To award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Foot Soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, or the final Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March in March of 1965, which served as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

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

Today we are voting once again to grant special treatment to TransCanada's Keystone tar sands pipeline. It is the 11th time we are voting on a special deal for the Canadian company's pipeline since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. This Congress has much work to do on energy. Our situation is changing rapidly, and each energy-related decision we make can have long-term consequences for our environment, our economy, and our national security. But the President has made clear that he will veto this legislation, so we should stop wasting our time on it.

The Senate added many provisions to this version of the Keystone bill. Some of the provisions on energy efficiency are provisions that I and many of my colleagues can support and have supported in the past, but those provisions should be considered separately, preferably as stand-alone bills in the House and Senate. They should not be held hostage by another doomed Keystone approval bill, and they in no way come close to offsetting the harm that would be caused by Congress deeming Keystone pipeline approved.

We don't need this Canadian tar sands oil. Worldwide crude oil prices are at their lowest level in 5 years, and gasoline prices are down, too. Domestic oil production is up. Last week EPA noted that low oil prices means approval of the Keystone pipeline could be a critical factor in the economic viability of Canadian tar sands expansion. And tar sands are among the dirtiest and carbon intensive of all fossil fuels. The Keystone pipeline will create a dependence on tar sands crude, reversing the carbon pollution reductions that we need.

This pipeline is a terrible deal for America. We get all of the risks while the oil companies reap the rewards. If this pipeline spills, like Enbridge pipeline in Michigan, the heavy tar sands that flow onto the ground and into our waters, our groundwater and our surface water, will be even harder to clean up than regular oil.

Unfortunately, if there is such a spill, it will be cleaned up at U.S. taxpayer expense and the polluter won't have to pay. Why is that? Because tar sands are not considered crude oil for purposes of contributing to the oil spill liability trust fund. We have repeatedly pointed out this egregious and unjustified loophole to the majority, and we have repeatedly received assurances that it will be addressed-- yet it has still not been addressed. In fact, three times in this Chamber alone, we have offered amendments to solve this problem, but the Republican majority voted each one of them down.

Now there is this new ``sense of the Senate'' language that was put into the bill by the Senate that promises further action on this issue, but it is no substitute for real legislation to protect the American taxpayer from the financial consequences of a tar sands spill. Make no mistake, this language, this sense of Congress or sense of the Senate, does nothing to change the equation and end the tar sands oil subsidy.

Recently, the President stood in this Chamber and noted that 21st century businesses need 21st century infrastructure. He said that we should ``set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline.'' Yet here we are again voting on that single oil pipeline.

It is my hope that we are nearing the end of this long cycle of futile votes to grant special treatment to this single pipeline; and it is my hope that sooner rather than later we can get back to trying to find agreement on a moderate energy policy, one that is sustainable, one that helps the U.S. economy, and one that moves us forward, not backward, in the fight against climate change. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues once again to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I wanted to reference again this provision in the bill that the Senate put in. The Senate bill contains a provision boldly stating that ``climate change is real and not a hoax.'' I couldn't agree more with that, Madam Speaker, but let's be clear: the Senate Republican majority in the same breath rejected another amendment stating that climate change is caused by human activity.

Senators who voted against those amendments are out of step with the American people, including many Republicans. In a recent poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans, including almost half of Republicans, stated support for government action to fight climate change and disagreed with those who question that climate change is caused by human activity.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have become fond of saying that they are not scientists, and I think that we can generally agree that is true. But even though they admit they are not scientists, it doesn't stop them from questioning the science. Now, I am not a scientist either, but when actual scientists speak and say there is an overwhelming body of evidence that man-made climate change is real and happening now, I listen to the actual scientists. And saying that you are not a scientist is, in my opinion, just a way of dodging the facts.

