To approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act.

Last night, we got a notice that the Rules Committee was going to have an emergency hearing to expedite very important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was very excited. I thought we were going to deal with an emergency. Perhaps it was Ebola, perhaps it was dealing with the use of force overseas, or emergencies here at home like the thousands of families that are separated because of our broken immigration law or the emergency of balancing our budget before we leave the next generation with a burden of debt. I was really hopeful that the majority was ready to take on a pressing issue facing the country.

Sadly, I was too optimistic. I found out that the bill that was such an emergency, that was expeditiously brought before the Rules Committee and now to the floor is actually a bill that we have already voted on this Congress to bypass the administration's review policy and streamline the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Turned out last night's Rules Committee meeting was far from an emergency. The majority should not have waived clause 11 of rule XXI that normally requires 3 days to review legislation before we vote on it.

To be clear, we have not had 3 days to read this bill. Now, one could argue, since we have pretty much passed the darn thing before and it hasn't changed much, maybe we didn't need the full 3 days, but why are we doing another bill?

I truly hope we are not setting the tone for the 114th where great Representatives, Democratic and Republican, come from all parts of the country to tackle the issues facing our great Nation, balancing the budget, fixing our broken immigration system, and getting our economy moving; and we vote on the same bill, in the case of repealing the Affordable Care Act, 53 times in the 113th Congress.

One time, I understand. The House wants to do it, that is what the people were elected to do, if they believe that, and that is what a majority says, then do it. But what are the other 52 times besides a waste of taxpayer money?

The Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act being revived today is nothing new. Again, it bypasses the pending review process and would immediately authorize the TransCanada Keystone pipeline company to build an 875-mile pipeline from Canada through the United States to the Gulf of Mexico for the exportation of oil.

This bill would expedite a tar sands project without requiring a Federal environmental or administrative review process basically saying that those are automatically concluded and/or sufficient.

I asked Chairman Whitfield in our Rules Committee what their discussion with the administration was on this. When did they last have testimony, formal or informal, from the administration? Where is the administration in this approval process?

Mr. Whitfield informed me that there had been no updates from the administration that they have requested for 6 months, so for all we know, the President might be ready to approve or not approve this project tomorrow, next week, next month--I don't know--but it seems like the two branches of government aren't talking to one another.

Normally, if Congress is interested in where a particular approval process is,

we would hold hearings, and we would ask the relevant questions--what are the current sticking points, are there issues that are still pending--rather than bypass any legitimate issues that might still be there around the routing.

As many of you know, the routing has already been changed so as not to impact the Ogallala aquifer, and there could very well be other important issues that affect residents of the States through which the Keystone pipeline would pass.

Clearly, this project is a great favor to our friendly neighbors to the north, the great nation of Canada. The question that we need to figure out as a country is: Does it benefit America? Does it benefit Americans?

There are pros and cons. Obviously, if it goes in your neighborhood, it is not a particular benefit to you--or through your farm--and that was some of the issues that we heard from in the impact statements that are currently being reviewed by the administration.

There is a review process underway. We all wish that review process went faster. We all wish that NEPA would go faster. We all wish that a wide variety of review policies would go faster, but we don't know how that is going to be concluded, and I think it is important that, while they get through it as soon as possible, they are able to do so and take all factors into account.

If Congress wants to change the approval process for these kinds of projects, I think that is a legitimate discussion to have. If Congress determines it needs to reconfigure a review process for a project like this, maybe we would go into the statute and we alter the different agencies or we assign different responsibility or criteria.

That would be a relevant discussion to have, not bypassing something that Congress set up in statute. The President is doing what Congress told him to do in reviewing this process--not this Congress, but the underlying statute when it was passed.

Now, of course, there are a lot of issues around Keystone XL, and rather than interrupting the State Department's ongoing review process, Congress should allow all the relevant issues to be properly addressed around this issue.

I want to emphasize that the Republicans brought this tar sands bill forward just one day after China and the U.S. came to a landmark agreement to address climate change. Tar sands are a high-polluting fuel that, on a life-cycle basis, tar sands crude produces about 20 percent more carbon pollution than conventional crudes.

In addition, we have a study from Cornell University with regard to the effect of the XL pipeline on gasoline for American citizens, and top energy economists in this Cornell study said that if the XL pipeline is built, consumers in our country may end up paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gas as a result of tar sands being diverted.

