to developing energy solutions for 2050--not 
1950. Sludge from tar sands is not going to get America moving again; 
it will simply mire us in the past. Lets' move forward--and put a plug 
in Keystone XL once and for all.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, as the House prepares to once again vote 
on legislating approval of a presidential permit to construct the 
Keystone XL pipeline, I find it disappointing that the Majority refuses 
to work with Democratic supporters, like myself, of the pipeline. By 
attempting to legislate a process set in place by President George W. 
Bush, the Majority has succeeded in making the pipeline a political 
issue instead of one of unifying national energy independence. As a 
supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline, I oppose H.R. 3, the Northern 
Route Approval Act, and ask the Majority to instead work with the 
Administration to approve this project and legislate issues that can 
further enhance our energy independence rather than playing partisan 
politics.
  The intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to 
provide transparency so communities can know the impact of projects on 
their neighborhoods. However, H.R. 3 circumvents that transparency by 
simply deeming approved the NEPA review. H.R. 3 also deems approved 
permits under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. When 
these laws were passed, they were not revolutionary, they were 
commonsense, and were passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. One 
could even say these environmental laws were so important that they 
were, in fact, nonpartisan. Allowing those processes to run their 
courses is also commonsense and should be nonpartisan.
  This pipeline will eventually be built either south from Canada to 
the Gulf Coast or west to the Pacific where the Canadian oil will be 
sent to China. As a supporter of the pipeline and American energy 
security, I, for one, would prefer to see those manufacturing, 
construction, and other jobs created here in the U.S.
  Allowing the process provided under these laws to unfold does not 
mean you have to be opposed to the construction of the Keystone XL 
pipeline. The majority claims that this bill is necessary to ``address 
continued regulatory uncertainty.'' However, this bill does exactly the 
opposite; it circumvents the established process and potentially opens 
the project to lawsuits that will ensure the pipeline is kept in the 
court system for years to come.
  I oppose this bill, which gives special treatment to a foreign 
company not afforded to domestic companies. The House should be doing 
more to secure our country's energy independence instead of playing 
political games with our nation's energy future. As a supporter of the 
Keystone XL pipeline, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chair, this is America, and I fully believe 
it's possible to build the Keystone pipeline in a way that improves our 
access to crude oil and puts thousands of people to work, while still 
protecting citizens from hazardous spills. But we have to hold the 
industry's feet to the fire and make sure they are taking every 
possible precaution in building this pipeline.
  There are members on both sides who support construction of the 
pipeline and we could work together to move this project forward, but 
the Keystone XL has become totally political, with people using it to 
score points rather than address some of the problems that could arise 
from its construction. Today's bill is dead on arrival, but here we are 
once again wasting the House's time on partisan bills the Senate will 
never take up.
  When I chaired the Railroad, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 
Subcommittee we held five separate hearings concerning pipeline safety 
and found significant problems with reporting and inspections, as well 
as an unhealthy relationship between the pipeline industry and the 
agencies regulating them. We really need more scrutiny over the 
construction and operation of the Keystone Pipeline, not less. Deeming 
permits completed and suspending the Clean Water Act is a very 
dangerous precedent and will certainly make communities more vulnerable 
to the death and destruction that pipeline ruptures cause.
  With the high unemployment rate this country is currently facing, we 
should be hiring and training inspectors and putting contractors to 
work replacing this aging pipeline infrastructure in this country. Gas 
and oil companies have profited by over $1 trillion dollars over the 
last decade, while the infrastructure that brings their products to 
market becomes more unstable and more dangerous.
  Every day in America we see our infrastructure crumbling around us. 
The Association of Civil Engineers gave the nation's transportation 
infrastructure a grade of D.
  That is unacceptable, and the American people deserve better. Let's 
put people back to work on improving our entire nation's 
infrastructure. That's a win for the economy and a win for America's 
workers.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I 
rise to speak about the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and the 
legislation before us, H.R. 3.
  Mr. Chair, the Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a 
Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil 
sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a 
market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The 
proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per 
day. One of the most appealing aspects of the project is the positive 
economic impact it is expected to have on the economy.
  Let me just take one State's economy and realize what would happen 
with this particular effort. There would be a $2.3 billion investment 
in the Texas economy, creating more than 50,000 jobs in the Houston 
area, providing $48 million in State and local taxes, increase the 
gross State product by $1.9 billion.
  Although I favor the job creation potential of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline project however, the legislation contains several provisions 
that are of great concern to me.
  First, because the pipeline would cross an international border, 
construction requires a presidential permit and would be subject to 
applicable State laws and permitting requirements.
  To issue a presidential permit, the State Department, after 
consulting with other federal agencies and providing opportunities for 
public comment, must determine that the project would serve the 
national interest.

[[Page H2875]]

  Because the Keystone XL project would constitute a major federal 
action with a potentially significant environmental impact, it is also 
subject to environmental impact statement requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, NEPA.
  The bill declares that a presidential permit is not required for 
approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from the Canadian 
border through Nebraska even though the project crosses an 
international border. This is unprecedented.
  Second, H.R. 3 deems that environmental impact statements issued to 
date would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic 
Preservation Act, and the Interior Department and the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers are deemed to have granted all the necessary permits for 
the pipeline to proceed, including permits under the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act.
  As a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a 
problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact. 
I believe we should determine whether, under the Constitution, this 
alters the power of the office of the President.
  Third, the bill vests exclusive jurisdiction regarding legal disputes 
over the pipeline or the constitutionality of this bill in the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and requires claims 
regarding the pipeline to be brought within 60 days of the action that 
gives rise to the claim. My amendment would have extended the time to 
one year.
  It is unduly burdensome to require aggrieved parties to bear the 
considerable expense and hardship of traveling from their homes in 
North or South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas to 
Washington, D.C. to vindicate their legal rights.
  Mr. Chair, I also believe the bill before could have been improved 
had more amendments been made in order.
  For example, an amendment I offered jointly with Congressman Rush, 
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4, would have struck Section 4 of the bill 
and restored the right to full judicial review to aggrieved parties.
  Another amendment I offered, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3, would have 
required the Secretary of Transportation to submit within 90 days of 
enactment a report to Congress identifying the procedures and policies 
adopted to ensure that women and minority business enterprises are 
afforded the opportunity to participate on an equitable basis in the 
construction and operation of the Keystone Pipeline. Had this amendment 
been made in order and adopted Congress would have been provided with 
helpful information needed to conduct appropriate oversight.
  Another amendment I offered, Jackson Lee amendment No. 2, would have 
added a non-severability clause to the bill, which states that: ``if 
any provision or application of the legislation is held to be invalid, 
the entire act shall be rendered void.''
  This non-severability clause simply would have made explicit that the 
component parts of this bill all fit together, in pari materia, so to 
speak, such that removing any one part would defeat the intended 
purpose of the bill.
  My amendment would make very clear the congressional intent that this 
bill is so delicately crafted, that it is ``all or nothing.''
  Each of these provisions would be rendered meaningless if any of the 
remaining parts is invalidated.
  This has been a long standing principle of statutory construction, 
going back at least to 1936, when the Supreme Court stated in Carter v. 
Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 312 (1936):

       [T]he presumption is that the Legislature intends an act to 
     be effective as an entirety--that is to say, the rule is 
     against the mutilation of a statute; and if any provision be 
     unconstitutional, the presumption is that the remaining 
     provisions fall with it.