I have to say, Madam Speaker, when I go home to New Jersey, and my district was probably more impacted by Superstorm Sandy than any other district, I don't see any disagreement between Democrats and Republicans in my district. It doesn't matter whether they are State legislators or county legislators or mayors or on the council. And I have almost as many Republican mayors and councilmen and councilwomen as I do Democrats, but all of them agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity because they are listening to the scientists and they understand that science is important and that we should pay attention to it.

In any event, the ``sense of the Senate'' language affirming that climate change is not a hoax does not fix any of the problems with the bill before us, and its inclusion doesn't mean that voting ``yes'' today will help us in the fight against climate change. In fact, voting ``yes'' today will move us backward in that fight because one of the major concerns that I have and opponents have of Keystone is because it will exploit tar sands, it will actually increase greenhouse gas significantly. And it is very possible that, without the pipeline, those tar sands will simply not be developed or exploited.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, I want to make this point about the impact of low oil prices on Keystone and on exploitation of tar sands. The price of oil has dropped precipitously in the past few months and is expected to stay in the $65 to $75 per barrel range for the foreseeable future. Just last month, the price of oil actually dipped below $50 per barrel, and gas prices have fallen below $2 per gallon in some areas. Obviously, this is good news for the American consumer but bad news for tar sands producers who are struggling to remain profitable in the face of rising production costs and limited transportation options.

In a scenario where tar sands are less profitable due to low oil prices and transportation constraints, the State Department concluded that the construction of Keystone will play a pivotal role in future tar sands development and increased carbon pollution that comes from it. So just last week, EPA made clear that low oil prices mean that the pipeline's impact on future tar sands production could be substantial, with significant implications for climate change.

Now, when I was at Rules, some of my colleagues on the Republican side said: Well, if you don't build the pipeline, this tar sands oil is going to be transported by rail or by some other means, and so what is the difference if we build Keystone?

Well, the bottom line is that it is very likely that, with low oil prices, there wouldn't be the investment in tar

sands. If tar sands had to be transported by means other than the pipeline, investment would not be there. Therefore, the argument is made, obviously, that without Keystone, you might not be exploiting these tar sands and you wouldn't increase the greenhouse gases and force the major change in climate that would result from it.

So again, the point that the EPA is making that with low oil prices, a decision to approve the pipeline could be a significant factor in increased tar sands production and increased greenhouse gas emissions, and the President and the Congress need to look at this development carefully and assess its impact.

One of the reasons--and there are others, like the impact of the pipeline if there was a spill on groundwater and other things. This is one of the reasons why the President has said that the decision of whether this is in the national interest still has to be weighed, and it shouldn't be dictated to by Congress and just deemed approved because the Canadian company or others think this is appropriate. This is something that the President needs to continue to review, as he has said. That is why he is vetoing the bill. And that is, again, Madam Speaker, why we are wasting our time today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, I listened to the previous speaker on the Republican side and I don't understand how he can say that the President is trying to prevent domestic production. Domestic oil production is at a 29-year high. Whether it is oil or it is natural gas, we have never seen production of this magnitude.

Under this administration, there has been such an increase in both oil and natural gas production in comparison to any previous administration for as long as I have been here. To suggest otherwise boggles the mind, in my opinion.

I wanted to go back to another issue that we are concerned about in terms of the environment and why Keystone needs to continue to be reviewed by the President and not just be deemed approved, and that has to do, again, with oil spills and the impact on aquifers.

Again, our first priority, Madam Speaker, must be to ensure public safety. The proposed Keystone pipeline is a massive project that would carry tar sand sludge throughout the middle of America. Even supporters agree that it should not be built until we have some assurance that it will be safe.

Keystone poses real risks. Over the last few years, a litany of tragic failures have reinforced the need for strong pipeline safety standards.

In 2011, another ExxonMobil pipeline ruptured in Montana, spilling crude oil into the Yellowstone River. The oil was carried hundreds of miles down the river, threatening the livelihoods of ranchers.