That is millions of dollars a year out of the pockets of Americans and perhaps into the pockets of wherever all this oil is going. But, again, of what benefit to America is this project?

There is also the simple matter of how a bill becomes a law, okay, so we have a House bill, a Senate bill, and let's take a wild presumption, maybe both Chambers will pass this bill. What happens next? It goes to the President. The President can sign a bill or veto a bill.

Essentially, the President can sign a bill approving the Keystone pipeline, which is something that he can do now without this bill. He can approve the pipeline, and if Congress goes through all this deliberative effort at taxpayer expense, talk, and votes and all this stuff, the President still has a decision.

Now, again, obviously, if there are two-thirds in both Chambers, Congress can seize power on a particular issue and exert its own will, but that hasn't been the case on these Keystone pipeline votes, and I don't expect it to be the case on this one.

So it is just an exercise in senseless hot air being thrown around the Chamber where we can pass bills and the same situation prevails if it passes or not; namely, the President can decide whether they want this to go forward or not. If Congress wants to alter that approval process, let's look at the statutory rules around how projects are reviewed for future projects and see if we can reach a bipartisan consensus about that.

I wish that this had been an emergency piece of legislation. I wish that we were tackling a potential public health crisis. I wish that we were tackling terrorism. I wish we were tackling balancing the budget, and I wish we were tackling securing our borders. But we are not.

We are tackling something that isn't going anywhere and, even if passed, will give the President the same choice that he has today, much to do about nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

I yield the gentleman an additional 45 seconds.

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

So again, I was excited that perhaps the Rules Committee was going to consider emergency legislation on public health or Ebola or the war with ISIS or our budget. How about a deficit of half a trillion dollars, I call that an emergency. Instead, here we are dealing with a bill, something that Congress already passed that even if they passed again would make the decisionmaker exactly the same decisionmaker we have today, namely, the President of the United States.

Rather than considering the Keystone pipeline bill--and if we weren't going to deal with one of the real emergencies--why not at least bring up bills that create new green energy jobs in our innovation and energy sector like the bipartisan Public Lands Renewable Energy Act that I offered along with Representatives Gosar, Thompson, and Heck? The Public Lands Renewable Energy Act would expand renewable energy development and create jobs while protecting our Nation's public health and environmental resources. It would provide the framework for a competitive leasing system for wind and energy, solar energy, on public lands. The innovative leasing process would help move our Nation forward with clean energy development while providing funding for conservation, States, and localities. How about that? Let's use some of our great public lands that have good solar or wind characteristics for solar and wind. I think that would be a great bipartisan bill to bring up here today.

Another example of a bill that we could consider today that would create jobs and move to a renewable energy future is the Renewable Electricity Standard Act, H.R. 3654, which I co-introduced in order to boost renewable energy markets across the country. The bill would make sure that utilities generate 25 percent of their electricity from renewable energies like wind, solar, and biomass by 2025. It is a goal, and my great State of Colorado already has a 30 percent renewable energy standard. That legislation would build on the success of over 30 State-based renewable energy standards, including the standard in the great State of Colorado by creating a true national market for renewable energy. It would create jobs and save consumers money on utility bills, help keep gas cheap at the pump, and provide billions in local tax revenues for small towns while cutting carbon pollution. That, to me, sounds like a better idea than spending our time debating a bill that, even if passed, will leave the project that it is talking about in the same situation it is before the bill is discussed.

Instead, Republicans are moving forward on a bill that clings on to Big Oil interests and does nothing to make energy more affordable for American consumers, does nothing to move forward to a clean energy future, and does nothing at all because, even if it passes, it has to go to the President to sign, who is currently the person reviewing the applications as we speak.

The emergency Rules Committee meeting and closed rule today does not allow me to bring forward the Public Lands Renewable Energy Act as an amendment. It doesn't allow me to bring forward the Renewable Electricity Standard Act as an amendment. In fact, the closed rule today ensures that no Member, Republican or Democratic, of this great body can offer an amendment to improve this bill.

I strongly urge my colleagues to set the tone for the next Congress by rejecting this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the other side here is arguing like somehow passing this bill would lead to this pipeline being built. That simply isn't the case. The current review process, the decision lies with the President and the Secretary of State. If this bill, in identical form, were to pass both Chambers, the President of the United States will have a choice--approve it or not approve it--the same choice he has now.