  This presumption becomes conclusive when Congress makes its intention 
clear, see Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. at 312, by including a 
non-severability clause in the statute.
  My amendment would have done just that.
  Had these amendments been made in order and approved, the bill before 
would be improved markedly. It is my hope that there will be additional 
opportunities to improve this legislation as it moves forward. The 
Keystone Pipeline should be built following all the necessary rules and 
laws that protect the American people.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the 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 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-11. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                 H.R. 3

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Northern Route Approval 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) To maintain our Nation's competitive edge and ensure an 
     economy built to last, the United States must have fast, 
     reliable, resilient, and environmentally sound means of 
     moving energy. In a global economy, we will compete for the 
     world's investments based in significant part on the quality 
     of our infrastructure. Investing in the Nation's 
     infrastructure provides immediate and long-term economic 
     benefits for local communities and the Nation as a whole.
       (2) The delivery of oil from Canada, a close ally not only 
     in proximity but in shared values and ideals, to domestic 
     markets is in the national interest because of the need to 
     lessen dependence upon insecure foreign sources.
       (3) The Keystone XL pipeline would provide both short-term 
     and long-term employment opportunities and related labor 
     income benefits, such as government revenues associated with 
     taxes.
       (4) The State of Nebraska has thoroughly reviewed and 
     approved the proposed Keystone XL pipeline reroute, 
     concluding that the concerns of Nebraskans have had a major 
     influence on the pipeline reroute and that the reroute will 
     have minimal environmental impacts.
       (5) The Department of State and other Federal agencies have 
     over a long period of time conducted extensive studies and 
     analysis of the technical aspects and of the environmental, 
     social, and economic impacts of the proposed Keystone XL 
     pipeline.
       (6) The transportation of oil via pipeline is the safest 
     and most economically and environmentally effective means of 
     doing so.
       (7) The Keystone XL is in much the same position today as 
     the Alaska Pipeline in 1973 prior to congressional action. 
     Once again, the Federal regulatory process remains an 
     insurmountable obstacle to a project that is likely to reduce 
     oil imports from insecure foreign sources.

     SEC. 3. KEYSTONE XL PERMIT APPROVAL.

       Notwithstanding Executive Order No. 13337 (3 U.S.C. 301 
     note), Executive Order No. 11423 (3 U.S.C. 301 note), section 
     301 of title 3, United States Code, and any other Executive 
     order or provision of law, no Presidential permit shall be 
     required for the pipeline described in the application filed 
     on May 4, 2012, by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. to the 
     Department of State for the Keystone XL pipeline, as 
     supplemented to include the Nebraska reroute evaluated in the 
     Final Evaluation Report issued by the Nebraska Department of 
     Environmental Quality in January 2013 and approved by the 
     Nebraska governor. The final environmental impact statement 
     issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, coupled 
     with the Final Evaluation Report described in the previous 
     sentence, shall be considered to satisfy all requirements of 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 
     et seq.) and of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470 et seq.).

     SEC. 4. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Exclusive Jurisdiction.--Except for review by the 
     Supreme Court on writ of certiorari, the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have 
     original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine--
       (1) the validity of any final order or action (including a 
     failure to act) of any Federal agency or officer with respect 
     to issuance of a permit relating to the construction or 
     maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, including any final 
     order or action deemed to be taken, made, granted, or issued;
       (2) the constitutionality of any provision of this Act, or 
     any decision or action taken, made, granted, or issued, or 
     deemed to be taken, made, granted, or issued under this Act; 
     or
       (3) the adequacy of any environmental impact statement 
     prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), or of any analysis under any other 
     Act, with respect to any action taken, made, granted, or 
     issued, or deemed to be taken, made, granted, or issued under 
     this Act.
       (b) Deadline for Filing Claim.--A claim arising under this 
     Act may be brought not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the decision or action giving rise to the claim.
       (c) Expedited Consideration.--The United States Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall set any 
     action brought under subsection (a) for expedited 
     consideration, taking into account the national interest of 
     enhancing national energy security by providing access to the 
     significant oil reserves in Canada that are needed to meet 
     the demand for oil.

     SEC. 5. AMERICAN BURYING BEETLE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) environmental reviews performed for the Keystone XL 
     pipeline project satisfy the requirements of section 7 of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) in its 
     entirety; and
       (2) for purposes of that Act, the Keystone XL pipeline 
     project will not jeopardize the continued existence of the 
     American burying beetle or destroy or adversely modify 
     American burying beetle critical habitat.
       (b) Biological Opinion.--The Secretary of the Interior is 
     deemed to have issued a written statement setting forth the 
     Secretary's opinion

[[Page H2876]]

     containing such findings under section 7(b)(1)(A) of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(1)(A)) and 
     any taking of the American burying beetle that is incidental 
     to the construction or operation and maintenance of the 
     Keystone XL pipeline as it may be ultimately defined in its 
     entirety, shall not be considered a prohibited taking of such 
     species under such Act.

     SEC. 6. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TEMPORARY USE PERMIT.

       The Secretary of the Interior is deemed to have granted or 
     issued a grant of right-of-way and temporary use permit under 
     section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185) and the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1701 et seq.), as set forth in the application tendered to 
     the Bureau of Land Management for the Keystone XL pipeline.

     SEC. 7. PERMITS FOR ACTIVITIES IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.

       (a) Issuance of Permits.--The Secretary of the Army, not 
     later than 90 days after receipt of an application therefor, 
     shall issue all permits under section 404 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and section 10 
     of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403; commonly known as 
     the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899), necessary 
     for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the 
     pipeline described in the May 4, 2012, application referred 
     to in section 3, as supplemented by the Nebraska reroute. The 
     application shall be based on the administrative record for 
     the pipeline as of the date of enactment of this Act, which 
     shall be considered complete.
       (b) Waiver of Procedural Requirements.--The Secretary may 
     waive any procedural requirement of law or regulation that 
     the Secretary considers desirable to waive in order to 
     accomplish the purposes of this section.
       (c) Issuance in Absence of Action by the Secretary.--If the 
     Secretary has not issued a permit described in subsection (a) 
     on or before the last day of the 90-day period referred to in 
     subsection (a), the permit shall be deemed issued under 
     section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1344) or section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 
     U.S.C. 403), as appropriate, on the day following such last 
     day.
       (d) Limitation.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency may not prohibit or restrict an activity or 
     use of an area that is authorized under this section.

     SEC. 8. MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT PERMIT.

       The Secretary of the Interior is deemed to have issued a 
     special purpose permit under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), as described in the application 
     filed with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for 
     the Keystone XL pipeline on January 11, 2013.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed 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.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Weber of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 113-88.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 18, strike ``pipeline.'' and insert 
     ``pipeline, and--
       (A) the Department of State assessments found that the 
     Keystone XL pipeline ``is not likely to impact the amount of 
     crude oil produced from the oil sands'' and that ``approval 
     or denial of the proposed project is unlikely to have a 
     substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil 
     sands'';
       (B) the Department of State found that incremental life-
     cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Keystone 
     XL project are estimated in the range of 0.07 to 0.83 million 
     metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, with the upper end 
     of this range representing twelve one-thousandths of one 
     percent of the 6,702 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 
     emitted in the United States in 2011; and
       (C) after extensive evaluation of potential impacts to land 
     and water resources along the Keystone XL pipeline's 875 mile 
     proposed route, the Department of State found that ``The 
     analyses of potential impacts associated with construction 
     and normal operation of the proposed Project suggest that 
     there would be no significant impacts to most resources along 
     the proposed Project route (assuming Keystone complies with 
     all laws and required conditions and measures).''.''.
       Page 2, line 21, strike ``of doing so.'' and insert ``of 
     doing so, and--
       (A) transportation of oil via pipeline has a record of 
     unmatched safety and environmental protection, and the 
     Department of State found that ``Spills associated with the 
     proposed Project that enter the environment expected to be 
     rare and relatively small'', and that ``there is no evidence 
     of increased corrosion or other pipeline threat due to 
     viscosity'' of diluted bitumen oil that will be transported 
     by the Keystone XL pipeline; and
       (B) plans to incorporate 57 project-specific special 
     conditions related to the design, construction, and 
     operations of the Keystone XL pipeline led the Department of 
     State to find that the pipeline will have ``a degree of 
     safety over any other typically constructed domestic oil 
     pipeline''.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 228, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Weber) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. 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 Keystone. Let me put that in 
perspective. I have a granddaughter who will be 2 years old in July. 
Had she been born when this permit was filed, she would be entering 
kindergarten this coming fall. Her name is Kate Liberty, by the way. 
She's the cutest thing 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 States.
  However, in 2012, President Obama rejected the first permit 
application for the Keystone XL pipeline, claiming that the deadline 
which required him to make a decision prevented a ``full assessment'' 
of the pipeline's impact. I would conclude, and I'm sure most of you 
would agree, that the State Department study of Keystone XL has gone 
far above and beyond the threshold required of a ``full assessment.'' 
In fact, this unprecedented degree of scrutiny has led many to conclude 
that the Keystone XL 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 from our own State Department that attest to the safety 
and environmental soundness of this project.
  There are those who oppose the project who say it hasn't been studied 
enough--that's laughable. That we are proceeding hastily--4\1/2\ years 
and 15,000 pages prove otherwise. Others allege that the pipeline is a 
safety risk. The State Department findings prove these allegations 
unfounded. In fact, the State Department concluded that it has 57 extra 
safety features, and with that, the Keystone XL 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 communities along the route. 
However, the State Department disagrees, concluding there would be ``no 
significant impacts'' to resources along the proposed route.
  Some insist that the pipeline will lead to increased greenhouse gas 
emissions and that halting the project will somehow combat global 
warming or reduce carbon emissions. However, the State Department's 
estimates of incremental emissions associated with the project are 
marginal, and they would have negligible impact on climate change, if 
any. Moreover, the State Department 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 XL, and I agree. Given the 
facts, I see no reason the administration should make the American 
people

[[Page H2877]]

wait any longer for a project whose construction will support up to 
40,000 jobs and generate $2 billion in earnings.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment selects some statements from the State 
Department's draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to try 
to suggest that the Keystone XL 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 percent 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.

