North American Energy Infrastructure Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bills. First of all, this rule is not open, and it denies some important and germane amendments. This is consistent with the increasingly closed mindset of this Republican leadership.

I want to remind my colleagues that this is now the most closed Congress in history. There have been 62 closed rules in this Congress alone. That is a title I don't think either party would enjoy having, but this is the most closed Congress in history. Speaker Boehner, in his opening speech, said that openness would be the new standard. I guess he misspoke because that is not what is happening on these bills, and it hasn't been happening on most other important pieces of legislation. The approval rating of Congress from a poll, I think, Gallup did last week is at 7 percent. My friends can't blame that on President Obama, and they can't blame that on someone else. They are running the show here in the House. This is a reflection on the work or on the lack of work that is being done here.

I think the American people want a full and open debate on important issues. I think the American people want us to focus on things that will actually make their lives better and that have a chance of actually becoming law. We have millions of our fellow citizens who are unemployed, and we can't even get the Republican leadership to bring an extension of unemployment insurance to the House floor for a vote. We can't even get it on the floor for a vote.

We are trying to raise the minimum wage so that we are not subsidizing McDonald's or Wendy's, which pay their workers minimum wage. We are trying to give people a raise so that work actually pays in this country. We can't even get a minimum wage bill to this House floor for a vote. We can't even debate it, and we can't have a vote on it. They are blocking it.

We need to fix our immigration system. It is broken. An immigration reform bill passed in the United States Senate in a bipartisan way, and it solves many of the problems that some of my friends on the other side are complaining about, but the leadership of this House won't even let us bring a bipartisan immigration reform bill to the House floor so that we can vote on it.

It is no wonder why, under this Republican leadership, the approval rating of this body is 7 percent. I think that is history in and of itself. I don't know whether there was ever a Congress in the history of this country that had such a low rating.

Now here we are with this legislation, H.R. 6, the amazingly named Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, which would improve neither our domestic prosperity nor global freedom. Instead, it would undermine the Department of Energy's approval process for the export of liquefied natural gas. The current process allows the DOE to evaluate the impacts of LNG exports on domestic natural gas prices for consumers and manufacturers as well as environmental impacts.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Energy is already aggressively approving LNG exports. The amounts already approved for exports would transform the United States into the world's second largest exporter of LNG. Further, under the bill, LNG would not be exported any faster. I urge my colleagues not to be fooled by the rhetoric that you may hear on the floor today. Passing this bill will not magically solve the natural gas problem in Ukraine or in other parts of the world.

The other bill, H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, would dramatically weaken the environmental review process for transborder pipeline and electrical transmission line projects. This bill, which is a blatantly transparent effort to ``rig the game'' in favor of the Keystone pipeline project, would preclude the Federal Government from reviewing a project's full impacts, including oil spills and the consequences for landowners, public safety, drinking water, wildlife, and, yes, Mr. Speaker, climate change. Let me say those two words again because I know that many of our Republican colleagues tend to stick their heads in the sand when they hear them-- climate change.

I think it is important to say a few things. Here is what we know. We know that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We know that carbon dioxide traps heat. We know that the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are higher than they have been in 800,000 years. We know that 9 of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have been in the last decade. We know that last month was the warmest month of May ever recorded.

Yet, to hear some of my Republican friends, we should just move along--nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. There is no need to worry that the Arctic ice sheets are melting, leading to rapidly rising sea levels. There is no need to worry about more severe and deadly weather events. There is no need to worry about profound impacts to agricultural production. At best, you will hear them say that the science is still unsettled. It isn't. Climate change is real--it is happening--and we need to figure out what we should do about it.

Sometimes they will say: Well, I am not a scientist, so I can't really comment about it. Mr. Speaker, I am not a scientist either, but I know that, if I drop my pen, it will fall to the floor because of gravity. No, most of us here in Congress are not scientists, but the overwhelming majority of the best and brightest scientific minds in the world have concluded that climate change is real, that it is happening, and humankind is currently making the problem worse.

It would be nice, given the enormity of this problem, if my Republican friends would work with Democrats and would work with the White House to try to fashion a response. Instead, they deny that it is a problem, and we get more of the same old-same old. I regret that very, very much, but I can't quite understand, Mr. Speaker, why my Republican friends continue to ignore this critically important issue. I hope it isn't because of their borderline pathological hatred of President Obama. I hope that it isn't because of the Big Oil special interests and the millions and millions of dollars they pour into Republican campaigns. Whatever the reason, I hope that future generations will forgive them, because this is something that we should have been addressing years and years and years ago, and the continued blocking of any serious attempts to deal with climate change by the majority in this House, I think, is unconscionable.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, vote against the rule because it is not an open rule, and a lot of germane amendments--they were germane-- were not made in order. I am glad one of the authors of the bill got his amendment made in order, but he authored the bill, so I guess he gets special preference. There is no reason why all of the amendments couldn't have been made in order, and there is no reason why this couldn't have been an open process, because we are not really doing much this week. As for this legislation we are dealing with here today, my guess is it ain't going anywhere.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want my colleagues to understand why I think we should reject this rule. Let me just mention two amendments that were germane and that were brought to the Rules Committee by our colleague from California (Mr. Garamendi).

One amendment clarifies that a viable merchant marine is in the public interest and should be taken into consideration when processing applications under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. The other grants priority to the processing of approvals for LNG facilities that will be supplied with or will export LNG by U.S. flag vessels.

These are, basically, two amendments that are germane to this bill that would strengthen our shipping industry, and they were ruled out of order. For no reason, they were just randomly ruled out of order. Those are the kinds of things that Members of Congress do not have an opportunity to vote on when you close the process. Again, this is the most closed Congress in the history of our country--with more closed rules than any other Congress in history. So the tendency of this leadership, notwithstanding what the Speaker promised, which was to have a more open and transparent process, has been to become the most closed Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that mirrors the bipartisan measure that overwhelmingly passed the Senate this month. It takes aim at some of the VA's most pressing problems, including the expansion of veterans' access to care, holding VA officials accountable, and increasing medical personnel and needed facilities.

This issue of the VA is something that we need to address. It is important, and it is something on which, I think, there is bipartisan agreement that we ought to focus on, and our use on this floor would be better spent dealing with that.

To discuss this proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the Congresswoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will insert into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3301--North American Energy Infrastructure Act

(Rep. Upton, R-Michigan, and 20 cosponsors, June 24, 2014)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3301, which would

require the specified Secretary to issue a ``certificate of

crossing'' for any cross-border segment of an oil pipeline

(Secretary of State) or electric transmission facility

(Secretary of Energy) within 120 days after the completion of

the environmental review, unless the Secretary finds that the

cross-border pipeline or electric transmission facility ``is

not in the public interest of the United States.''