So in no way would this Republican bill that we are considering here today make a decision for the President. The President is elected by the people in the country. Congress itself gave the President the authority to review this bill. It only becomes law if he chooses to sign it.

I should point out that this bill exempts TransCanada from multiple environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act or the Endangered Species Act. If the President were to approve the Keystone project, it probably wouldn't even be by signing this bill. He would probably approve it without waiving those laws or perhaps different areas, or perhaps there are other issues that this body doesn't know about because Mr. Whitfield hasn't consulted the President on what the pending issues are in 6 months.

So again, as a Member of this body who is not on the committee of jurisdiction, I can't say that I have been briefed by the administration on what the pending issues are. Apparently, Mr. Whitfield hasn't either. So let's find out what they are and are there additional areas that have to be rerouted, are there precautions that have to be made because of the high temperature of the tar sands as they race across our country.

Approving this Keystone XL pipeline, which this bill, again, would not do--it would simply go to the President who could choose whether he wants to move forward or not, just as he can now--but it would simply benefit foreign oil interests. The real issue is where are the benefits for the American people--the health and safety of the American people, the integrity of agriculture-based economies in the areas that would be affected. Does Congress really want to give TransCanada special benefits and exemptions or should they be held to the same standard as other important energy projects?

We need to help America grow renewable energy to wean ourselves off of our reliance on fossil fuels. If Congress wants to weigh in on how large energy projects should be approved, by all means, let's do it. But, quite frankly, you don't do it by presenting a bill to the President which gives him the exact same options that he has today. It doesn't move the ball down the road one way or the other.

I share the desire that my colleagues have that hopefully the process is nearing its completion. Whether that is a week or a month or 6 months, I don't know. Apparently, the committee doesn't know either, because they haven't asked the Executive. But I do trust that they are taking the factors that Congress wrote into law into consideration and, hopefully, will come to the conclusion one way or the other regardless of whether this bill is passed or not.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

What we have here is Congress trying to interfere with a highly technical review process that has already resulted in the rerouting of the proposed pipeline to ensure that the integrity of the Ogallala aquifer is preserved and that there are potentially other important issues to Americans that live in the affected areas where the pipeline would be built. Instead of hearing what those issues are or talking to the administration about what pending issues remain or are standing in the way of approval, Congress is seeking to shortcut that process, exempt the XL pipeline from the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act to immediately order it to be built regardless of the legitimate issues that should be waived.

When my colleague says, oh, somehow it is only 2 percent of the American people that oppose it, that is not the discussion we are having here today. It is not about who supports it or who opposes it. There needs to be the studies that are done to make sure that the routing of it maintains the health and safety of the American people, doesn't jeopardize the economy in the affected areas. Those are the issues that have already resulted in several changes of the plan and could result in additional changes to the plan of where and how the pipeline could be built. For Congress to somehow say we are just tired of dealing with the technical issues and we just want it done puts American lives at risk, puts America's health at risk.

We all wish that this process could have been completed 6 months ago, 3 months ago. We hope it is completed a month from now, 6 months from now. But giving the President the same choice he has today by passing this bill doesn't move the process forward. We should be taking advantage of our last few precious weeks before the end of the year to address some of the important pieces of legislation that the Senate has sent over, but somehow what we are debating, repealing the Affordable Care Act for the 53rd time or the Keystone pipeline again and again, somehow this body hasn't had time to even consider or debate or allow a vote on important pieces of legislation like the bipartisan immigration reform package that received more than two-thirds support in the United States Senate. There is a companion bill that is bipartisan that has been introduced in the House. There is a discharge petition at the desk for Members to sign to demand a simple up-or-down vote to fix our broken immigration system, secure our borders, reduce our budget deficit by over $200 billion.

There is a discussion of jobs with the Keystone project. Well, let me tell you, this bill on immigration reform that if this body allows a vote on would create over 250,000 jobs for American citizens.

Or how about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? The Senate has acted on a bill that would prevent an employer from firing somebody just because they are gay or lesbian. It shouldn't be any of your boss' business who you date or who you love after work. The Senate passed that. More than three-quarters of the American people support it. We filed a discharge petition on that bill. We would love to be acting on that bill here today instead of yet again shortcutting the process with regard to an oil project.