In July 2010, a pipeline carrying tar sands oil ruptured near Marshall, Michigan. Over 800,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Talmadge Creek and then flowed into the Kalamazoo River. The cleanup will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Because the diluted bitumen is heavier than water and sinks to the bottom of the river, it has proven harder to clean up than conventional crude oil.

TransCanada and its supporters have repeatedly assured the public and the Congress that we shouldn't worry about this pipeline carrying tar sand sludge through the middle of America and across the Ogallala Aquifer. They say it will be an ultra-safe state-of-the-art pipeline.

The problem, though, is that we have heard this before. TransCanada's first Keystone pipeline, which brings Canadian tar sands oil to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma, shouldn't inspire confidence. This was a brand-new, supposedly state-of-the-art pipeline. It was predicted to spill no more than once every 7 years. But in its first year of operation, it reported 14 separate oil spills.

The largest spill occurred on May 7, 2011, when approximately 20,000 gallons of oil erupted from the pipeline in North Dakota. There was literally a 64-high geyser of oil. Amazingly, this spill was not detected by TransCanada but was reported by a local farmer.

In response to this spill and others, the pipeline safety agency issued a corrective action order temporarily shutting down the original Keystone pipeline. The agency based this action on a finding that the continued operation of the pipeline without corrective action would be hazardous to life, property, and the environment.

With this track record, we need a thorough review of whether the standards necessary to safely transport tar sands oil are in place. The proposed route of this tar sands pipeline would cross the Ogallala Aquifer.

Millions of Americans depend on this aquifer for their drinking water and for their livelihoods. If there is an oil spill, the consequences would be devastating to the Americans who depend on this precious water resource.

Again, this is another reason why we shouldn't be approving this and deem this pipeline approved.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is now on the Republican side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

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

The bill grants a regulatory earmark to TransCanada Corporation, effectively exempting TransCanada's Keystone tar sands pipeline from all Federal permitting requirements, including requirements that apply to every other construction project in the country.

Keystone will increase carbon pollution and threaten critical water resources. Tar sands are a dirty, high-polluting fuel. On a lifecycle basis, tar sands crude produces up to 40 percent more carbon pollution than conventional oil. And even with the current proposed route, leaks from the highly corrosive crude in the pipeline would still threaten the aquifer, a critical resource for drinking water and irrigation.

Mr. Speaker, we don't need this dirty oil. Since Keystone was proposed, we have cut U.S. oil demand. We have dramatically boosted less-polluting U.S. oil production. In fact, much of the tar sands oil will not go to America but will go through America and be exported overseas. This leaves the United States with all the risk and no reward.

I would urge my colleagues once again to vote ``no'' on this legislation. It is not good for this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 431 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for joining me on the floor today to support H.R. 431. I have enjoyed our bipartisan working relationship on the House Financial Services Committee, and I am pleased today to share this debate time with him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 431, a bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the foot soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, or the final Selma to Montgomery voting rights march in 1965.

March 7, 2015, will mark 50 years since the courageous foot soldiers of

the voting rights movement first attempted to march from Selma to Montgomery to protest the denial of their voting rights.

Led by our colleague John Lewis of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and Reverend Hosea Williams of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, these foot soldiers began the march towards the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery. They pledged to keep on walking until they secured the freedoms promised to them by the U.S. Constitution.

As they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, a wall of Alabama State troopers were waiting at the foot of the bridge. News stations from across the country televised the brutality that followed as foot soldiers like Hosea Williams; John Lewis; Amelia Boynton Robinson; Reverend F.D. Reese; Bob Nance of Lowndes County; Albert Turner, Sr., of Perry County; and so many others were attacked on Edmund Pettus Bridge on what has become known as Bloody Sunday.

The journey of the foot soldiers we honor today was not an easy one. They were discriminated by Whites and ostracized by Blacks who were afraid to join them, but still, they persevered because they could no longer bear the burdens of second-class citizenship.