The bill's 120-day approval requirement would circumvent

the current authority for issuing Presidential Permits for

cross-border pipelines and transmission facilities provided

by Executive Orders 13337 and 10485, as amended, which allow

for the full consideration of the complex issues raised by

the building of such infrastructure. That process dates back

through many Administrations and has effectively addressed

cross-border permitting decisions in a manner that serves the

national interest.

H.R. 3301 would impose an unreasonable deadline that would

curtail the thorough consideration of the issues involved,

which could result in serious security, safety, foreign

policy, environmental, economic, and other ramifications. By

preventing the opportunity for the necessary assessment of

all factors relevant to the national interest, the bill would

create significant policy risks and create legal uncertainty

for permitting applicants. Additionally, the bill would

prevent assessment of whether modifications to border-

crossing pipelines or electric transmission facilities are in

the national interest, which is provided for through the

current process.

H.R. 3301 would also raise serious trade implications by

eliminating the current statutory requirement that the

Department of Energy authorize orders for exports and imports

of natural gas to and from Canada and Mexico.

Because H.R. 3301 would circumvent longstanding and proven

processes for determining whether cross-border pipelines and

electric transmission facilities are in the national interest

by removing the Presidential permitting requirement, if

presented to the President, his senior advisors would

recommend that he veto this bill.

Let me just read one line here. It says:

Because H.R. 3301 would circumvent longstanding and proven

processes for determining whether cross-border pipelines and

electric transmission facilities are in the natural interest

by removing the Presidential permitting requirement, if

presented to the President, his senior advisors would

recommend that he veto this bill.

So we are discussing--we are spending time here discussing a bill that will probably not be brought up at all in the Senate and will be vetoed by the White House. So this is just kind of an exercise in futility, when we should be here trying to figure out how to deal with some of the bigger issues like climate change.

If you don't want to talk about climate change, let's talk about increasing the minimum wage. If you don't want to talk about that, let's talk about extending unemployment insurance for people who have lost their jobs.

If you don't want to talk about that, let's talk about immigration reform. Let's talk about something that actually matters, something that--quite frankly, some of the things that are urgent for us to focus on.

Instead, we get these bills that are being brought before us, under a restrictive process, again, which is in keeping with the mindset of this Congress, which is closed.

Notwithstanding what the Speaker said, that there would be this new commitment to openness, this is now the most closed Congress in history.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I find it somewhat interesting here that my colleague from Texas is all upset about the slowness of the permitting process when it comes to these pipelines.

I think that there is bipartisan concern about the way the VA is currently being managed. I think there is bipartisan concern that we ought to make sure that the system is more responsive to our veterans.

Mrs. Kirkpatrick came to the floor and offered a statement, which will be the subject of the previous question, that I think makes a lot of sense. I mean, what she is talking about is a bill that is the companion to the one that Senator McCain introduced in the United States Senate.

I am a little kind of bothered by the fact that there is not more impatience on the other side of the aisle to fix this VA system, to get it right. Again, you could point all the fingers you want at the administration, and they are trying to get it right.

There are things that we can do right now to more aggressively and quickly address some of these issues, and that is what Mrs. Kirkpatrick was talking about. That is what Ms. Sinema was talking about. That is what Senator McCain is talking about in the United States Senate, Senator Sanders as well.

That, to me, seems urgent. We ought to do this right now, and to kind of use the excuse that, well, we passed a couple of these things and maybe there will be a conference committee that will resolve all this stuff--let's just do it. Let's just get this done.

Again, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, so that we can bring up the very legislation that Mrs. Kirkpatrick and Ms. Sinema talked about.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just--I mean, there is just so much that I want to say here, given the fact that there is so much that we need to do to help the American people, and we are not doing it in this Congress.

We are bringing up kind of the same old-same old energy bills that are going nowhere, that don't respond to the needs of our country, and certainly don't address the issue of climate change.

My colleague talks about how the process is broken. He says the Keystone XL has taken 5 years and counting and that shows that the process is broken.

Let me just say that that project is a highly controversial project, with significant environmental impacts. Because the Obama administration took the time to do the environmental review, we have more information on the project's impacts on climate change.

The State Department's final environmental review found that tar sands produce significantly more carbon pollution than conventional oil, that building the Keystone XL pipeline could allow more rapid expansion of the tar sands, and that this expansion would exacerbate climate change. That is something that we can't afford to do.

Last month, our Nation's leading climate scientists released the country's third national climate assessment. The report confirms that climate change is real, is being caused by humans, and is already harming communities across America.

The report tells us the scientific evidence is unequivocal. The impacts are being felt in every region. They are growing more urgent, and they are going to get worse if we don't act.

A record drought is continuing to destroy crops in California. Torrential rains have flooded Florida. Wildfires are getting more intense. Coastal areas are being inundated as sea levels rise.

No sector of our economy, from oyster hatcheries on the West Coast to maple syrup producers in New England, are untouched. Business as usual is no longer an option. The same old-same old doesn't work.

If we are serious about taking action on climate change, saying no to the Keystone XL pipeline, to me, is an obvious place to start; and the pipeline would produce more carbon pollution than any other project pending in the United States.

The additional carbon pollution from this single project is equivalent to building seven new coal-fired power plants.

Now, if we can't say ``no'' to this project on climate grounds, where are we going to draw the line?

So I commend the Obama administration for taking the time to get this decision right.

The environment matters. For years, my friends on the other side of the aisle ignored the environment. I mean, it was always that the environmentalists were the enemy. You know, being good stewards of the environment was somehow a bad thing to do. Well, look at what is happening around us.

So I think it is time that there be a change of attitude, and it is time that we actually bring serious legislation to the floor that deals with, how do we meet our energy needs but how do we also deal with this issue of climate change?

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment that I am going to offer if we defeat the previous question in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Again, I just want to remind my colleagues what we would like to bring up. If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up an amendment to the rule that brings legislation forward that mirrors the bipartisan measure that overwhelmingly passed in the Senate this month dealing with some of the VA's most pressing problems. So that is why defeating the previous question would be important.

Let me just close by saying, again, on the environmental issues here, listening to my friend from Texas talk about the issue of climate change, all you hear is excuses why we can't do something, and why we need to do the same old-same old.

I have to tell you that if we don't deal with this issue sooner, rather than later, then history will not look kindly upon us. We may not have a history in the future if we don't address this issue sooner, rather than later.

This is a big deal. This is a big deal. This is something that we ought to be talking about on the House floor at this very moment. If you want to talk about an energy policy, we ought to also talk about climate change. But

yet there is nothing. There is nothing. It really is appalling.

And the legislation that is being brought before us today is going nowhere. So we are wasting our time talking about bills that are going nowhere. They are going nowhere in the Senate. The White House has already issued a veto threat. So we are just kind of spinning our wheels here.

Instead, maybe we could use this week to do something productive. If you defeat the previous question, we could actually bring up the Senate-passed VA bill and get that done and help our veterans. And get it done quickly. Maybe that would be a good thing to do. Maybe that would make this week worth it, rather than a week spent talking about things that are going nowhere.