This Congress has been a frustrating Congress. Unfortunately, here in our final weeks, I hope we are not setting the tone for an equally ineffective and inefficient 114th Congress. The American people deserve better. It is time to move forward with the renewable energy agenda, with balancing our budget, with fixing our broken immigration system, with making college more affordable, rather than talking in circles about projects that are already under review and won't be any more or less under review if the bill passes because it requires the signature of the same President who is currently charged with making this decision under current law in statutes passed by the United States Congress. Let's not waste our limited time on bills that won't go anywhere and won't do anything.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform, to the floor of the House.

Well, unfortunately, yet again, we have been stymied in our efforts to address a critical issue facing the American people with a bill that would create over 250,000 jobs for American citizens, would secure our border, restore the rule of law, and unite American families. That is what the work of Congress should be; that is what the American people want Congress to do. If the 113th Congress can't do it, I sure hope that the President moves forward with the powers that have been granted to him by Congress and that the 114th Congress proves to be better than this Congress is in its waning days.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 748 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Polis, my friend, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the past 6 years, President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State Kerry, and Senate Democrats have made sure that the American people would continue to wait for the Keystone pipeline.

The Keystone pipeline provides jobs, energy security, and perhaps most of all a closer and better relationship with our friends from Canada.

Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, the bottom line is we need to do business with our friends in Canada rather than friends in other places around the world who may be using that money that they receive for reasons that are not in America's best interest. We trust the Canadians.

Today we have a bill on the floor because we believe that House Republicans, being led by Dr. Bill Cassidy, can lead us to a way to construct the Keystone pipeline, provide us with a closer relationship with Canada, and make sure that the TransCanada application to construct the Keystone XL pipeline will be done. That is why we are here on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

With that said, I rise in support of not only this rule that will provide the context for the bill but also the legislation.

Let me be perfectly clear today: this bill to approve the Keystone pipeline is a jobs bill. Over the last few years, too many Americans have been out of work, not always in the right places where jobs were available, but too many Americans are out of work, and this is an area where people are out of work and need the work and can get it.

Wages have been stagnant, and median incomes for American families have fallen because this administration and the policies of the Democratic Party have led to a stagnation of the free enterprise system, and an opportunity in particular in the area of energy has been a political issue rather than a jobs issue for the American people.

The Keystone pipeline would support tens of thousands of great-paying jobs and help resolve some problems in this area and across a multistate area of the West. Yet President Obama, Secretary Hillary Clinton, and Senate Democrats have stood constantly and consistently in the way of job-creating, shovel-ready projects.

For 6 years we have known that the impact of the Keystone pipeline would be positive on the American economy, with positive benefits that it would provide for the American people. For 6 years, we have known that the pipeline would add over a billion dollars of revenue to a tepid economy, a billion dollars in places where people are out of work, need work. And it can be done through efficiency and effectiveness of this pipeline.

Americans have been looking for leadership to secure energy independence, energy independence to where we no longer have to go across the oceans to receive the energy that we need. With this pipeline, it is an important step, I believe, in the right direction.

When completed, the Keystone pipeline will transport over 800,000 barrels of oil every single day. That is equivalent to half of our daily oil imports from the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, that is competition with the current system. That is how you get prices lower at the gas pump, by having competition, competition with the Middle East for the oil that we will use in this country.

This will further help lower energy costs for American families while helping to bolster our national security by weaning us off oil from nations that sometimes do not have our best interests in their own mind.

Instead of partnering with countries in the Middle East, the Keystone pipeline lets us work together with our dear friends from Canada.

By approving the Keystone pipeline, the Federal Government will reduce our dependency overnight while creating much-needed jobs and providing billions of dollars in economic opportunity in the USA.

We all know that Keystone can accomplish what the American people want, and that is that we need to work together. Mr. Speaker, we need to work together.

Finally, what has happened is that the Senate Democrats are asking for this bill. Regardless of the reason, what we are doing here today is to work together on ideas that we have been trying to push for a long, long time.

In September of 2008, TransCanada submitted their application to the Department of State to construct the Keystone pipeline. Yet the Obama administration has blocked and delayed construction of the pipeline at every single turn. Excuse after excuse after excuse rather than getting it done.

The State Department, led by Secretary Hillary Clinton and Secretary Kerry, has stood firmly in the way of jobs created by this project. They have held dozens of meetings and issued study after study, each of which confirms what Republicans have said all along, and that is, the pipeline will create jobs and inject billions of dollars into the American economy while doing so in a safe and limited environmental impact way.