                              {time}  1610

  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 XL 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 worst 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 XL 
is critical to oil companies' plans to triple production of the tar 
sands.
  The State Department's review rests on a key assumption. They assumed 
that if Keystone XL isn't built, the additional tar sands production 
would be moved by rail. They also assumed 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 flaws in the 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 Minister 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 in bitumen.''
  A Deloitte report said, ``Unless key transportation challenges are 
overcome, that new oil will have nowhere to go.''
  And here's TD Economics: ``Production growth cannot occur unless some 
of the planned pipeline projects out of Western Canada go ahead.''
  And here's what AJM Petroleum Consultants have said: ``Unless we get 
increased market access, like with Keystone XL, 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 Oilweek said: ``Essential to 
diminishing hopes for an oil sands bonanza are three proposed 
pipelines.''
  The Canadian Energy Research Institute said, ``with Keystone XL in 
place and operating at capacity, bitumen production could increase 
substantially.''
  Keystone XL 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 XL, 
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.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. 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 not advantageous to the 
argument, but we're going to try to rely on it when it's advantageous.
  It's admirable that he's concerned about the cost per barrel of 
bitumen. I own a small business and, by golly, 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. Well, I submit this to 
you, Mr. Chairman, and esteemed 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 that it's going to increase greenhouse 
gases, the experts have done the math, and they've come up with, if at 
all, it raises 1/100,000th of a degree Fahrenheit in global warming.
  And finally, we heard testimony from the experts in our hearing, 
saves 400 to 500 trucks a day off the highway.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, the issue is, if we 
don't build this pipeline, can that tar sands oil be trucked? Can it be 
taken to market? And I submit that if it's not, if we don't build this 
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.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 113-88.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition in support of the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, after line 2, insert the following new paragraph:
       (8) The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 
     for the Keystone XL Project issued by the Department of State 
     on March 1, 2013, finds that ``the reliance on oil sands 
     crudes for transportation fuels would likely result in an 
     increase in incremental greenhouse gas emissions'' in 
     comparison to the greenhouse gas emissions from the crude 
     oils used in the United States, as measured over the full 
     life-cycle of the fuels. The Draft Supplemental Environmental 
     Impact Statement finds that based on the quantity of tar 
     sands crude to be transported by the Keystone XL pipeline, 
     there could be up to 20.8 million metric tons of carbon 
     dioxide-equivalent emissions additional per year, which is 
     equivalent to the annual emissions from 4,312,500 passenger 
     vehicles.
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 9. OFFSETTING CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS.

       This Act shall not become effective unless the President 
     finds that the additional greenhouse gas emissions from the 
     increased use of tar sands crude referenced in section 2(8) 
     will be fully offset by TransCanada or tar sands producers 
     through an equal quantity of additional greenhouse gas 
     emissions reductions each year.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 228, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
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 dioxide concentrations 
were at that level was 3 million years ago. Seas were 60 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 XL pipeline takes us precisely in the wrong direction. 
This

[[Page H2878]]

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 XL 
pipeline for that reason.
  But if the House is going to pass a bill that approves the Keystone 
XL 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 that it is, but it is not in dispute.
  The State Department has estimated that a gallon of gasoline from tar 
sands is responsible for about 17 percent 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, and extreme weather, 
we need to be reducing carbon pollution. But, according to the State 
Department, using tar sands crude from Keystone XL 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 that they have to 
reduce other carbon pollution to offset the extra pollution from 
Keystone XL. 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 XL 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's 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 XL 
pipeline would be a disaster for the climate, but this amendment would 
help. It would minimize extra carbon pollution. It would 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.

                              {time}  1620

  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.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman form California has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close on this 
amendment?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska has the right to close 
on this amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. My colleagues, I think this amendment says if you're 
going to go ahead with this pipeline, at least look for other ways to 
reduce carbon emissions. Put the burden on the Keystone XL pipeline 
producers and Alberta, Canada. Don't just accept all the pollution if 
it can be minimized by our carbon reductions. That will help reduce the 
harm that this whole project will cause for the climate change that's 
threatening us and that we're seeing today throughout this country 
everyday in the news. It will help minimize aggravating that problem.
  It's not a solution, but it's a way that we can say that if we're 
going to have the XL pipeline, at least get some offsets on carbon so 
that we're not just increasing it to the maximum levels possible of all 
the greenhouse gases that are going into the air.
  I urge support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. TERRY. There are two realities here. Number one is that on the 
process of obtaining the bitumen, the crude that comes and 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 a 
heavy crude. That's what the State Department, under the appropriate 
rules, stated or concluded, based on the environmental impact studies. 
It is, in essence, equal to what we're importing from Venezuela today. 
In essence, it's neutral. That's the State Department's own conclusions 
and analysis--that it would have no real impact on climate change. So 
the study has been completed and this amendment is not necessary. It's 
just another way to keep delaying.
  I would request a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. How will this delay the project? It simply says, as they 
develop this pipeline, they have to look for other ways. They can then 
start figuring that out without delaying the project, as I understand 
it.
  Mr. TERRY. We interpreted that requesting that information could be 
used as a tool to further delay it. That's how we've reached that 
conclusion. They've used so many things to delay this already that 
we're just suspicious that this would be another opportunity.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 113-88.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 4, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Notwithstanding Executive''.
       Page 3, after line 21, insert the following new subsection:
       (f) Required Study.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), final 
     approval of construction and operation of the Keystone XL 
     pipeline shall not occur until the President has determined 
     that the appropriate Federal agency has completed a study of 
     the health impacts of increased air pollution in communities 
     near refineries that will process up to 830,000 barrels per 
     day of tar sands crude transported through the Keystone XL 
     pipeline, including an assessment of the cumulative air 
     pollution impacts on these communities, many of which already 
     experience unhealthy levels of air pollution.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 228, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. This bill is about profits over people. This 
bill puts the Koch brothers' profits above people's health.
  No one knows how much air 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 am 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 XL pipeline, the Environmental 
Protection Agency has found that neither statement included a 
satisfactory evaluation of the increased air pollution that would come 
as a result of the pipeline's

[[Page H2879]]

operation. Communities surrounding the oil refineries that would be 
transporting raw tar sands crude through this proposed pipeline are 
already exposed to dirty air. Approval of the Keystone XL pipeline will 
only make it worse.
  The raw tar sands crude is more toxic and acidic than other types of 
crude, Mr. Chairman. Raw tar sands crude produces significantly more 
harmful pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions than conventional crude 
oil due to the complex refining process it must go through before it 
reaches the gas pumps.
  As this type of crude has only been exported to the United States 
from Canada for 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 XL 
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 risks 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. These 
questions deserve legitimate answers. For this reason, I'm requesting a 
study on the health impacts of raw tar sands crude pollution in our 
communities surrounding the refineries where the Keystone XL pipeline 
will operate. I urge my colleagues to share my commitment to 
safeguarding Americans' health, and I ask that you approve my amendment 
and allow for such a study to be done before we make any decision on 
the pipeline's construction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. And I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. 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, many of the refineries are expanding right 
now, also under the tutelage and permitting processes of the EPA.