So with that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues again to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise to oppose H.R. 687. At a time when the majority in this Congress has brought our Nation to the brink of potential shutdown, a looming hardship and economic crisis with regard to the debt ceiling, no progress on the jobs plan, no progress on immigration reform, here we are today, debating a sweetheart piece of legislation that hurts taxpayers and comforts, yes, foreign multinational mining corporations. One has to wonder about what the priorities for this Congress really are.

We have seen at least five different versions of this legislation over the past 10 years. Originally filed in the 109th Congress as H.R. 2681, sponsored by our former colleague from Arizona, Congressman Renzi, that version begat H.R. 3301 in the 110th Congress by our colleague, Congressman Pastor. That begat H.R. 2509 in the 111th Congress by Congresswoman Kirkpatrick. And then that begat the version in the 112th Congress, H.R. 1904, by my friend from Arizona, Congressman Gosar, which begat this present version, H.R. 687 in the 113th, again sponsored by my colleague, Mr. Gosar.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, we all might need to spend some time getting our heads examined.

H.R. 687 facilitates a land exchange so that a subsidiary of two foreign-owned mining companies can build a massive block cave copper mine on Federal land set aside by President Eisenhower for recreation in 1955. The town of Superior has been torn apart by this legislation. The city attorney issued a legal opinion that section 9 of this bill, which was stripped during the markup process, was not something legally the town could approve. The opinion raised grave concerns about the financial obligations the town would be under if they accepted the arrangement with Resolution Copper as written.

The town was willing to negotiate with Resolution Copper, but the company demanded support for the legislation as a precondition to any further talks. They also stated rather flatly that there would be no additional money coming to Superior from Resolution Copper from these negotiations.

Resolution Copper continues to oppose any requirement of filing a mining plan of operation before this legislation is passed. It's been 10 years since this project was proposed--and we still have no mining plan. This community

has been driven by boom-and-bust promises of mining companies for decades. Retired miners have become accustomed to losing the pensions that they earned in contract negotiations from mining corporations, especially when dealing with foreign entities.

This is not an economic miracle waiting to happen. Even if the town were to reverse its position, the legal and political issues that have already been raised cannot be ignored. The town, climbing and environmental organizations and Native American nations will be severely impacted by this trade, particularly when the mine is built. Resolution Copper, after 10 years of pushing and pushing, has yet to acknowledge those impacts.

There are just too many unanswered questions and shortcuts. Opposition to this bill from the community that it will impact the most is a clear indication that the process needs to start over, but Superior's withdrawal of support is just one of many red flags.

All Native American nations in Arizona overwhelmingly oppose the bill. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and the National Congress of American Indians have both passed resolutions in opposition. Their strong opposition stems from the outright violation of the consultation protocol that mandates advanced, informed, and appropriate government- to-government consultation with Indian tribes, nations, and communities.

H.R. 687 trades away Federal lands that contain significant cultural resources without complying with NEPA. This means that there will be no environmental review or formal consultation with affiliated tribal governments before the land becomes private property.

The sponsor's insistence to postpone environmental review until after the land exchange is one of the main reasons local support for this bill has eroded. Once the land is exchanged, as mandated by the bill, there is no guarantee a full EIS under NEPA will occur. That means no independent hydrology study to assess the impacts to local water resources. That means no mining plan of operation and independent jobs and economics report. That means no objective appraisal of the lands to be exchanged. We're stuck relying on the company's numbers to guesstimate the value added for the American taxpayer. That doesn't seem like a good deal to me, no matter what way you look at it.

I was astounded that the majority decided to shield the company from testifying at the hearing held on this bill. We all would have benefited greatly from the ability to hear from Resolution Copper on the record about their support for the bill, the validity of their economic study, the lack of a mining plan of operations, the lack of an independent hydrology study associated with a real mining plan of operations, and the negligent disregard for NEPA standards and Native American tribal consultation processes.

How is the House expected to make an informed decision on this deeply controversial bill when the committee of jurisdiction didn't even bother to question the owners and proponents, Resolution Copper? This doesn't make sense to me and to a great deal of people.

All we know about the proposed mine is purely speculative and comes from data and reports produced by Resolution Copper, itself. And the common refrain from supporters to trust without validation--don't worry, it will all work out--those are not the due diligence requirements that this Congress has on a major land exchange as we are facing today.

The number of jobs they claim the project will create is a moving target. The number is always changing. At one point, the company claimed the mine would create 5,000 jobs. The last estimate on their Web site project the mine will support 1,400 direct jobs through the life of the mine.

Again, these numbers come from a study conducted by Resolution Copper and are not supported by a mining plan of operation. Until we have a plan, there is really no way to know. The numbers tossed around by the majority come from a study that assume the mine would produce the same amount of copper and support the same amount of jobs year after year for its entire 50-year life span. We know this won't be the case. Mining operations react to market demand.

One number not tossed around by the proponents of H.R. 687 is royalties for the extraction of this very valuable mineral on Federal land, royalties to deal with remediation, to deal with any mitigation likely to occur after the fact, and to deal with some level of return to the American taxpayer.

The boom and bust cycles of mining's history can't be washed away with a public relations document masquerading as an economic study that assumes the very best and brushes aside any reality.

Construction of this mine will benefit two large foreign corporations. It will not diversify the local economy or even guarantee any real jobs for the local people in the area. It will, on the other hand, diminish the recreation value of the area, jeopardize the availability of water, and threaten a sacred site, all for cents on the dollar.

H.R. 687 is not in the best interest of the American taxpayer, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless, expedited land exchange. A wolf in sheep's clothing, regardless, is still a wolf.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I think the great Senator Moynihan once said that ``people are entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts.''

Allowing the immediate exploration on and under Oak Flat prior to NEPA review contemplated in section 4(j) of the act will constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources. That is part of what has already been the legislation.

What's also in the legislation is section 4(c) of H.R. 687 that requires consultation only after enactment of the act, making any consultation with Native communities a mere formality.

Secretary Vilsack said it in prior written comments:

It is important that this bill engage in a process of

formal tribal consultation to ensure both tribal

participation and the protection of the sacred sites.

This is his principal concern with regard to H.R. 687, and that's why it did not receive the support of the Department.

I mention those things because they're part of the legislation. This legislation was written for the convenience of the company and to facilitate a trade that at the end of the day doesn't offer not only any benefit but circumvents any protections we have to deal with intended and unintended consequences.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Kildee, for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Utah, it should be noted that 1/14th of 1 percent is the impact copper has on the Arizona economy. It used to be 4 percent about 10 or 15 years ago.

Conversely, $421 million annually is spent in Pinal County and the surrounding area around Oak Flat and Apache Leap in terms of ecotourism and visitorship revenue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me, if I may, talk a little bit about the proponent's claim that H.R. 687 will boost the U.S. economy.