Beginning in 2011, with Republicans, as soon as they won this body and became the majority, we started passing laws to jump-start the pipeline. Time after time I have been on the floor of this body--and, Mr. Speaker, you have stood faithfully in your chair to listen to the debates. It is you, Mr. Speaker, who has been behind this idea to make sure that we would keep it as a part of our objective. An objective for the American people, opportunities for the American people, and a friendship with the Canadians. Sadly, Senate Democrats have refused to allow even a vote.

Yet just yesterday the Keystone pipeline suddenly became a hot topic on the Senate floor. A hot topic because they want to get it done now.

Well, so what has changed? Last week, after 6 long years, Members of the Senate finally decided to listen to the American people. The House has been listening and acting for 4 years now, but now that the Senate is prepared to join us, we are here to work together.

The House is prepared to pass this bill from Dr. Bill Cassidy, oh, yes, from an energy State called Louisiana. A dear friend of not only this body but a dear friend of consumers and families who understand that we need to reduce even further costs at the gas pump, that we need to be concerned about where we buy our oil and our energy and to make sure we are doing business with the friends and people we know.

So they can pass it and they can send it to the President's desk. We are going to send the same bill. Same bill they are doing in the Senate is the same one we are going to do here. We are going to get it to the President. No more delays, no more excuses. It is actually time to make the Keystone pipeline a reality.

Said another way, the election is over; let's get our work done.

I am proud that the House has led on this issue. I look forward to the Senate joining us. I hope the President will do the same thing. I hope we will sign another jobs bill that has been passed by the House of Representatives.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just so we really are a little bit clear, the President indicated last week what he might do on this exact issue of Keystone pipeline. He said that he would consider signing the bill if it creates jobs.

So, Mr. President, the study from your own State Department said that construction on Keystone would create over 42,000 jobs, so there is one answer to our President.

Another one, the President said he would consider signing the bill if it was good for the American people, good for their pocketbooks, if it were to reduce gas prices. Now, that is what the President said.

Once again, I have good news. Good news. Keystone pipeline will move up to 830,000 barrels of oil a day through an efficient process. Instead of it coming from halfway around the world, which adds cost to the transportation, it will come through a pipeline and be here real efficiently, so I think we are in good stead there to meet the test for the President.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to let you know that I have got five or six speakers that are here who are excited about this opportunity for jobs, a jobs bill that is on the floor today and the creation of legislation to have the XL pipeline.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Raleigh, North Carolina, Congressman Holding.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are seeing the same heresy take place here on the floor, and that is trying to scare people. It is Republicans who are trying to move a job bill, and jobs, the American people understand. Let's keep this thing right in the center of the table.

It is about jobs. It is about energy independence. It is about a working relationship with our friends. It is about lessening our dependence upon giving people in other countries in foreign lands our money that they don't always use in our best interest. It is about national security, and it is about a lot of things that make common sense. What makes common sense is not to scare people, but give them the facts of the case.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota, Kevin Cramer. He served on the commission up in North Dakota before he came to Congress, and he is a great young man.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I will tell you, we are trying to keep the stage set that we in the Republican majority are leading for jobs for America. We are leading to help gas at the pump be less than what it has been. It doubled under President Obama's watch because they have not done the things that would allow more energy to be gotten. Sure, it is being gotten now on private lands, but on Federal lands, we need to do the same.

Once again, the same old worn-out rhetoric standing in the way of jobs in this country. That is why Republicans are now here on the floor again today. Our last bill is about jobs, too, before we leave.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Gainesville, Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton). As the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he knows about as much as anybody in the United States Congress about not just the needs of jobs and energy in this country, but, as the distinguished former chairman of the committee, he led this fight for many, many years.

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

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, once again, we heard our friends on the Democrat side talk about special interest money. They were talking about green energy: $18 billion a year is spent, money that would be spent like what was spent on Solyndra, sole-source contracts to companies that have gone belly up. Those are the ideas of the Democrat Party and the ideas of this President. The ideas of this President are they have taken over 6 years--2,246 days--the President of the United States, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State Kerry, an administration that stands in the way of the operation of getting people jobs, of doing the things that the American people want and need. That is why what happened this first Tuesday in November, the American people said: We have had enough.

I, as a Republican, don't take it that we are just outstanding and they elected us. What they said is: We are sick and tired of the direction we're headed. We want serious things to happen.