The president of the Dallas County Voters League, Reverend F.D. Reese, wasn't going to let nobody turn him around, he told me. He said that given the conditions that existed in Selma and the South at that time, he wanted to make sure that things were different.

He was willing to do whatever was necessary to ensure that people--no matter their race, color, or creed--would have the right to vote.

He said:

The Lord gave us determination to keep moving forward. We

were determined to let the Lord lead us and direct us so that

all people, regardless of their color, would have access to

the political process.

He went on:

We were not at all afraid because we were determined that

whatever it took, even if it meant our lives, we were going

to move Alabama and the States and this Nation forward.

Amelia Boynton Robinson literally felt the blows of injustice as she was beaten on the bridge by Alabama State troopers and left for dead. Amelia's will and dignity suffered no damage, but it made her more resolved than ever to continue the fight for equal voting rights.

Two days after Bloody Sunday, over 2,500 foot soldiers, heeding the call from Dr. Martin Luther King, came to Selma to join the marchers. On March 9, 1965, led by Dr. King and Reverend Ralph Abernathy and many clergy from across this Nation, the foot soldiers once again left from the historic Brown Chapel AME Church and walked to the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Dr. King stopped at the top of the bridge while a sea of State troopers stepped aside. On bended knees, Dr. King began to pray as the thousands of marchers joined him. As if moved by the spirit, Dr. King turned around and walked back to the church. Tuesday was not to be the day to complete the 54-mile journey. The second march attempt was known as Turnaround Tuesday.

The fight for voting rights was fought both in the streets and in the courtrooms. Attorney Fred Gray helped pave the way for the final Selma to Montgomery march. He was a member of the legal team that represented Hosea Williams, John Lewis, and Amelia Boynton Robinson in Williams v. Wallace.

Because of his work and the courage of an Alabama Federal judge, Federal Judge Frank Johnson ruled that the foot soldiers had a First Amendment right to petition the government through peaceful protest and ordered Federal agents to provide full protection to the foot soldiers during the Selma to Montgomery March.

Under court order, the U.S. Army, the federalized Alabama National Guard, and countless Federal agencies and marshals escorted more than 8,000 foot soldiers on March 21, 1965, as these brave men and women began their historic 54-mile journey from Selma to the steps of the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery, Alabama.

The extraordinary bravery and sacrifices these foot soldiers displayed in pursuit of a peaceful march from Selma to Montgomery brought national attention to the struggle for equal voting rights and served as a catalyst for Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which President Lyndon Johnson signed into law on August 6, 1965.

Mr. Speaker, as Alabama's first Black Congresswoman, I know that the journey that I now take was only made possible because of the courage and bravery of the foot soldiers of the voting rights movement.

As a proud native of Selma and the U.S. Representative who now represents Selma and parts of Montgomery, I am the direct beneficiary of their sacrifice.

During this 50th commemoration of the voting rights movement and the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it is befitting that this august body would bestow upon the foot soldiers of the voting rights movement our highest civilian honor, a Congressional Gold Medal, for their valor and determination in relentlessly pursuing the promise of our great Constitution, that all men and women were indeed created equal.

I am proud to be joined by my colleague Martha Roby and the entire Alabama congressional delegation--Representatives Aderholt, Rogers, Brooks, Byrne, and Palmer--as original cosponsors of this Congressional Gold Medal bill.

I want to thank the more than 300 colleagues who also signed on to the bill and a special thanks to the leadership of both parties-- Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader McCarthy, Minority Leader Pelosi, and Whip Hoyer--for their support in getting this legislation on the floor today.

This would not have been possible without the help and support of Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters of the House Committee on Financial Services.

To the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), thank you. It is an honor to stand with you today to pay tribute to the foot soldiers of the voting rights movement.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 431, a bill that honors the foot soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, and the final march from Selma to Montgomery with a Congressional Gold Medal, which is Congress' highest civilian honor. I hope this medal serves as a powerful reminder of the many sacrifices that were made.

