To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who are diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury have access to hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and for other purposes.

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.

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. Chairman, I'm pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy.

I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the State of California (Mrs. Capps).

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. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to our colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of one of our Energy Subcommittees.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how many speakers there are on the other side.

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. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition in support of the amendment.

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

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.

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. Chairman, who has the right to close on this amendment?

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.

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

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.

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).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

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.

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. Chairman, I wish to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to close as well, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

I reserve the balance of my time for my personal close.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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

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. 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. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on our Transportation Freight panel, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a valued member of our committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. Chairman, may I have a time check.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as amendment No. 5 in the rule.

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.

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. 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).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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. 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. 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. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time until the other side is ready to close.

Yes, I believe that is correct, Mr. Chairman.

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.