We have a brand new Governor in Maryland and a brand new Governor in Illinois. There is a lot of information that is out there, ready for us. We Republicans came right back to work. The Senate is doing the same. They are trying to pass this. We are trying to take the exact same bill that we were asked to do, with the expectation and understanding it can pass this body.

It is a well-understood bill. It hasn't taken us 6 years--2,246 days--to figure it out. If this administration can't figure the dang thing out, they need to admit they do not know how to read or lead. And I don't know which one it is, but either they can't read or they cannot lead. They need to know that the American people expect us to go get the work done. That is what you heard Mr. Collins say. The Republican Party is up to the task. The Republican Party, through the leadership of John A. Boehner and the leadership of what will be Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, is going to do exactly that.

We are going to take all the issues, including the one the gentleman talks about all day and every day--and that is immigration--and we are going to have an immigration bill. And we are going to do the right thing.

But today we are talking about jobs: jobs and opportunities for people that need them. We need competition for the price of energy. We need to make sure we don't depend as much on the Middle East and that we work with our friends from Canada. And it does not take the Republican Party 6 years, or 2,246 days, to try and make a decision. The Republican Party is here today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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

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

The gentleman mentioned taxpayers. I think taxpayers might be concerned that this foreign entity which will ship our oil over 1,700 miles across America will be exempt from a fee that all of the American companies and others using our current pipelines have to pay because of a bizarre ruling from the IRS, which often makes bizarre rulings. Tar sands oil will not be required to contribute toward the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

I think U.S. taxpayers might be concerned that a foreign entity which is going to ship tar sands oil 1,700 miles through the United States to an export zone, in all probability to be processed and exported in a tax-exempt area, won't be paying much, if any, taxes in the U.S. except some property taxes, and it won't have to contribute toward this trust fund. In case there is a spill with this line, the U.S. taxpayers and other entities in the U.S.--mostly U.S. companies--will be liable to pay for their mess. So I have a concern about taxpayers.

Another part of this is three citizens of the State of Nebraska brought litigation because this bill would give a foreign entity the right to take their private property in the United States of America-- in Nebraska--by eminent domain. I don't know. I am not aware of any other time we have given a foreign entity the right to take the private property of U.S. citizens. These same citizens won a case in district court, and this bill would essentially nullify the ruling that they won, which is still under appeal to the Supreme Court in that State.

So here we have a foreign entity that won't pay taxes that other oil companies and others who ship by pipelines will be required to pay, a foreign entity that will be given the right to take the private property of U.S. taxpayers and residents--and for what? Yes, there will be construction jobs, and jobs are good, but those are fairly ephemeral, and there is a lot of other construction going on, particularly in the fracking area and with some proposed liquid natural gas export facilities that will help provide employment in the construction trades. In this case, there will be 35 permanent jobs for this tax-exempt sludge that will be shipped to a zone in Texas where it is most likely to be exported.

Do we need to export more oil, gas, and diesel from the United States of America? Is that going to help lower the price at the pump for Americans? I don't think so.

And, in fact, we are today exporting 422,000 barrels of gasoline a day, 1.3 million barrels of diesel every day, and yet truckers are still being pretty well extorted at the pump. That is 54.6 million gallons of diesel, and yet our truckers are still being gouged at the pump because there is a diesel shortage.

Well, wait a minute. We are exporting that, and now we are going to take this tar sand goop, process it in the U.S., and export it. That is not going to help the truckers. It is not going to help the American consumers.

And then there are some minor environmental issues. You know, tar sands do create 81 percent more greenhouse gas than most other forms of fossil fuel extraction. They are going to destroy forever large portions of boreal forest. Now, sure, that is a Canadian issue. If I lived in Canada, I would be protesting this. I don't. But we don't need to facilitate it in the United States of America by building a pipeline there.

They will use precious water resources, create huge waste pits that will be polluted with the extract, except for the part which is shipped south to be processed and shipped overseas.

So I really don't see this as something where we should preempt the laws of the United States. There were 2.5 million comments. Apparently the Republicans don't care much about the public comments. There are 2.5 million comments that are still being meaningfully evaluated that are raising concerns about various aspects of this project.

But here I will say, bad legislation; good politics. We are trying to help someone get elected to the Senate who is currently a Member of the House. The Senate is moving potentially ahead with this bill. So the House, with very little notice, decided they would bring up this bill which we have passed in one version or another eight previous times. So this is nothing but bare, naked politics and the use of the House to promote someone's candidacy to the United States Senate, which I think is really a disgrace to this institution.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, would you tell me the time remaining, please.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let's just sum up.