                              {time}  1630

  They're already being studied. It's not necessary to then include it 
as a condition precedent to the construction of the Keystone pipeline, 
which is the essence of what this bill does.
  The gentleman from Georgia mentioned that the two 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.
  After 1,700 days, almost 5 years, three major environmental studies 
on this pipeline, it's time to just get this done. Enough is enough.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Connolly

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 113-88.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 4, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Notwithstanding Executive Order''.
       Page 3, after line 21, insert the following new subsection:
       (b) Threat Assessment.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
     until the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
     Administration, in consultation with the Department of 
     Homeland Security, conducts a study of the vulnerabilities of 
     the pipeline to terrorist attack and certifies that the 
     necessary protections have been put in place so that the 
     pipeline would withstand such an attack and a spill resulting 
     from such an attack.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 228, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. 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 MOU, conduct a study of 
the vulnerabilities of the Keystone XL pipeline to a terrorist attack 
and certify that necessary protections have been put in place.
  Across the United States, more than a half 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 percent of our country's crude oil and 60 
percent of all of its petroleum products. This important network 
connects our power plants, ports, refineries, 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. There have been attempted attacks on pipelines throughout 
the world, including in Colombia, Canada, London, Nigeria, and Mexico, 
to name a few. The Cano Limon oilfield 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 actually arrested members 
of another terrorist group planning to attack jet fuel pipelines in 
storage containers at JFK Airport in New York; in 2011, a U.S. citizen 
was arrested for planting an improvised explosive device under a 
pipeline in Oklahoma; and in June of 2012, a man 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 vandal armed with a 
high-powered rifle shot at 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 and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration work with 
Homeland Security to study the vulnerabilities of the Keystone pipeline 
and certify that protections are put in place to withstand such 
attacks.
  If constructed, the Keystone 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.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. 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.

[[Page H2880]]

  TSA guidelines bring a risk-based approach to the application of the 
security measures throughout the pipeline industry. As stated in the 
National Infrastructure Protection Plan, DHS assesses risk as a 
function of threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences. With this in 
mind, the most effective security programs employ a risk management 
process that facilitates protective planning and decisionmaking to 
mitigate the risk for pipeline assets.
  The operator's risk assessment methodology is subject to review by 
the TSA. Therefore, risk and vulnerability to pipelines are already 
covered under current guidelines. There is no need to specifically 
single out this pipeline for further study.
  Clearly, this is intended to delay the Keystone pipeline from being 
built, so I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I would simply say in response to my friend from 
Pennsylvania, for whom I have great respect, that this is not redundant 
because the review process looks at a lot of things--stress, corrosion, 
improper operation, weather-related disaster, even vandalism. It does 
not, however, address acts of terrorism. That is why I do not believe 
that my amendment is redundant.
  Frankly, in light of recent events in this country, we must double-
check and be double sure that that which we build as sensitive as a 
pipeline is secure. I think Americans are entitled to that extra 
security. I don't consider it a redundancy, and I urge passage of the 
amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rahall

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 113-88.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated 
as amendment No. 5 in the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 3 of the committee print (and redesignate 
     subsequent sections accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 228, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 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 the 
section which states that the Keystone XL 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 
intact, including those relating 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 extremely massive pipeline project to 
proceed without 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 EIS was done for a 
different permit application than the one currently pending.

                              {time}  1640

  I repeat: that EIS 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 on May 4, 2012, 
reapplied for a permit for the revised route, limiting it to the 
northern route that is the subject of H.R. 3.
  Yet the pending legislation references an EIS from August 2011--
again, for an entirely different permit application.
  As a supporter of the Keystone pipeline, I find it difficult to see 
how this convoluted process set forth in section 3 would facilitate its 
construction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DENHAM. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, 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 is 
in the now second supplemental for the State of Nebraska new review. 
There was an earlier statement that there was never one done under 
Nebraska. That's just absolutely false.
  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 would 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.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Nebraska's 
comments. I understand the EIS to which he refers was done for the 
State of Nebraska, but not for the current pending application.
  I yield the balance of my time to the cosponsor of the amendment, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding on this.
  I spoke earlier today. This is the seventh attempt by this House to 
expedite, or now in this case, we are not expediting permitting, we are 
mandating permitting.
  The gentleman just said that there's some disagreement here. The bill 
clearly states that it's the 2011 DEIS which is deemed to be sufficient 
which does not contain the current routing for the line.
  We could create somewhat of an extraordinary precedent here. We could 
just have one generic national pipeline EIS 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.
  Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. No, I'm sorry, I don't have enough time.
  We would just deem that pipelines anywhere and everywhere met 
national interest, public safety, and that.
  I also raised the point earlier that this will transport tar sands 
oil through a pipeline which the IRS 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 from whom?

  Every time we pump another barrel, the Saudis and OPEC drop a barrel. 
They're keeping the price up. There is 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 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 
that shut down all the refineries all at once every year at the

[[Page H2881]]

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 with an investigation they 
weren't really shut down--they just jacked up the price 50 cents a 
gallon like they always do.
  So to pretend that somehow by deeming this to be sufficient, 
mandating that 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--over there you are saying, oh, we don't want 
to go to China. Well, it may well go to China and go through the Panama 
Canal. 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 
can put millions of people to work permanently in this country and 
rebuild our infrastructure and once again claim world leadership there. 
We've got better things for this committee to be doing.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. DENHAM. This amendment guts the bill by eliminating the section 
that, one, declares that no Presidential permit is needed for 
TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline; and, two, deems the lengthy 
environmental reviews already completed as satisfying the requirements 
of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic 
Preservation Act.
  Given that this project has already had 5 years of studying, section 
3 is necessary to ensure the Keystone XL project is done in a timely 
manner, and 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).
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Oregon is right about this 
committee building infrastructure, but there is 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. 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.
  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 as processed will set up an executive order taking away 
congressional authority. So I am very, very proud and pleased to stand 
here today and to urge my colleagues to take a vote today to take back 
part of our constitutional congressional authority, move this pipeline 
forward, creating jobs, giving us more energy security in the world.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Esty

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 113-88.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 6, strike ``or maintenance''.
       Page 5, line 23, strike ``or operation and maintenance''.
       Page 6, beginning on line 18, strike ``, operation, and 
     maintenance''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 228, the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 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 
River and Harbors Act, within 90 days of receipt of a permit 
application.
  The mandate to approve 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 XL 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 activities.

                              {time}  1650

  Why would we treat a foreign company differently and give it a free 
pass through a multidecade lifespan of the pipeline?
  My amendment would eliminate this reckless loophole and a few others 
to ensure that all operations and maintenance activities on this 
pipeline, should it 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 Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DENHAM. This amendment would further delay the Keystone XL 
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 constructed but not 
operated. This would be like getting a building permit to construct a 
house but not being able to certify the occupancy to actually live in 
the house. This pipeline will be subject to continued oversight by the 
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Corps, and 
other regulators to ensure that the operators are complying with the 
project's permit requirements.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESTY. I now yield 1 minute to my colleague, the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank Ms. Esty for yielding and for offering this 
amendment.
  I have always been a supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline. I have 
voted for it every time it has come to this floor in any form in which 
it has come here.
  This bill, however, goes beyond simply completing the environmental 
review and Presidential approval of the pipeline. This bill mandates 
that the Army Corps and other agencies approve permits not just for 
construction but for all future maintenance activities on the pipeline. 
The Army Corps review of permits is important to limiting environmental 
damage and other impacts like flooding. The southern portion of