The copper will likely benefit China more than the United States. Nine percent of the parent company of Resolution Copper, Rio Tinto, is owned by the state-controlled Aluminum Corporation of China. Rio Tinto has a long-established partnership to supply copper to China--they repeatedly stated--and at a hearing refused to say what percentage of the copper generated from Federal lands would be retained and processed in the United States.

They will continue to market and supply their mine copper and other ores to meet the greatest needs. At this point, Rio Tinto's own international copper study group forecast a 377-ton global shortage this year alone, driven not by U.S. demand but by that of China. The bill does not even require that the ore extracted from this mine be processed in the United States, much less marketed or sold here.

Our time and our focus should be on supporting U.S. industries maintaining jobs. We should not trade away billions and billions of dollars and tonnage of copper to supply China's ever-growing need.

I also would like to point out another issue that my friend, Congressman Kildee, pointed out. At one point, we continued a very important inquiry that has not been finalized or formalized, and that is the parent company is in violation of the resolution by this Congress and by previous Congresses on sanctions against Iran because of their development of potential weapons, nuclear weapons. Any company doing business with Iran was not to be able to do business with the United States.

Rio Tinto co-manages in partnership a mine--a uranium mine of all things--in Namibia in Africa. I think that merits we look into it before we are in violation of our own resolution and, more importantly, that we are not violating a resolution that we passed. It is an issue of asking Commerce and Treasury, who are responsible for that sanction enforcement, to do so. I think it would satisfy many of us to know the results of that, and it would satisfy the American people to know that their resource, a shared taxpayer resource, copper on Federal land, is not in violation of a sanctions resolution by this Congress against Iran.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this point, I don't have any further speakers.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me summarize three important points from this debate.

H.R. 687 reflects all five of the previous variations of this legislation. You are doing a post-NEPA with no enforcement. You are turning the regulatory process and the oversight process to the State of Arizona, which has weak mining laws and which is also not in a position to meet the requirements that have to be part of this prior to any land exchange: that would be hydrology; that would be sacred-site consultation; that would be a NEPA review as to water issues that could occur and subsurface damage. To the area around Apache Leap and Oak Flat, those become important issues.

The sanctions issue is important to resolve against Iran--that we are not in violation by creating a partnership in an exchange with a foreign corporation that is doing business with Iran.

I think the most important issue is the taxpayer issue. We here in this Congress--certainly many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle as well--talk so much about the taxpayer; talk so much about budget cuts and how to relieve the taxpayer; talk so much about deficits and how we need to reduce those deficits to the benefit of the taxpayer. We have no jobs bill, but we talk about helping the taxpayer.

Then here we have before us our trading away of Federal land in an exchange, not knowing what the real value is, because that's proprietary, not knowing what the real production is going to be by the company because that's proprietary, not requiring the same regulatory NEPA process required of any other land exchange because this is a special deal.

At the end of the day, as to exported copper that is processed outside the United States--one, no gain to the taxpayer; no royalty requirement--lost to the taxpayer; no real understanding of the full value of what's underneath that ground and what protections and mitigations would have to be put in place in order to make sure that those areas are taken care of--not a problem; violation of the government-to-government consultation on sacred sites and cultural sites--we ignore that, too.

I think this is a rush to judgment, and it has been 10 years of a rush to judgment. If the company 10 years ago would have agreed to do a post-NEPA, we would have had all the information this Congress needed in order to make an informed, due diligence decision. If 10 years ago they would have sat down with the tribes and honestly and forthrightly and equally done a government-to-government consultation, we could have been on our way. If 10 years ago they would have made the guarantees about a fair return to the taxpayer--how much ore is going to be domestically marketed and remain in the United States and how much is going to be processed--we could have been on our way. That was 10 years ago.

This is the same piece of legislation, the same insistence on the company. I think it is a bad deal for the taxpayers, and it is a bad deal for the State of Arizona. We would be the poster child for one of the worst expedited, sweetheart deals at the expense of the American taxpayer and at the expense of the people of Arizona, of the tribes of Arizona, and of the revenue that that County of Pinal enjoys.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, with this, I will close.

At some point, we as Members of this august body have to really define what ``bipartisanship'' is. The last time that this bill was before us and passed the House, seven Members from this side of the aisle--Democrats--voted for it, and eight Members on the other side of the aisle voted against it.

I mention that because this bill is about precedence. It is about the kind of precedence that we are going to set as Members of this body-- ignoring our due diligence, ignoring the fact that we have before us a piece of legislation that has failed to get out of the Senate and, more importantly, that on two occasions the administration has strongly indicated it does not support it. So we will go on with this exercise of futility at the expense of real business that this Congress should be doing for the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, repeatedly we have heard this bill is about jobs. We've heard it a lot, and we continue to hear it. We have to pass this bill, so goes the refrain, because it's about jobs in a part of Arizona that really needs jobs.

I understand how important it is to help rural parts of the State. I understand how important it is to help rural

communities across the country. I talk about this all the time--trying to work to advance a policy agenda that translates into real, meaningful opportunities for all Americans and for those sectors of our State, as was previously pointed out by my colleague, Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, in which unemployment is very, very severe. That's why I think it's important to make sure this bill translates into real and meaningful jobs for the communities that will bear the biggest burden of the proposed mine.

My amendment would require that the Remote Operations Center for the mine be located in the town of Superior, Arizona, or adjacent to another mining community within the Copper Triangle. Modern blockade mines use a range of automation technology, and most of the human labor is done off site at the Remote Operations Center. Like other mines operated by Rio Tinto, which is Resolution Copper's parent company, the Remote Operations Center will likely be in a metro area. Rio Tinto is presently operating its Pilbara, Australia, mine from 800 miles away in a large metro center. Our amendment will ensure that this is not the case in Superior.

If this legislation is really about jobs and lifting up the local economy, it is important to guarantee that local residents will have access to the jobs that were promised and the jobs that were created. My amendment guarantees that the jobs this mine does create will benefit the local community. This amendment, at the very minimum, will realize some real jobs if this legislation is to ever be implemented.

When one reads and hears Rio Tinto brag about automation and technology and the progress in mining, where less labor is needed, and when one listens to the wild variations about jobs from 3,700 to 5,000 to 1,200 to 1,400--and the recent one from the company's own Web site is 1,400--one asks: What is the real number?

Since no mining plan of operation has been submitted, it's impossible to analyze or estimate. So how do we know?

There is nothing in H.R. 687 that guarantees jobs for Superior, Arizona, or any other nearby mining community. With my amendment, we can at least make sure the remote operating center isn't in Utah, where Resolution Copper is headquartered, or some other far-flung place. As part of this legislation, my amendment would require that that center be located in Superior and that the opportunities promised and the jobs created would go into that area.