We have the most carbon-intensive way of creating ultimately diesel and gasoline by extracting these tar sands. They contribute 81 percent more greenhouse gases. Of course many on the other side believe that greenhouse gases are potentially beneficial or aren't a problem.

We have a foreign entity here that will be exempt from paying taxes, like U.S. entities do, into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And U.S. taxpayers will be stuck with the bill should a spill occur.

We have a foreign entity--granted, they are our friends and neighbors in Canada--but still, a foreign private corporation being given the right of eminent domain over citizens of the State of Nebraska.

We have, in fact, this company saying that it is likely, if this pipeline is completed, that gasoline prices will go up in Midwestern areas of the United States and their production will be exported from the United States; so it is not going to be a direct benefit to Americans or deal with energy independence, which we heard earlier.

Of course, we are cutting short the evaluation process that every other energy-producing entity in America has to go through in terms of environmental reviews, and of course, we are cutting off any meaningful consideration of the 2.5 million comments that have been received by the State Department.

But, hey, it could help a House Member beat a Senate Member and get elected to the Senate, so I guess it is a bad bill whose time has come.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Today, we are voting once again to grant special treatment to TransCanada's Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. This is the third time this Congress and the eighth time since Republicans took control of the House.

Instead of helping families deal with pressing problems, we are helping Canadian tar sands producers and pipeline builders. We are spending our time trying to exempt a foreign company from the rules that every other company in America has to follow.

This bill is not an energy policy. It is about a single pipeline that will allow Canadian tar sands to flow across our country for export to other countries. That is oil going through the United States but not to the United States.

We don't need this oil. We have our own sources of oil, and we are using less oil because of our efficiency in new cars getting better mileage.

This bill will not lower gasoline prices by a single penny. It may even raise them in some places. It will, at most, create just a few dozen permanent jobs. There will be some temporary jobs for construction. Once they are gone, they are gone.

This bill is a regulatory earmark. It will waive applicable environmental review requirements and risk our farmlands and our water supplies. In fact, it even exempts the Keystone pipeline from paying into the oil spill fund that other oil companies have to contribute to.

That means if there is a problem with that pipeline, well, there is no payment by Keystone XL to that fund to make those who are hurt whole. That means that if there is a spill, there won't be the money to clean it up.

The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is a terrible deal for America. We get all the risks while the oil companies reap the rewards. But even if you support it, this bill is a harmful and unnecessary piece of legislation.

The State Department is carrying out their review of this highly controversial project. They have got millions of comments, and the Federal

agencies are reviewing these comments.

H.R. 5682 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.

Forget about those comments. We will just pass a bill and make it happen rather than consider all the other issues that would be appropriate to look at in approving or disproving this pipeline.

I oppose this legislation for all these reasons. There is one more important reason why I oppose the bill. The tar sands pipeline will worsen climate change. Keystone XL would create a dependence on tar sands crude, reversing the carbon pollution reductions we have been working so hard to accomplish.

According to some experts, building the Keystone XL pipeline will triple production of the tar sands. That is totally inconsistent with any future scenario for avoiding catastrophic climate.

Just this week, the United States and China agreed to mutual pledges to fight climate change, and I commend President Obama and President Xi for that accomplishment.

This is a really important development. For the last two decades, antagonisms between the United States and China have stymied efforts to reach a global climate agreement. Those days, we hope, are finally over. The U.S. and China are now both pledging strong joint action. The world has been waiting decades for the U.S. and China to reach an understanding on climate.

Now that moment has finally arrived; yet instead of working on a real energy policy, one that would move us toward a new, low carbon energy future, instead of working on a clean energy future that would create lots of new jobs, real jobs, permanent jobs, and keep pace with China's clean energy investments, instead of trying to protect our irreplaceable environment and our drinking water supplies, Republicans have set their sights on passing a special law for a special interest.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the last gentleman that spoke said everybody is for this.

Well, everybody in Louisiana is clearly for it. The Senator from Louisiana has been a strong supporter of it, and the would-be replacement Senator is strongly for it. The Republican whip from Louisiana is strongly for it. The oil companies are strongly for it.

But to say that those who oppose it are radical environmental extremists seems to me quite a stretch. There are a lot of very responsible people against this legislation, even some who support the pipeline, because they would argue this is not the way to make a decision: put a bill on the floor, to ignore all the comments, all the evaluations, all the considerations.