[[Page H2882]]

this pipeline, which I'm very happy is underway, is currently being 
constructed without having to waive laws and automatically approve 
permits like this.
  I urge Members to support this amendment so we can really come 
together in a strong bipartisan fashion to approve the Keystone XL 
pipeline and get this done and get these jobs created in America.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  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 operations 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 operations and maintenance activities beyond 
the initial 5 years are not authorized under the initial permit for the 
construction of the project. In fact, according to the Corps, 
operations and maintenance activities that occur in the future beyond 
the initial 5 years need to be authorized under a separate permit at 
the time the activity takes place. In addition, any permit that is 
issued today by the Corps for construction or maintenance would expire 
in 5 years and would need to be renewed.
  I would like to submit for the Record a copy of the Army Corps' 
explanatory decision document nationwide permit 12, which describes the 
permitting procedures.
  So the language in the underlying bill would give construction and 
all future operations and maintenance under the Clean Water Act and the 
Rivers and Harbors Act a free pass from review by requiring the Corps 
to approve them regardless of whether they minimize or mitigate the 
impacts.
  In addition, this amendment would eliminate another loophole to 
ensure that operations and maintenance activities comply with the 
Endangered Species Act, just like all other pipelines.
  Further, the amendment will 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 lifespan of this pipeline.
  Regardless of your views on the construction of the Keystone XL 
pipeline, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my commonsense 
amendment to prevent new loopholes and, quite possibly, to prevent the 
creation of a regulatory earmark for one foreign corporation.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Following is the link to the full document referred to earlier: 
http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/nwp/2012/
NWP_12_2012.pdf
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Once again, this amendment does nothing more than to delay or gut the 
bill. It is correct what the gentlelady from Connecticut says in that 
this amendment does not impact the construction at all--and it does 
not. Yet, as the gentleman from California pointed out, the analogy 
here is, if you build a house, this amendment would say you can't live 
in the house, that you can't operate in the house. Again, this 
amendment does nothing more than gut the bill. It's a delay tactic.
  As I said earlier, this bill allows Congress the ability to regain 
its constitutional authority. Congress has the express authority under 
article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution ``to regulate commerce 
with foreign nations and among the several States.''
  So this bill does that. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this amendment and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. DENHAM. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 113-88.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 21, strike ``60 days'' and insert ``1 year''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 228, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the respective authors of this legislation 
because I know that their intent is a purposeful intent.
  I have made public statements that I believe that moving forward with 
the right approach, ensuring that the necessary protections are in 
place, the necessary environmental protections are in place and the 
permitting is in place, will create an enormous number of jobs. In 
fact, I opposed the rule because I've offered amendments that would 
provide opportunities for minority contractors, women-owned 
contractors, opportunities for the recruitment of a new generation of 
workers in the energy industry, which I thought would be a contributing 
factor to this legislation.
  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, but my amendment does not speak to that. My 
amendment is an amendment that seeks to simply be fair, Mr. Chairman. 
My amendment is simple and straightforward.
  It extends the time period for filing a claim arising under the act 
from 60 days to 1 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. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is thousands of miles from 
many of those who may be impacted.
  Think about that. The Keystone pipeline is proposed to run from 
Alberta, Canada, through the great States of North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and my State of Texas, all the way 
to the gulf. Maybe there is some collateral impact as well, but the 
only court in the country authorized to hear the claims of the 
residents of any of these States who seek justice for a legally 
cognizable 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 district. This will impose an undue hardship and a 
financial burden on ordinary Americans seeking justice. Instead, the 
bill requires them to find and retain a high-priced D.C. lawyer whom 
they don't know and may have never met to represent their interests in 
a court far, far away.
  Another reason for extending the time period in which to file a 
claim--remember, this is after the passage and construction of this 
particular entity--from 60 days to 1 year is that, by lodging 
jurisdiction in the D.C. Court of Appeals, the burden of proof and 
persuasion is shifted from the governmental and corporate actors 
involved to the homeowners, small businesses, and individuals bringing 
legal rights. Grandma and Grandpa and all of those individuals will 
have to travel 1,000 miles.

                              {time}  1125

  This is because the burden that must be shouldered by a plaintiff is 
very steep. To challenge factual evidentiary determinations made in an 
Environmental Impact Statement, for example, a plaintiff must 
demonstrate that

[[Page H2883]]

they're 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 witnesses, and gather and review 
documentary materials.
  I hope in a bipartisan way we can get to where all of us would like 
to be, ensuring that we have a constructive project for all Americans.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Marchant). The gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DENHAM. I reserve the balance of my time for my personal close.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, again, I would have hoped, having worked 
with the gentleman from Nebraska, the proponent of this legislation, 
that we would continue to work on a bipartisan pathway.
  This amendment is to relieve the burden on some of the very people 
many of us represent, and that is, of course, those individual 
claimants who happen to be in faraway places who now have to go to the 
D.C. Court of Appeals and to actually bear the burden of responsibility 
dealing with the fact that when you challenge the factual evidentiary 
determinations made in an EIS statement, an Environmental Impact 
Statement, for example, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they're not 
supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole.
  That's an extreme burden that will have to be carried by plaintiffs. 
They'll have to secure lawyers here in the D.C. area. They'll have to 
travel here, bear extra expenses. It will be necessary to get experts, 
locate and prepare witnesses, relocate themselves, and gather and 
review documentary materials. I would suggest that it is obviously a 
stress and a burden.
  In section 4, this bill has no right to judicial review. So in 
essence, it means that you have one track to go in for a number of 
issues that might come forward. I am concerned that that would be the 
case. And for that reason I think that our amendment has the strength 
of purpose that is necessary.
  Let me also add again, as I want to be very clear, why should we 
burden the individual plaintiffs, Mr. Chairman, with financial burdens 
that are excessive? My amendment gives them a fair amount of time to 
get a response and to participate in this process.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to undermine an 
important streamlining provision in the bill that sets firm deadlines 
for filing claims.
  In order to cause maximum delays, opponents of projects often wait 
until the final possible day to file claims. Setting firm reasonable 
deadlines has no impact on legal rights.
  This bill is limited in the types of claims that receive the 
expedited review to just three: validity of final orders, 
constitutionality of the act, and adequacy of the Environmental Impact 
Statement.
  These claims must be filed within 60 days of the final order or 
action giving rise to that claim. No other claim is affected by the 60-
day filing deadline.
  Because of the limitations on types of claims covered by the 
deadline, 2 months is more than ample time to file with the D.C. 
circuit. Extending to a new year is simply one more delay tactic.
  With that, I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                   Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Chu

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 113-88.
  Ms. CHU. I rise to offer amendment No. 8, the Chu-Polis-Connolly 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 9. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PIPELINE SPILL.

       (a) Study.-- The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study of the Keystone XL pipeline project to 
     determine--
       (1) the total projected costs of cleanup activities that 
     would be required in the event of a discharge of oil and 
     hazardous substances from the project; and
       (2) the potential impacts of such a discharge on--
       (A) public health;
       (B) the environment; and
       (C) the quantity and quality of water available for 
     agricultural and municipal purposes.
       (b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit to 
     Congress a report containing the findings of the study 
     required under subsection (a).
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 228, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Chu) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to offer an important amendment, along with Congressman 
Polis and Congressman Connolly, to H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval 
Act, which would authorize construction of the highly controversial 
Keystone XL pipeline.
  Our amendment calls for the Government Accountability Office to 
conduct a study on the cost of cleaning up oil spills from this 
pipeline. We need to know how much it's going to cost taxpayers to 
decontaminate our cities, towns, and farmlands when the pipeline leaks. 
We need to know how a spill will harm residents and the environment. 
Will it make Americans sick, pollute our water, and contaminate our 
farms? Americans have the right to know the full cost and harmful 
impacts that a spill would have.
  There are many serious questions and inadequacies in some of the 
analyses of the project, if not glaring holes. Take greenhouse gas 
emissions, take pipeline safety and spill response, take alternative 
pipeline routes--there is too much we don't know. What we do know, 
though, is that the pipeline will transport oil that is heavily 
corrosive, making spills more likely and also more difficult and costly 
to clean up.
  Tar sands pipelines in the U.S. have some of the worst spill records. 
Pipelines in North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan spilled 
nearly four times as much crude per mile than the national average in 
the last 2 years. Yet, the Keystone XL pipeline, as planned, will cut 
across America's heartland. It will run above the Ogallala Aquifer, 
which is a main source of drinking and farm water for nine States, 
endangering hundreds of thousands of people.
  That is why I oppose the bill. We cannot rush a decision that could 
have so many harmful impacts on the health of thousands of Americans. 
And that is why I urge the House to support our amendment.
  Join me in asking the GAO to study the cost of spill cleanup and its 
impact on our health, environment, and water. The American people 
deserve to know.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DENHAM. These issues have already been the subject of the study 
by the State Department. The environmental review process, which 
included four different Environmental Impact Statements, analyzed oil 
spills of varying size, the types of releases, and the impacts of oil 
spills. Additional studies would just waste taxpayer dollars.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Representative 
Polis.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleagues, Ms. Chu 
from California and Mr. Connolly from Virginia.
  This amendment would require that the Government Accountability 
Office, which is independent, evaluate the true cost of potential 
spills from the Keystone XL pipeline. Americans want to know. We want 
to know what the impact of tar sands spills are on public health, on 
the environment, on the quantity and quality of water that's available 
for agriculture and farmers

[[Page H2884]]

and for municipalities and for drinking.
  We all know that tar sands crude oil can be dangerous. We saw the 
recent spill in Mayflower, Arkansas. It's critical that we address the 
true cost of oil pipeline spills and their true impact. It's inevitable 
that the Keystone XL pipeline will have costly spills and leaks.
  Spills are especially concerning because the pipeline is slated to 
cross over the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world's largest aquifers 
that supplies drinking and irrigation water to millions of Americans.