I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Interestingly enough, H.R. 687 does mandate that the Federal Government decide when and how NEPA is applied, that the Federal Government mandate what the valuation of the exchange is--independent of a process driven by the company--and it mandates that we deal with water issues after the fact, who gets water protection and who doesn't. Whether it is 10 jobs or 1,000 jobs, all my bill does is hold the company's feet to the fire. You have talked about jobs; you have talked about providing them, saving that community, and rebounding the Arizona economy. Here's an opportunity by guaranteeing that that claim will indeed be a reality if this bill is implemented. I think my amendment actually improves it because it takes some of the rhetoric of promoting the mine and makes it language and legislation that makes the company back it up.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 687.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 687, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. As our Nation continues to suffer from high unemployment, a rising national debt, and annual deficits, Congress's top priority should be advancing solutions that put Americans back to work and help to strengthen and grow the economy. The bill before us does just that.

Mr. Chairman, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, sponsored by our colleague and Natural Resources Committee member, Mr. Gosar from Arizona, is a bipartisan measure that will create thousands of new American jobs and boost our economy through increased U.S. mineral production.

The bill authorizes an equal-value land exchange between Resolution Copper and the Federal Government that will open up the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world. The bill requires that the cost of the land exchange be fully paid for by the mine developer-- Copper Resolution, in this case--ensuring that there will be fair treatment for taxpayers.

This project will provide substantial benefits to the United States and the State of Arizona in the form of job creation, economic growth, and for increased national security for the United States. The mining project is estimated to support 3,700 new jobs. These are good-paying, family-wage American jobs that will equate to more than $220 million in annual wages.

At a time when our economy continues to struggle, this mining project will provide a much-needed boost through private investment. This mining activity will have over a $60 billion economic impact and will generate an estimated $20 billion in total Federal, State, county, and local tax revenue through the life of the project. This bill is a perfect example of how safely and responsibly harnessing our resources will generate revenue and get our economy back on track.

The importance of increased U.S. copper production cannot be overstated. Our Nation has become increasingly reliant on foreign countries for our mineral resources--placing our economic competitiveness and national security at risk. The U.S. currently imports 30 percent of the copper we need, and we will continue to be dependent on foreign countries if we fail to develop our own resources here at home.

The copper produced from this single project is estimated to meet 25 percent of the United States' entire copper demand. This copper could be used for a variety of items, ranging from medical devices, plumbing, computers, and even, Mr. Chairman, hybrid cars. It's also essential for our national defense equipment and technology, including satellites, space and aviation, and weapons guidance and communications systems.

The benefits and reasons to pass this bill are plentiful. However, we are likely to hear several inaccurate claims from those who are opposed to mining in the United States. I would like to take a moment to set the record straight right from the beginning.

First, this bill follows the standard Federal land appraisal process procedures issued by the Department of Justice, which has been in use for decades. The appraisal requires full market value to be paid for both the land and the minerals located within the land. If, by chance, there is copper production beyond the appraised value, the mine developer will be required to pay the United States the difference. This, Mr. Chairman, would be assessed annually. This is an added guarantee to ensure that taxpayers get a fair return for these copper resources.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, this bill is about creating nearly 3,700 American jobs. It's not about helping foreign mining interests at home, as some have charged. Opposing this mine and not producing copper in the U.S. is what truly benefits foreign nations, by sending American jobs overseas and making us increasingly reliant on foreign sources of critical minerals.

Finally, the bill requires full compliance with environmental laws and tribal consultation prior to constructing the mine. This bill provides more conservation and protection of culturally sensitive, riparian, and critical habitat than otherwise would occur. This bill does not, Mr. Chairman, waive any existing laws or protections for sacred sites under Federal law. It upholds the Native American Graves Preservation and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. It will not allow the desecration of any sacred area. It does, Mr. Chairman, specifically and permanently protect a site called Apache Leap that is well known and special to Arizonans and the area tribes.

H.R. 687 is about creating new American jobs, strengthening our economy, and decreasing our dependence on foreign minerals. The bill has broad support from over 50 local and national organizations and government entities, including Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturing, and the National Mining Association.

Furthermore, the Arizona Republic Editorial Board has endorsed this bill. They highlighted the bipartisan support from the Arizona congressional delegation and noted that ``it has the potential to be an economic bonanza for our State and a national security boon to our country.''

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill to put Americans back to work and end our dependency on foreign minerals.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the author of this legislation.

I yield the gentleman from Arizona an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the subcommittee chairman on the Natural Resources Committee that deals with this issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on general debate and would ask my friend from Arizona if he is prepared to yield back his time on general debate, as I am prepared to close?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few comments here in response to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been saying regarding this legislation. Certainly, there is a great deal of hyperbole going on that, I think, simply doesn't meet the ``straight face'' test in many respects.

First of all, it has been implied--and maybe said specifically--by one of my colleagues that this legislation waives environmental laws. Mr. Chairman, I want to say very specifically that this does not waive any environmental laws. Let me walk back to how this works, because my friends on the other side of the aisle are talking about the NEPA review. NEPA is a pretty important environmental law--I certainly understand that--but let's put this in context.

This legislation is a land exchange legislation--you exchange this piece of land for this piece of land. Now, that is a policy decision that we are debating and making here on the floor of the House. We are making a policy decision on exchanging this piece of land for another piece of land. If that exchange is done and if this becomes law, then, yes, there will be a copper mine on that land that's exchanged--we acknowledge that--but my friends on the other side of the aisle suggest that we should have a NEPA review before we make a law.

How absurd is that? Are we going to have a NEPA review on every law? Mr. Chairman, don't we make the policy here in this country? Their criticism is that we are not allowing a NEPA review before we make a law. I did not know that the NEPA policy said that, before there is a land exchange or before Congress passes a statute, you have to have a NEPA review. Yet, that's what their argument is in this case. After the land exchange, the process starts of developing a mine, and then you go through all of those environmental hoops that you normally go through in this sort of activity.

So I just wanted to clarify that. I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't suggesting by their argument of a NEPA review that we should have a NEPA review on Congress' action. A NEPA review on a statute? That doesn't make sense.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. It has been worked on very hard, on a bipartisan basis, by Mr. Gosar and others from the Arizona delegation. Obviously, Arizonans broadly support this, at least by the evidence that we see in the media and so forth. I think it's a good bill. We have several amendments. We will debate those, and we will address those issues during that debate; but I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The fundamental purpose of H.R. 687 is to facilitate a land exchange; then after that land exchange was done, there would be a production and mining of copper, which of course would create thousands of American jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that the way this amendment is written, it would make it impossible by creating mandates that just simply couldn't be achieved.

I have to give my friend from Arizona credit. He has made no bones about the fact that he does not like this bill. He said that very well. I don't agree with him, but he has said it very well.