The people in Nebraska are not going to be happy about that. Maybe in Louisiana, they will be, but other places would like to know that pipelines are safe and their aquifers for drinking water are not going to be jeopardized.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), a distinguished member of our committee who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have on each side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee.

I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5682, to authorize the construction of the Keystone pipeline. You know, it is not every day that I come back--and we have been gone for awhile from debating while we have been out actually campaigning and listening to the American people, and the American people spoke rather loudly last week, and it is good to come back and begin to put into practice what they have said. In fact, it is amazing to me how debates that went on so far here and coming to the floor--in fact, from people that normally we never disagree on--I am actually bringing to the floor a little bit of bipartisanship here.

In fact, I know that some will think there is no better argument for the pipeline--in fact, there is no better one that I have heard than one that I read in the paper today from a distinguished colleague in the other Chamber just across the way who does not share the Republican point of view. He said in regards to the Keystone pipeline:

It would be a tremendous windfall for all of us. It is

something we can count on. I can't for the life of me

understand why we haven't, to date, been able to move this

piece of legislation forward.

Well, good grief, neither do I. In fact, if I was to spend the rest of my 5 minutes just trying to understand why the Senate can't move bills, we would be here all night, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from the other side, the other body, the Senate, summed it up clearly. He said: I don't understand why we can't move stuff.

What I have also missed, Mr. Speaker, coming back to the floor of the House, is things that I have never heard before, I mean, not at least in north Georgia where I am from. When we talk about jobs--and I have heard it talked about here on the floor of the House this afternoon; in fact, it was said that this is a waste of taxpayer money. To bring bills like this up, that it is a waste of taxpayer money. What is a waste of taxpayer money is the House Republicans passing jobs bills for Americans regardless of their party, jobs for them, and having them sit in a Senate that never woke up. That is a waste of taxpayer money. Where do I go to get my money back from that side of the aisle?

You know what is another thing that is amazing to me today, I actually heard something, Mr. Speaker, and you may have to help me with this because I don't understand because it was just said here on the floor of the House that this bill was a special interest earmark. I have never heard jobs described as a special interest earmark. Are you telling me that the Congress, in looking to give people jobs, is a special interest earmark? I think that is exactly what we are supposed to be doing. Are you kidding? This is exactly what the election was about just a couple of days ago. It is exactly what the American people spoke of. It is exactly what they are tired of--of government standing in the way of jobs.

Emergency legislation, an ``emergency rule,'' another term I have just heard on the House floor just a few minutes ago, that we were coming to the floor with an emergency rule and that we were going to do something special. Undoubtedly, they have never met somebody who does not have a job. I have been without a job. And if you were to tell me that I could get a job when I was looking for a job, that is emergency legislation. It is whatever it is, and I am looking for a job, and there are millions of families looking for jobs. Special interests it is not; it is the work of this body. And to say it is a waste of time, have we lost that much of our vision of what the American people sent us here to do?

Are there things that we could bring up? I appreciate my friend from Colorado. Are there a multitude of bills we could bring up? Yes. But as my parents once told me, they said: Doug, that is the supper you are getting tonight. You either eat it or go to bed hungry.

The bill we have before us is a jobs bill--42,000 jobs--puts millions of people in jobs and the economy back together again in a way that helps our economy and helps the world, but yet

all we are worried about is what could be. Well, what could be is not good enough for somebody who can't pay their house payment, who can't send their kids to school. It is bad.

If you are watching and if you want to think about this right now, there is a clear difference. And the clear difference is that the Republicans have listened to the folks at the ball fields, have listened to the folks at the churches and the synagogues, who have heard ``I need a job.''

I want to work together for good jobs, and we will get to better jobs; but what is before us right now, Mr. Speaker, is this bill. This is the bill that is before us, and there is bipartisan support for this. And we can claim what is not in it. We can claim what it is. But I would never ever want to come to this podium, Mr. Speaker, and ever say that a jobs bill is an earmark, that a jobs bill is something that we shouldn't be taking up or that it is a waste of time, because when we say that bills like this are a waste of time, then we might as well say to people on the unemployment line, ``You are a waste of time,'' and this Republican will never do that because the American people expect better from us. That is why this rule needs to pass; that is why this bill needs to pass; and that is why this Republican majority will do what it is sent here to do--govern.