                              {time}  1710

  Instead of trying to rubber-stamp the Keystone XL this week and short 
circuit the very process that Congress established, instead we should 
be working to ensure that spills won't impact the health of our 
communities and the quality of our water. I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHU. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California, Ms. 
Chu, for her leadership and my colleague, Mr. Polis, from Colorado. I 
couldn't be in more congenial company on an amendment that I think is 
very simple and straightforward.
  The American people are entitled to transparency. As Mr. Polis 
indicated, leaks are inevitable, and any pipeline corrodes. Especially 
with this kind of crude oil, which is highly corrosive, you're going to 
have leaks. The American people are entitled to know the cost of 
cleanup and the dangers to the environment. I think that's fairly 
straightforward. I know my colleagues share in the value of 
transparency in government, and I think that we should be doing that 
here with the pipeline. I support the amendment and urge its adoption.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to support our amendment. The 
American people deserve to know.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, the American people have had 5 years of 
studies, the longest studies that have happened on any pipeline in our 
Nation's history. What the American public are waiting for are the jobs 
that go with this.
  U.S. pipeline operators have safely transported oil sands crude for 
over 40 years. This is not a new concept. The 2011 Pipeline Safety Act 
further strengthens safety by increasing penalties for violations, 
authorizing additional safety inspectors, and granting new authorities 
to enforce the oil spill response plan. That was a bipartisan bill that 
we passed out of here just last session.
  TransCanada has agreed to 57 PHMSA conditions on the pipeline's 
construction and operation, which is expected to make it one of the 
safest ever constructed. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 113-88.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 9. OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLAN DISCLOSURE.

       (a) In General.--Any pipeline owner or operator required 
     under Federal law to develop an oil spill response plan for 
     the Keystone XL pipeline shall make such plan available to 
     the Governor of each State in which such pipeline operates to 
     assist with emergency response preparedness.
       (b) Updates.--A pipeline owner or operator required to make 
     available to a Governor a plan under subsection (a) shall 
     make available to such Governor any update of such plan not 
     later than 7 days after the date on which such update is 
     made.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 228, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. This amendment would require that TransCanada and any 
future owner-operator of the Keystone XL pipeline, if there be one, 
submit its oil spill response plan to the Governor of each State in 
which the pipeline operates.
  I'm well aware that current law requires the Department of 
Transportation to maintain on file current copies of oil spill response 
plans and provide any person a copy of that plan. However, those copies 
are allowed by law to exclude certain information like specific 
response resources, tactical resource deployment plans, and information 
on worst-case scenario discharges.
  I understand there are concerns about broad distribution of these 
plans and this proprietary information, but those concerns should not 
apply to Governors of the States--people like Mary Fallin and Nathan 
Deal, who many of us have served with--States that this very pipeline 
would run through. These States have the right to evaluate oil spill 
response plans in detail, integrate it into their respective emergency 
management systems, and then provide the necessary resources for 
appropriate emergency response plans. Reliance upon some redacted plan 
they would receive from the Federal Government is not adequate. 
People's lives and livelihoods are at stake, and locals work together 
on these situations.
  Nor should those Governors be expected to wait until a spill has 
occurred when they are already in the process of sending first 
responders into harm's way to receive a copy of the full plan from 
TransCanada, which is, by law, the only time the company is required to 
share that unredacted version with the State government.
  South Dakota was wise enough to realize the problems with these 
regulations. The State enacted legislation to mandate receipt of the 
plan prior to operation of the pipeline. The other States should not 
have to jump through any hoops just to obtain the information they need 
in order to provide appropriate emergency response to dangerous 
situations to protect their citizenry.
  When I offered this amendment in the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, my esteemed colleague, the Honorable Chairman 
Shuster, recognized the need to balance access to these response plans 
with the need to protect sensitive information from becoming public, 
and I think this amendment strikes that proper balance by limiting 
access to the Governors. He offered to work with me on the issue on a 
future appropriation bill, and I appreciate that kind offer. While I 
look forward to that partnership, and I commend the chairman for his 
work to address the issue on the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011, this 
amendment would improve this Keystone pipeline situation today. We 
can't wait for some possible future legislation when the likelihood of 
a spill and the risk to public safety is so great now.
  Potential effects of a Keystone XL spill could be devastating. The 
truth of the matter is that this pipeline is unprecedented, it's 
dangerous, and there will be spills. Refraining from arming our States 
with readily available information in order to respond adequately and 
safely would not be responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this time. This issue is important, and it 
demonstrates Congress's respect for Governors and State governments and 
the men and women who risk their lives to protect us every day, the 
first responders. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. I ask that we unanimously support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is a broad issue that could affect a 
number of pipelines and States. We are prepared to accept this 
amendment, although we have general reservations

[[Page H2885]]

about it, and implementation must be done very carefully.
  At our committee markup of H.R. 3, Chairman Shuster said he would 
work on this issue more broadly in the context of reauthorization. 
Despite these reservations, I'm prepared to accept the amendment.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee bringing this 
amendment, and I appreciate all of the time and effort that the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has put into this. I would 
agree that it's reasonable; the Governors should have this. In fact, 
TransCanada has agreed to a variety of additional measures that would 
be part of this, and the Governors should have that. I agree with the 
gentleman's conclusion.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 113-88.
  Mr. HOLT. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 9. ENERGY SECURITY.

       This Act shall not take effect until the President 
     determines that any crude oil and bitumen transported by the 
     Keystone XL pipeline, and all refined petroleum products 
     whose origin was via importation of crude oil or bitumen by 
     the Keystone XL pipeline, will be entered into domestic 
     commerce for use as a fuel, or for the manufacture of another 
     product, in the United States, except in the following 
     situations:
       (1) Where the President determines that providing an 
     exception is in the national interest.
       (2) Where providing an exception is necessary under the 
     Constitution, a law, or an international agreement.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 228, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am offering on behalf 
of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) simply requires that the oil transported 
through the Keystone XL pipeline, the refined products made from the 
oil as well, stay in the United States except under certain 
circumstances.
  Now, the proponents of the Keystone pipeline, as we've heard today, 
say it is important for U.S. energy security. That can't be true if the 
oil just passes through the United States on its way to other 
countries, and there is nothing in the underlying legislation that 
would require that the oil transported through the Keystone pipeline, 
or the refined fuels produced from that oil, stay in the United States 
to benefit American consumers.