Generally, when you offer an amendment to a bill, however, you offer an amendment to improve the bill. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, this will not improve the bill. In all likelihood, if adopted, it would probably kill the bill because it dictates a precise town where the mine operations should be.

I suspect that the company will have some offices in those areas. That stands to reason if you're going to invest some money. But the Federal Government should not be dictating specifically what town somebody should set up an enterprise.

Mr. Chairman, if you want to go to the absurd, if the idea is to help a distressed area by dictating where you should locate some facility or manufacturing or some company, one could say, Gee, whiz, what city in the United States is really hurting? The first city that comes to mind, of course, is Detroit, Michigan. Are we going to suggest, for example, that the Federal Government dictate that Apple from Cupertino, California, should be relocated to Detroit? Of course that's absurd. Yet, when you start this precedent here that is suggested in this amendment, one could lead to that conclusion in the future.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, pass the underlying bill, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of the bill.

I inform my friend from New Mexico that I am prepared to close on this amendment if the gentleman is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It is critical that the Congress listen to and show respect to Indian tribes and their elected leaders. And, Mr. Chairman, it's for that reason that when I had the privilege of becoming chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, a new Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs was established. That hadn't been the case prior to my assuming the chairmanship of that committee. And the purpose was to ensure a special forum for issues and concerns important to Indian tribes and to native people.

It's important that Indian tribes have a role and are consulted on decisions that affect their land and their reservation lands.

But I just want to make a couple of points: this bill does not waive any existing laws dealing with Native Americans, none whatsoever.

If I have time, I will be more than happy to yield.

But probably more specific on this, this area that we're talking about in Arizona known as the Copper Triangle has been mined for--well, a long time. And this particular land exchange is right kind of in the middle of this Copper Triangle. And the closest Indian reservation is some 20 miles away.

Now I understand that, as in my area in central Washington, I know that Native Americans moved around, and that's certainly the case in Arizona. I understand that. But the effect of this amendment, the effect of this amendment would undermine our responsibility in Congress by giving total authority, total authority to the Secretary of the Interior to make determinations on whether sacred sites or other things important to Native Americans are violated. I think that's contrary to what our role is here.

And again, this law does not waive any--any--existing laws. None at all. In fact, we specifically, notwithstanding the fact that the nearest reservation is 20 miles away, we specifically say there should be consultation before this project goes forward. So I think this amendment is unnecessary.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from New Mexico.

Reclaiming my time, just to make the point that the gentleman's amendment, the intent is to address Native American issues. That's what we should be debating.

And I am just simply saying, if you affect Native American issues by implication, you would be waiving them. We are not waiving anything. We are respecting the laws that are in place right now.

I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment because this amendment in no way risks water supply or safety. In fact, it upholds existing laws that protect water quality and availability. And probably the best way to illustrate that is to simply look at the support for this bill, especially from those that reside in the State of Arizona and represent people in the State of Arizona.

We all know that Arizona is a very diverse State. I have a very diverse State in Washington. And certainly California is diverse geographically. But there are certain areas in that State that are very dry. Water is very, very important.

Now, I daresay that no Member from Arizona would support a bill that would jeopardize water in Arizona. Yet we have heard on the floor here the bipartisan support of those from Arizona, representing Arizonans that support this bill. So I think that that issue, frankly, is simply not valid at all.

This amendment may sound like it's well intended. But what it really will do, there would be red tape involved with this because of the vagueness of the language in this amendment. And I think really what this amendment is, in deference to my good friend from California, it's an open invitation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, you might call it an ambulance siren for lawyers to start filing lawsuits in this issue. One more area. Goodness knows, there are going to be lawsuits anyway. This would be one more, in my view, if this amendment is passed.

And finally, I would just say this: 100 percent of the water needs of this mine will be secured before production commences.

So with that, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 636 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 636 provides for consideration of two energy bills designed to

provide certainty for those American businesses that have been given excuse after excuse as to why their permit applications have been delayed by the President, the Department of Energy, and other Federal agencies.

The President and his administration have used every delaying tactic they can think of to put off approval of job-creating projects in the natural gas and oil sectors. Quite frankly, the American people are fed up with it. Republicans are here today to stand up for citizens, unions, and businesses that have stood up and called for a more expeditious process that removes politics from the permitting decisionmaking.

The rule before us today provides for consideration of two bills, H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act. Both bills receive a standard structured rule under this rule.

For H.R. 6, the Rules Committee makes in order four amendments--two from Democratic sponsors and two bipartisan amendments. For H.R. 3301, the rule makes in order three amendments, all sponsored by Democrats.

This is a straightforward and fair rule that will allow the House to fully debate the issues of liquefied natural gas exports and cross- border pipeline and transmission line projects.

House Republicans have been focused on this country's energy independence for years. The Energy and Commerce Committee has been out in front of this effort, holding hearings on the Obama administration's harmful policies, holding hearings on the job-killing regulations and those that place restrictions on development on public lands and thereby increase the cost of producing electricity and fuel.

Although President Obama is quick to take credit for an increase in natural gas and oil production in this country over the last few years, any honest observer knows that any increase in production has come as a result of efforts on private, not public land, and certainly not lands controlled by the Federal Government.

In continuing the Republican majority's focus on domestic production issues, utilizing the resources that we have here in North America, Representative Cory Gardner introduced H.R. 6, the bipartisan Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, to provide for the expedited approval of exploration of natural gas to World Trade Organization countries. I am an original cosponsor of the legislation.

In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have had hearings about the gridlock which has held up dozens of applications from domestic production companies looking to export liquefied natural gas. Since the first non-free trade agreement application was submitted to the Department of Energy nearly 4 years ago, seven have been approved. Twenty-four are awaiting action.

Interestingly enough, to counter what the Department of Energy knew would be the inevitable bipartisan criticism of its delays at the last hearing we held on this topic, the Department of Energy announced just days before the hearing the approval of another LNG export application.

For anyone who thinks that this activity in the House is futile, given Harry Reid's intransigence in taking up any legislation that comes to the Senate from the House, this action by the Department of Energy highlights that efforts taken in this body--the House--can have meaningful impacts beyond simply having legislation signed into law.

Sending a clear signal to the Obama administration that the people's House is fed up with its delaying tactics and refusal to move forward with the approval of legitimate permit applications is key to making progress toward a more robust domestic energy sector.

The delays which President Obama's administration has imposed on these applications make it more and more difficult. As applications sit collecting dust for these companies trying to secure financing and countries looking to do business with American suppliers, they will soon lose patience and look elsewhere for their needs. The window for these opportunities is closing, and it is the President's hand that is pushing it down.

Mr. Gardner's legislation is straightforward. Indeed, it is a two- page bill with a clear purpose and intent. The legislation expedites the decisionmaking process for authorization to export natural gas by requiring the Department of Energy to issue a decision within a finite number of days.