They say that the price of freedom is never free. Well, the foot soldiers of the voting rights movement paid the ultimate price so that this Nation could live up to the ideals of equality and justice for all. This Nation should never forget those who marched, prayed, and died in the pursuit of civil rights, voting rights, and social change.

I urge my colleagues to join us in voting in favor of H.R. 431.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Nancy Pelosi, the honorable minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding us the time. I want to thank him for the opportunity to allow the members of the Congressional Black Caucus to speak out on this important bill.

Right now, I have the honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Steny Hoyer, the honorable minority whip.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, how many more minutes do I have remaining?

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

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

Mr. Speaker, voting is the most fundamental right that we share as Americans. The foot soldiers who dared to march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in the face of extreme racial hostility did so in the spirit of equality. We should never forget the sacrifices they made so that this Nation could live up to the ideals of equality and justice for all.

While we can never repay these foot soldiers for the sacrifices that they made, we can offer a down payment by continuing to fight against injustice wherever it exists. For as Dr. King so eloquently noted, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

May we be moved by the valor and determination of these foot soldiers to stomp out modern-day inequities in the name of justice. The foot soldiers of the voting rights movement set forth a powerful precedent for all of us to follow.

Whenever the rights of any one man have been denied, the rights of all are in danger. The price of freedom, as has been said before, is not free. The foot soldiers paid the ultimate price to ensure equal voting rights for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that over 300 of my colleagues in Congress-- both Democrats and Republicans--have agreed to cosponsor this bill. I am proud that my colleague from Alabama Senator Sessions and Senator Booker will introduce this bill on the Senate side today.

I am humbled by the strong bipartisan support of this bill, and I would like to thank Representative Martha Roby and all of the members of the Alabama delegation for standing with me in support of this bill.

Today, I am especially proud to be from Alabama. I invite my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, and all Americans, to come to Selma during the first week of March to witness living history. You, too, can witness living history.

The city of Selma and the jubilee group will be doing a host of activities all week long. Of course, the commemorative march itself will be on Sunday, March 8, as well as our President will be speaking to us in Selma on March 7.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 431. I believe that bestowing the Congressional Gold Medal to the foot soldiers of the voting rights movement is a strong reminder of the power of ordinary Americans to collectively achieve extraordinary, extraordinary social change.

I want to again thank the gentleman from Michigan for sharing with me this wonderful 40 minutes of debate. I want you to know that it is one of the highlights of my life to have the opportunity to bestow this Congressional Gold Medal to the foot soldiers of the voting rights movement.

As a proud daughter of Selma and the Representative of Selma, Montgomery, Birmingham, and Tuscaloosa, I want you to know that those of us who are the direct beneficiaries of the movement, Black and White, we owe a debt of gratitude that we can never repay.

Today goes a long way in acknowledging those unsung and noted heroes like John Lewis, but there are so many, so many, that are in our midst, in our communities, that gave that sacrifice. Today, we honor them, the foot soldiers of the voting rights movement.

I want to say again to all of my colleagues: I hope that you will take seriously this bill and what its significance is to America.

I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for sharing this time with me, and I want to thank the leadership of both parties for putting this bill on the floor in such a timely manner, so that we can get it on the President's desk before the March 7 and 8 wonderful, wonderful celebration.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank all of you for being here, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 431, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Here we are, once again, to debate legislation on the Keystone XL pipeline. For the past 6 years, this project has been thoroughly vetted by the Congress and the administration. There is no question in my mind that the Keystone XL is in the national interest, so let's look again at the facts:

It is a jobs project. The President's own State Department has confirmed that Keystone is going to support 42,000 jobs across the country;

Keystone is going to be safe. Yes, it is. Pipelines remain one of the very safest and most efficient ways to transport energy, and Keystone is going to rank at the top of the class when it comes to safety. The pipeline, in fact, is going to incorporate some 59 additional safety standards proposed by