                              {time}  1720

  In fact, when the president of TransCanada, who got a sweetheart deal 
through this legislation, was asked whether he would commit to keeping 
the Keystone tar sands oil and the refined fuels in the United States, 
he said, no. That's why we need to adopt this amendment.
  U.S. oil consumption peaked in 2005. It's declined by more than 10 
percent since then. During the same period, U.S. petroleum production 
increased 38 percent.
  So how is this balanced?
  We're exporting it.
  Now, that's not necessarily bad. For years, the import of oil hurt 
our balance of trade. But in 2011, the United States became a net 
exporter of petroleum products for the first time in half a century. 
We've exported 3 million barrels per day of petroleum products, and in 
2012, exports increased to 3.2 million barrels per day.
  The Keystone pipeline would transport the dirtiest oil in the world 
from Canada, through the United States, to refineries on the gulf 
coast, where it would be exported, tax-free, to foreign countries.
  This is just a pipeline, about three-dozen permanent workers assigned 
to this pipeline. Otherwise, all we get from this is the risk of a 
spill.
  According to the Energy Information Administration, more than 76 
percent of the current U.S. petroleum exports come from the gulf coast. 
In fact, 60 percent of the gas, and 42 percent of the diesel produced 
at Texas gulf coast refineries was exported.
  That fact, that the refined product will be exported, is not 
speculation. Look at the business plans of Valero, one of the Nation's 
largest refineries, which operates several facilities on the gulf 
coast.
  Valero's 2012 annual report claims that the U.S. markets are 
oversupplied to the point where the company's chief executive, Bill 
Kless, recently said, ``There's so much oil, it's got to be moving. Our 
view is that it's flooding the gulf coast.''
  And the solution?
  Well, Valero is shipping domestically produced crude to Canada for 
refining under a license that allows the company to send up to 90,000 
barrels a day for the next year. It's more than double what we exported 
to Canada last year.
  That's right. One of the largest U.S. refiners in the gulf wants to 
massively increase exports of American crude to Canada at the same time 
that we are passing this legislation to send Canadian tar sands oil to 
the gulf coast. I would like to ask the proponents of this to explain 
how this makes sense.
  The president of the American Petroleum Institute and the CEO of 
ConocoPhillips have said that we should change U.S. law to allow for 
the expanded exports of domestically produced oil.
  Well, the re-export of crude oil is already allowed under current 
law. Without my amendment, crude oil that comes out of Keystone could 
circumvent U.S. refineries and be exported as crude. I ask my 
colleagues to think hard about how that helps America.
  The Keystone XL pipeline would ask the United States to bear all of 
the environmental risk of transporting the dirtiest oil in the world 
without ensuring that U.S. consumers or our energy security see any 
benefits from this.
  If the proponents of this legislation are serious about ensuring that 
the Keystone XL pipeline really does enhance U.S. energy security, they 
will vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and claim the time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  A couple of points just so we get the total picture here.
  We consume, in America, about 18 million barrels of oil per day. 
That's what we consume domestically. We've reduced that from 20 a 
couple of years ago.
  Now, currently, when we add or just focus on OPEC oil countries, 
we're importing, daily, about 4.3 million of that 18 million that we 
need from OPEC countries--Saudi Arabia, Venezuela--and so building this 
pipeline, about 800,000 barrels, is about enough to offset the heavy 
crude from Venezuela.
  Even with this pipeline running at its maximum, we will still need to 
import from OPEC-level countries. So the reality is that the numbers 
will dictate that we have a long way to go before we're flush in oil 
where we could be energy independent, not dependent on OPEC. That's one 
of our goals here in this legislation, is to be free of OPEC oil; keep 
it in North America.
  Now, he also mentioned, the gentleman from New Jersey, a good friend 
and classmate of mine, that a representative, high-level representative 
from TransCanada said no, we're not going to guarantee that it all 
won't be exported.
  Well, let's put it in context. There are people who are extracting 
the oil out of the ground. They contract with TransCanada to transport 
that to the customer that will have control over it and refine it. So 
the common carrier in the middle has no control over the contract 
between the producer and the refiner. That's why he said no. They have 
no say-so over what the refiner does.
  Now, the refiner, just basic common sense, is going to tell you that 
it economically is cheaper to refine the gasoline in Louisiana, Texas, 
Oklahoma

[[Page H2886]]

and Kansas, and then send out the gasoline product. And that gasoline's 
going to stay here domestically, maybe a small percentage. I don't 
know. But the reality is, economics is going to tell you that.
  But here's why this amendment has to be defeated, and this is why 
this is just kind of an absurd amendment because it says none of that 
oil that's put in a barrel could be exported. None of it. None of its 
byproducts either.
  So if you took the oil and made it into a plastic container of 
whatever you're exporting, you can't do that, because it's plastic made 
from something that came through TransCanada.

  The gentleman also mentioned diesel. Even at the highest level of our 
dependence on OPEC oil, because of our use of gasoline as our dominant 
source of transportation, as opposed to diesel, which is our symbiotic 
relationship with Europe, where they use diesel, not gasoline, we have 
exported that, so we can't even continue that level of relationship, 
that symbiotic relationship where they send us the gasoline they don't 
use and we send them the diesel. We can't do that.
  And as in every barrel, there will be lubricants, there will be gels, 
there will be other industrial uses that are exported all the time that 
we couldn't do here.
  But what the American consumer wants is the gasoline from that. And 
economics, marketplace pressures, are going to tell you it's just a lot 
cheaper to refine it here and then send it to their gas stations, and 
that's what the consumer wants. That's what's going to happen.
  Even the State Department said that was a fallacy that the gasoline 
was going to be exported.
  So this is one of those amendments that sounds populist and good. But 
when you think it through, it's just a measure to kill the pipeline.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-88 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Weber of Texas.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Waxman of California.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Rahall of West Virginia.
  Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Esty of Connecticut.
  Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Chu of California.
  Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

                              {time}  1730


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Weber of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Weber) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246, 
noes 168, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 169]

                               AYES--246

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho

                               NOES--168

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Clyburn
     Cole
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Flores
     Herrera Beutler

[[Page H2887]]


     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Sarbanes
     Sires
     Speier
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                              {time}  1757

  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida, Ms. McCOLLUM, Mr. SERRANO, Mrs. McCARTHY of 
New York, Messrs. ENGEL, LEWIS, and HOYER, and Ms. SINEMA changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. OWENS and PEARCE, Mrs. ELLMERS, Messrs. ROE of Tennessee, 
ROGERS of Alabama, MULVANEY, COBLE, BROOKS of Alabama, WEBSTER of 
Florida, COFFMAN, ENYART, and MULLIN changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146, 
noes 269, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 170]

                               AYES--146

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--269

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Watt
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bonner
     Clyburn
     Cole
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sarbanes
     Sires
     Speier
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                              {time}  1802

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 170 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Latham). The unfinished business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 239, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 171]

                               AYES--177

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)

[[Page H2888]]


     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--239

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bonner
     Clyburn
     Cole
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sarbanes
     Speier
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                              {time}  1807

  Ms. KAPTUR changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Connolly

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 239, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 172]

                               AYES--176

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--239

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bonner
     Burgess
     Clyburn
     Cole
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     Huffman
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sarbanes
     Speier
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H2889]]



                              {time}  1811

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rahall

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 238, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                               AYES--177

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--238

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bonner
     Burgess
     Clyburn
     Cole
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Gohmert
     Herrera Beutler
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sarbanes
     Speier
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1815

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Esty

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. Esty) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 234, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 174]

                               AYES--182

     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--234

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine

[[Page H2890]]


     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bonner
     Burgess
     Clyburn
     Cole
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sarbanes
     Speier
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1819

  Ms. LEE of California changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 234, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 175]

                               AYES--182

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--234

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bonner
     Burgess
     Clyburn
     Cole
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sarbanes
     Speier
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1823

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Chu

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page H2891]]

  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 231, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 176]

                               AYES--185

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--231

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bonner
     Burgess
     Clyburn
     Cole
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sarbanes
     Speier
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1827

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, on designated rollcall No. 169, ``no;'' 170, 
``aye;'' 171, ``aye;'' 172, ``aye;'' 173, ``aye;'' 174, ``aye;'' 175, 
``aye;'' 176, ``aye.''


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 255, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 177]

                               AYES--162

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--255

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Himes
     Hinojosa

[[Page H2892]]


     Holding
     Horsford
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bonner
     Burgess
     Clyburn
     Cole
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sarbanes
     Speier
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1832

  Mr. POLIS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I inadvertently voted ``aye'' when I 
intended to oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Meadows). The question is on the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Holding) having assumed the chair, Mr. Meadows, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3) to 
approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL 
pipeline, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 
228, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. In its current form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. BISHOP of New York moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3 to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 9. REQUIREMENT THAT TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, L.P. 
                   PAY FOR ANY OIL SPILL CLEANUP ON AMERICAN SOIL.