This legislation does not force the Department of Energy to make a decision or to make a decision a certain way. It simply says: make a decision.

Moreover, an increase in liquefied natural gas exports in the United States can have major positive ramifications on international relations.

I recently traveled to the Ukraine for their elections. I saw firsthand how Russia's cruel restrictions on natural gas are affecting the region's social and political atmosphere. Officials from the Ukraine and other Eastern European countries have told members of the Energy and Commerce Committee that the mere mention that the United States is increasing its LNG exports can have dramatic impacts on Russia's influence over the region. Mr. Gardner's bill achieves that goal.

The passage of this bill will move the United States yet another step closer to both assisting our allies abroad as well as creating a more robust domestic industry at home.

The second bill included in today's rule, H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, authored by Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee, further improves the laws governing the permitting of oil and gas pipelines which cross the United States border between either Mexico or Canada.

As the country has witnessed over the past few years, despite overwhelming support from the American people for the project, President Obama and his Secretary of State--first Hillary Clinton and now John Kerry--have refused to approve the Keystone pipeline to bring oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

Those of us who have followed the process over the many years that this administration has had the Keystone application under its review know that the delays which the President has imposed on this approval process have been done purely for political considerations and, in the process, have harmed the country's relationship with one of our closest allies, our neighbor to the north.

If the goal of the President's delays--which he is clearly doing for his friends in the environmental lobby and certainly not for the many unions who have loudly called for the project's approval--was to stop development of the oil sands in Canada, the President again has failed.

Canada recently approved the exploration of a new pipeline to its western coast, where oil would be transported and exported to Asia. Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have been highlighting this possibility for years. Apparently, our predictions are about to come true.

H.R. 3301 is about more than simply the Keystone pipeline. This legislation is about preventing the President--and future Presidents, regardless of their party--from playing politics with decisions that should be made on the merits of the project.

This President has repeatedly ignored the State Department's comprehensive environmental review of the application, which found that minimal adverse impacts would occur from the building and operation of a cross-country pipeline, and has instead decided to base the decision purely on those special interests.

This is not how major national projects should be evaluated in this country, and Chairman Upton's legislation ensures that future decisions will be done without the shadow of politics looming over them.

However, although the legislation removes the politics out of such decisionmaking, it still ensures that other key safeguards in the approval process remain in place. Cross-border pipelines would still have to meet the Natural Gas Act's requirements, and they would still comply with all relevant Federal, State, and local siting and environmental law.

The Department of Commerce and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission both will play roles in this process, as well as the Department of Energy. Decisions must be made within a 120-day timeframe to prevent the types of delaying tactics that we have seen from the administration with regard to energy projects.

To be clear, this legislation applies only to projects which cross national borders and does not make changes to the application process for interstate and intrastate energy projects.

Mr. Speaker, both bills before us today are commonsense responses to the problems we have experienced when the President decides to play politics with the Nation's domestic energy industry.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of a response.

Two months ago, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, this House agreed to loan guarantees for the country of Ukraine as they dealt with an internal crisis in their country. It is interesting that, probably less than 24 hours after this House passed that loan guarantee, Vladimir Putin said: Do you

know what? Your natural gas price just doubled. In fact, next year, it is going to cost you an extra $1 billion. So, in effect, he used natural gas pricing policy to offset the loan guarantees that we had provided to the country of Ukraine to deal with their internal problems.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that this Congress can adjust and affect right now. We can remove the stranglehold that Vladimir Putin holds over Ukraine and, indeed, over the entirety of Eastern Europe, and we can do it with the passage of this bill today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have very little to add to what my colleague from Texas just said.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The fact of the matter is that a conference committee is meeting on this very issue. In fact, they are having their first meeting this afternoon.

The issues of access, the issues of accountability for VA personnel who have not held themselves to high standards, those are provisions that have already passed the floor of this House, some on suspension and some under a rule.

These bills are before the conference committee with the Senate. It is appropriate that they be acted upon expeditiously, but in no way does defeating the previous question enhance that flexibility or the rapidity with which those questions are taken up.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Again, access and accountability are parts of the VA reform bills that have been passed by this House and currently that is in conference. Even today, they are having their first meeting of the conference committee.

I, too, wish the administration would fire someone for incompetence. Whether it be at the VA, the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, healthcare.gov, the list of incompetencies grows larger every day and just begs the question: What do you have to do to get fired by the Obama administration?

I have got to share with you something else. This Statement of Administration Policy--and this is the first time I have seen it here as we are presenting the bill today--but it closes with the statement: ``Because H.R. 3301''--that is the permitting bill--

``would circumvent longstanding and proven processes.''

Proven processes? These processes are broken. That is why the legislation is necessary--because the administration refuses to act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Again, I would reiterate that the veterans bills passed by this House, passed by the House of Representatives, have now gone to conference with the Senate. The most expeditious way to accomplish the goals the gentleman referred to is for the conference committee to give its report and bring that back to the floor of the House.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, the oil produced in the Province of Alberta belongs to the country of Canada. Yes, it may traverse the United States, if the Keystone pipeline is built. But if it is not, the oil will traverse western Canada and be shipped to China. The oil will still be burned. The carbon will still go into the air.

Who would you rather have in charge of the refining process: refineries in China who do not have the environmental controls, or refineries in Texas who do?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if it were really true that the actions we take here don't mean anything, then why did the Department of Energy suddenly release one of the export licenses merely on the fact that the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on H.R. 6, the bill offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Cory Gardner, to require a time certain for the export license to be decided upon?

Why does the gentleman from New Mexico, Senator Udall, have very similar legislation pending over in the Senate? I would say this is one proposal that perhaps has a very good chance of becoming law, even in divided governments, such as we have today.

On the issue of the previous question, I would remind the body that the most expeditious way to get to a solution for the problems that are being experienced by our Nation's veterans within the VA system is for the conference committee to proceed.

If we pass something today, it still goes back over to the Senate. It doesn't expedite a darn thing. The conference committee is the correct way for that to go. So I do urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question.

Today's rule provides for the consideration of two key pieces of legislation to move our country toward a more energy-independent environment. I certainly thank Chairman Upton and Cory Gardner for producing bipartisan pieces of legislation to address real problems that have arisen in the permitting process, when politics are injected into what should be a merit-based system.

H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, are thoughtful pieces of legislation that deserve the support of this body.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3301.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

May I inquire how much time remains?

At this time, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to point out that H.R. 3301 really, in a way, corrects the inequity. Today, natural gas pipelines are treated one way if they cross international boundaries, and oil pipelines and transmission lines are treated in a different way.

For example, a natural gas pipeline crossing into Canada would not require a Presidential permit, but oil pipelines and transmission lines crossing international boundaries do require a Presidential permit. And I might add that Congress never passed legislation requiring a Presidential permit. That was a power that a President, by executive order, took even before President Obama did it.