PHMSA, and it will adhere to the rigorous new pipeline safety standards on which I worked with John Dingell to get signed into law in the last Congress;

Keystone is better for the environment. Yes, it is. We know that Canada is going to continue to develop its rich oil sands regardless of whether we build the pipeline. If we don't build it, that oil is going to continue to get to the marketplace through other, more carbon- intensive means;

Keystone is going to enhance our energy security and help energy prices stay stable and affordable. We know this respite from high gas prices won't last forever, and prices have already begun to tick back up. By bringing more North American energy to the market, the pipeline can help protect us against future price spikes and overseas disruptions. We want as much certainty in the marketplace as we can.

The President said last week that, again, another reason he is against this is that gas prices are low. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal headline above the fold reads: ``Oil-Price Rebound Predicted.'' That is right. They are going to go up. Americans understand supply and demand. The Keystone pipeline is very positive for us in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter that we received just an hour or so ago from the Canadian Embassy.

Canadian Embassy,

February 10, 2015.

Dear Mr. Secretary, I was quite disappointed to read the

comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with

respect to the Keystone XL (KXL) application.

The EPA derives its greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs)

calculations from a study using data from 2005, two years

before iPhones existed, completely neglecting the innovation

and emissions reductions that have since occurred in the oil

sands.

Just as communication technology has advanced in the last

ten years, so too has scientific analysis of the oil sands.

There are more recent credible scientific numbers on oil

sands emissions reductions. Canadian government data show

that per barrel emissions have fallen 28% from 1990 to 2012.

In 2014, both IHS-CERA (Dan Yergin's consultancy) and the

California Air Resources Board data showed that average oil

sands GHG emissions are in the same range as Venezuelan and

Californian heavy oil and lower than several types of

Venezuelan and Californian crudes. Furthermore, IHS-CERA has

determined that 45% of the crude oils consumed in the United

States are within the same GHG intensity range as those of

the oil sands.

The EPA selected the highest GHG value among four studies

considered by the State Department, and then assumed that KXL

flows at capacity over fifty years, that KXL transports only

oil sands crude, and most egregiously that the only crude

displaced is Saudi light. By contrast, the State Department

reported oil sands incremental emissions as a range from 1.3

to 27.4 megatonnes annually. The lower figure compared oil

sands to Venezuelan and Mexican heavy crudes that would be

displaced. The higher figure compared oil sands to Saudi

light crude, an international benchmark, which your

Department noted, is not a direct competitor for heavy crude

oil refineries. Clearly, the correct comparison is to the

lower figure, not the higher figure.

In its April 22nd, 2013 comments on the same data, the EPA

calculated an oil sands incremental GHG value some 46% lower

than it is now claiming, and made no effort to explain why

its calculation has now increased by 46%.

The EPA chose to ignore that the oil sands are produced in

the only jurisdiction supplying oil to the United States that

has imposed a carbon fee which is used to fund clean energy

technologies.

The EPA questions the State Department's finding that,

absent KXL, incremental volumes of Canadian oil will move to

the U.S. Gulf Coast by rail. The EPA chose rather

conveniently not to examine data for the last two years.

Since the KXL application was first delayed in November 2011,

crude oil by rail exports from Canada to the U.S. have jumped

ten-fold, and continue to expand.

The EPA neither discusses nor disputes the State

Department's findings that rail represents 28-42% higher GHG

emissions than KXL.

The EPA neither discusses nor disputes the State

Department's findings on safety. The State Department

originally reported that KXL would represent one injury and

no fatalities annually, as compared to 49 injuries and six

fatalities for rail, then revised the rail figures from 49 to

189 injuries, and from six to 28 fatalities.

The EPA chose to ignore that Canada, an ally, has committed

to an absolute reduction in our GHG emissions. No other major

oil supplier to the United States can make this statement. In

2012, Canada's GHG emissions were down 5.1%, with more work

ahead of us.