       In the approval process authorized under this Act, 
     TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. shall certify to the 
     President that diluted bitumen and other materials derived 
     from tar sands or oil sands that are transported through the 
     Keystone XL pipeline will be treated as crude oil for the 
     purposes of determining contributions that fund the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund.
  Mr. UPTON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, the Bishop-Capps amendment is 
the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it 
back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to 
final passage as amended.
  Our amendment, which is similar to amendments offered during our 
committee markups of H.R. 3, corrects a massive loophole in current law 
that exempts Keystone XL pipeline tar sands from paying millions of 
dollars into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
  Unlike U.S. crude oil companies, tar sands importers will not pay 
into the Oil Spill Trust Fund, even though the Trust Fund will be used 
to pay for any cleanup costs from an oil spill on the Keystone XL 
pipeline.
  That's right. The Keystone XL pipeline, and all other tar sands 
importers, get all of the protections of the fund if they have an oil 
spill, but they do not have to pay a dime into it up front.
  As we have seen during the Keystone debate on this floor, we can 
argue over the merits of tar sands oil and we can argue over the merits 
of granting special permit waivers to TransCanada to build the Keystone 
pipeline.
  However, I would hope that we could all agree that this Congress 
should not allow the importers of Keystone pipeline tar sands to avoid 
the per barrel charge that all other oil companies pay to finance the 
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
  In 2011, the Internal Revenue Service concluded that the definitions 
of ``crude oil'' and ``petroleum product'' in the Tax Code do not 
clearly include tar sands. This interpretation, if allowed to stand, 
exempts the Keystone XL pipeline tar sands from the excise tax that 
finances the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. In short, this is a 
$66,000 per day tax break.
  I am sure that some of my Republican colleagues will argue that H.R. 
3 is not the appropriate vehicle for making this change to the law, 
that we should not single out Keystone XL pipeline, and that Congress 
should consider this change as a part of comprehensive tax reform.
  To my colleagues across the aisle, I would argue that this entire 
bill is about singling out the Keystone XL pipeline, providing special 
rules and deeming permits approved for everything anyone can think of.
  Our amendment will ensure that TransCanada certifies to the President 
that Keystone XL pipeline tar sands will be subject to the per barrel 
excise tax that funds the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, ensuring that 
they pay their fair share.
  I yield the remaining time to this amendment's cosponsor, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

                              {time}  1840

  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, whether it's drilled on land, offshore, or transported 
via pipeline, oil spills are inevitable. Spills happen, and they will 
continue to happen, regardless of what we've been told by the oil 
companies building and maintaining the pipelines.
  TransCanada says it will implement lots of safety measures, but 
accidents happen. In fact, accidents have already happened 14 times on 
the existing TransCanada Keystone pipeline. And they will almost 
certainly happen on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, too. Our 
amendment simply ensures that those responsible for the spill pay to 
clean it up.
  In 1969, my home district was victim to one of the worst oil spills 
in U.S. history. I know firsthand the devastating damage to human 
health,

[[Page H2893]]

property, and natural resources that are caused by oil spills. I know 
there have been numerous assurances that Keystone XL will be safer and 
spill risks will be minimal, but safer simply does not equal safe, 
especially when transporting tar sands crude. Tar sands crude is not 
only more corrosive and dangerous than conventional crude, but it's far 
more difficult to clean up in the event of a spill.
  We need look no further than the tar sands spill in Kalamazoo, 
Michigan, in 2010. Nearly 3 years after that spill, the cleanup is 
still ongoing and the costs are approaching $1 billion. A spill from 
Keystone could have similarly devastating impacts in America's 
heartland. If we're going to bear 100 percent of the spill risk as 
Americans, the least we can do is ensure those responsible pay to clean 
it up. That's all this amendment does. And I think there's broad 
agreement on this point.
  This is our opportunity to fix the problem right now. If the Keystone 
XL pipeline is approved as is, the tar sands crude oil will literally 
get a free ride through the United States. Our amendment ends this.
  I urge my colleagues to end the free ride and vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, a review over how to treat crude oil derived 
from oil sands for the purposes of the oil spill liability trust fund 
is one in fact that we look forward to having, but it needs to be at 
the appropriate place and time.
  I've got to say that we are fully supportive of the goals, purpose, 
and funding mechanisms of the trust fund, and we believe that the 
allocation of fees should be done equitably among crude oil received at 
a U.S. refinery and petroleum products entering the U.S. for use. 
However, a bill or an amendment to approve a single pipeline project is 
not the appropriate vehicle for this debate. Frankly, it needs to be 
part of the tax reform bill that I'm sure that Mr. Camp and others are 
going to move later on this year. I wish we could have debated this as 
an amendment to this bill, but we don't have that opportunity. It's 
simply a motion to recommit. So let's push it to the right date, and 
that is part of tax reform later this year.
  Mr. Speaker, we have waited over 1,700 days for this project. Many of 
us have folks that commute 80, 90, even 100 miles a day. They need a 
source of gasoline. Canada provides 1.5 million barrels literally every 
day to the United States. They want to send as much as 6 million 
barrels by 2030. This is the best way to do it. Why send it by truck? 
Why send it by rail? Let's send it by pipeline. It's safer, more 
economical, and in fact it's going to help the consumer.
  I remind my colleagues that 62 Members of the U.S. Senate earlier 
this year voted for this project. We need to do it here. Reject the 
motion to recommit and vote for final passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on the passage of the bill, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194, 
nays 223, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 178]

                               YEAS--194

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--223

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bonner
     Clyburn
     Cole
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     Hoyer
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sarbanes
     Speier
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1850

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Latta was allowed to speak out of order.)

[[Page H2894]]

                    Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus

  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, last week, the largest caucus here in the 
House of Representatives, the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, which 
is made up of Republicans and Democrats, had its normal yearly shoot, 
which consists of trap, skeet, and sporting clays, and I'm glad to say 
that this year the Republicans retained the trophy.
  If I could, I would yield to my cochair of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Well, all I can say to my colleague is 
this time you were lucky, and I look forward to next year.
  But the other thing you said is so important. The Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus is the largest caucus, bipartisan caucus, here in 
Congress. Those of you who are not members, we ask you to come join us. 
We do a lot. But for the good that we do, the good that we serve, it's 
a good deal.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 175, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 179]

                               AYES--241

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--175

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Amash
       

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bonner
     Clyburn
     Cole
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sarbanes
     Speier
     Waxman
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1859

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 179 on H.R. 3, I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 167, (Ordering The Previous 
Question on H. Res. 228, a resolution providing for consideration of 
H.R. 3--Northern Route Approval Act) had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea''.
  On rollcall No. 168, (Adoption of H. Res. 228, a resolution providing 
for consideration of H.R. 3--Northern Route Approval Act) had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye''.
  On rollcall No. 169, (Weber (R-TX) Amendment No. 1--Adds to Section 2 
of the bill the State Department's findings that the Keystone XL 
pipeline is a safe and environmentally sound project) had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea''.
  On rollcall No. 170, (Waxman (D-CA) Amendment No. 2--Adds a finding 
that ``the reliance on oil sands crudes for transportation fuels would 
likely result in an increase in incremental greenhouse gas emissions'' 
and provides that the bill will not go into effect unless the President 
finds that TransCanada or tar sands producers will fully offset the 
additional greenhouse gas emissions) had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no''.
  On rollcall No. 171, (Johnson (D-GA) Amendment No. 3--Requires a 
study on the health impacts of increased air pollution in communities 
surrounding the refineries that will transport diluted bitumen through 
the proposed Keystone XL pipeline) had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no''.
  On rollcall No. 172, (Connolly (D-VA) Amendment No. 4--Delays 
approval of the Keystone XL project contingent on the completion of a 
threat assessment of pipeline vulnerabilities to terrorist attack and 
corrective actions necessary to protect the pipeline from such an 
attack and to mitigate any resulting spill) had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no''.

[[Page H2895]]

  On rollcall No. 173, (Rahall (D-WV) Amendment No. 5--Strikes section 
3 of the bill eliminating the Keystone XL permit approval, allowing the 
President to continue to delay issuing a permit for the pipeline) had I 
been present, I would have voted ``no''.
  On rollcall No. 174, (Esty (D-CT) Amendment No. 6--Strikes language 
in the bill that allows TransCanada to obtain certain permits for 
operation and/or maintenance of the pipeline, but continues to allow 
construction permits to be expedited) had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no''.
  On rollcall No. 175, (Jackson Lee (D-TX) Amendment No. 7--Extends the 
time period for filing a claim under the Act from 60 days to 1 year) 
had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
  On rollcall No. 176, (Chu (D-CA) Amendment No. 8--Requires a GAO 
study of the Keystone XL project regarding the costs of cleanup 
activities from a pipeline spill and the potential impacts on health, 
environment, and water) had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
  On rollcall No. 177, (Holt (D-NJ) Amendment No. 10--Prohibits the 
export of any oil, or all refined petroleum products derived from the 
oil, transported by the Keystone XL pipeline unless the President finds 
that there is an exception required by law or it is in the national 
interest) had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
  On rollcall No. 178, (Democrat Motion to recommit H.R. 3 with 
instructions) had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
  On rollcall No. 179, (On Passage H.R. 3--Northern Route Approval Act 
is expected; please check at the leadership desk for details) had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

                          ____________________