But here is the key factor. This law, H.R. 3301, would treat all pipelines the same, whether it is natural gas, whether it is oil, or whether it is a transmission line.

Now, I know that arguments are being made here primarily based on Keystone, and a lot of arguments are being made about climate change.

I would say to all of the American people that we have people coming into Congress on a regular basis from developing countries of the world who say that climate change is not their number one concern. They are more concerned about food. They are more concerned about sanitary living conditions. They are more concerned about

clean water. They are more concerned about jobs and the ability to provide income for their families. And, as a matter of fact, polls in America have shown that climate change is way down the list of primary concerns of people.

Now, I know that for Tom Steyer--who I understand is at the White House today--it is his number one issue. And he has said that he is going to spend $100 million against Republican candidates or any candidate that does not recognize climate change as one of the most important issues facing mankind.

So I simply wanted to make that comment. Sure, climate change is important. And I might add that emissions from energy-produced causes in America today are the lowest that they have been in 20 years. So America does not have to take a back seat to anyone on addressing emissions from greenhouse gases.

And I will tell you that we are the only country in the world where, if natural gas prices go up, we won't even be able to build a new coal plant in America because the technology is not commercially available at a cost that any utility could afford.

So even in Europe, natural gas prices went up. They mothballed natural gas plants. And last year in Europe, they imported 53 percent of all our coal exports.

But yet this President, in the White House today, has such extreme views that if our gas prices go up, we don't have the option in an affordable way to build a new coal plant to help us meet our base loads. And if we are going to have an economy that is not sluggish--the way it has been consistently under President Obama--we have to have affordable, abundant, and reliable energy. And that is what this bill is about.

Now people are saying, if you pass H.R. 3301, you are exempting oil and transmission lines from a NEPA review. But I want you to know, there are 33 other environmental laws--like the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water, Rivers and Harbors, National Historic Preservation, Clean Air Act--that would trigger. If Federal action is triggered, then it would be triggered even under H.R. 3301. That is, unless, of course, it is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which this administration has granted windmills an exemptions from. So you can kill all the migratory birds you want and bald eagles. If you are a windmill company, you won't be prosecuted, but if you are an individual timber owner in North Carolina, you will be find $100,000 and convicted of a felony.

So in conclusion of my remarks at this point, I would simply say that the bill is not designed to expedite the Keystone pipeline, because it can't be approved under H.R. 3301. It is under the Presidential permit process. But the Presidential permit process is arbitrary. Even the State Department has said that it would be of negligible environmental impact to approve the Keystone pipeline. But all H.R. 3301 does is it says, we are going to treat oil pipelines and transmission lines that cross international boundaries with Canada or Mexico exactly the way natural gas pipelines are treated today.

So it is not anything extraordinary. It is not anything radical. It is the way natural gas pipelines are created today. And we believe that is the way to go, and that is what H.R. 3301 is all about.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an inquiry on the amount of time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, we don't have any more speakers on our side, so I will reserve the balance of my time and let the gentleman from California proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the American people that, certainly, energy is vitally important, and that is why we have introduced this bill, and that is why we brought this bill to the floor.

Because when you talk about creating jobs and stimulating the economy, you have to have low-cost, affordable, abundant, and reliable energy, or you cannot compete in the global marketplace.

As I had said earlier, I just want to reiterate, once again, that this bill does nothing but make the decision that we are going to treat oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines all the same.

Right now, a natural gas pipeline that crosses an international boundary does not require a Presidential permit, but an oil pipeline and a transmission line to bring electricity across the border does require a Presidential permit.

As many speakers have said today, that Presidential permit or authority was not granted by the Congress; it was taken by executive orders. So all we are doing is saying that we are going to treat all of them the same.

Now, some people are saying that: well, you are eliminating the need for NEPA, you are not allowing NEPA review.

I had pointed out that there are 33 environmental laws that all of these pipelines or transmission lines would be subject to, and any Federal action, like crossing a stream that would create a necessity for a Clean Water Act permit, could very well generate a need for a NEPA review.

Nothing in this bill would limit the application of NEPA to the rest of the project. It would certainly apply to the cross border, but it would not limit application to the rest of the project.

So if a project required a right-of-way across Federal lands, the NEPA review would be initiated. Nothing in the bill would exempt the project from requiring applicable Clean Water Act permits, clean air permits, endangered species permits, or any other Federal permit.

So I would respectfully request the Members to support this commonsense bill. It would bring certainty to entities that are trying to bring more energy to America by treating gas pipelines the same as oil pipelines, the same as a transmission line.

In concluding, I would just like to say this: nothing in the bill creates a Federal right of eminent domain or supersedes a State's exercise of eminent domain authority.

In concluding, I would just like to say that, while the gentleman from California and I are on opposite sides of this issue--and a lot of issues--he has been a real leader in the U.S. Congress.

He announced earlier that he is not going to be seeking reelection, but the gentleman from California, Henry Waxman, has been a leader in the U.S. Congress and recognized so throughout the country.

Even though he is going to be with us for 6 or 7 more months until the end of the year, I did want to acknowledge that he is recognized as a congressional leader, with great empathy and commitment to his views, although sometimes we disagree with his views.

With that, I urge the adoption of H.R. 3301 and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), his amendment would, in effect, codify the Presidential permit not only for oil pipelines and transmission lines, but also for natural gas pipelines, which are now exempt from the Presidential permit. So he is going in the wrong direction, and would make it even more difficult.

As I said earlier, NEPA would apply anytime Federal action is triggered, and there are 33 different environmental laws that can trigger Federal action. So I am very much opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that if we pass H.R. 3301, the Keystone pipeline is still caught up in the Presidential permitting process. And if we adopt the Waxman amendment, the Keystone pipeline

would never, ever be able to come back with a new application.

Since they filed an application in September of 2008, and despite the State Department saying that there is no negligible environmental impact by approving it, President Obama continues not to approve it. So if after 2016 the Keystone pipeline entity wants to submit a new application under the new law, they would certainly and should have a right to do that. That is the only reason we oppose the Waxman amendment. I urge that Members vote against the Waxman amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I might say I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) on the committee, and he does great work in the area of efficiency and other areas relating to energy, but I do oppose this amendment.

At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for his comments on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. First of all, ``minor'' is an undefined term that gives little certainty to agencies or industry. One of the things that we are trying to get away from is the uncertainty of a Presidential permit and be treated like natural gas pipelines. As I said, in H.R. 3301, we are trying to treat all of them exactly the same: transmission lines, oil pipelines, natural gas lines.

I would also say that, under the gentleman's amendment, any modifications, such as volume expansion, downstream or upstream interconnections, or adjustments to maintain flow, would potentially be required to obtain a Presidential permit for the modification, even if the original project already has one. Then even operational changes may be subject to a Presidential permit, and ownership changes would be.

So, for those reasons, as I said, I respectfully would oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask the Members to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.