One is left with the conclusion that there has been

significant distortion and omission to arrive at the EPA's

conclusions.

There is no significant difference between the GHG

emissions from oil sands crude oil and from other heavy crude

oils that would be displaced at the U.S. Gulf Coast. As

compared to rail. KXL represents lower GHG emissions, as well

as lower environmental and public safety risks.

We would be pleased to discuss the gap between the EPA

comments and the scientific analysis of the State Department.

Thank you for the opportunity to raise this issue with you.

Sincerely,

Gary Doer,

Ambassador.

In the letter from the Ambassador of Canada, he makes a number of good points, but he concludes by saying this:

``There is no significant difference between the GHG emissions from oil sands crude oil and from other heavy crude oils that would be displaced at the U.S. Gulf Coast. As compared to rail, KXL represents lower GHG emissions, as well as lower environmental and public safety risks.''

The evidence is in. The case ought to be closed. There is no good reason for President Obama not to join with Republicans and Democrats to say, yes, it is time to build.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the sponsor of the House-passed bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that we have any further speakers. I am willing to close, if the gentleman goes first.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not new science. We have got existing oil and gas pipelines that cross the border. We have got a million miles of pipeline or so within the United States. Safety standards, rightly so, are a lot higher than they used to be, and we will continue to oversee this.

Canada is our friend. We get oil and gas from Canada today. We have expanded many of our refineries by billions of dollars trying to get prepared for new pipeline commodities coming from the north.

It is time to build this. It has been 6 years. I remember well Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a number of years ago saying that they would be ready before the end of that year to complete their studies to get this thing done. Well, 6 years has now come, and it is time for us to act.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled the way that they did in support of this. We know that the carbon footprint is less by putting it in a pipeline, and we know that it is safer than other means of transportation.

Again, we know that Canada is going to sell this oil somewhere. And if they don't get it in a pipeline here to the U.S., that pipeline is going to go 2,000 miles to the east and get on a boat or a barge--a higher carbon footprint. Isn't it better to do it here, to build it, put it in a pipeline here in the U.S.?

This bill, we were accepting the Senate bill. Yes, they finally passed this bill. Let's pass this bill this afternoon. Let's send it to the President. Let's hope that he might reconsider a proposed veto on this bill, and let's deal with the issue, and let's get it done.

There is a reason why better than 65 percent of Americans support this. They understand it. They understand supply and demand. We want gas prices to stay stable. We know that this oil that we get from Canada will displace oil coming either from the Middle East or from Venezuela. Why is that not a good thing?

Please vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, I might just start off by asking my dear friend from California a quick question: If this motion was adopted, would she be voting for the bill? Yes or no.

I yield to the gentlewoman.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlelady's interest on this, and I share her concern.

I would note, and I know that I would also speak for my colleague, Chairman Shuster, as we did write then-chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp, back in 2012, May 21, I sent a letter to the Ways and Means chair encouraging that this exemption be--loophole--be fixed.

As you know, meaningful tax reform did not emerge from the last Congress. I remain absolutely committed to resolving this, as I know Bill Shuster has said so on the Record.

Besides that though, it has been years that we have been debating this, and we finally have a bill out of the Senate. They took a whole month on the other side. They considered lots of amendments. They adopted three. We are accepting those three amendments when this bill passes today, as we did not go to conference.

As we know, this is a jurisdictional issue, that neither our committee nor Transportation has jurisdiction over tax issues. That is why we were not able to include that provision here, and that is, frankly, why the Senate was not able to adopt it on the Senate side either, because it would have been a blue slip issue.

We view this on our side as a procedural issue. We don't want to send it back to the Senate. Who knows when we are going to get it back after the last month that they had.

I would urge my colleagues on our side to vote ``no'' on this procedural vote. To the folks on your side that are voting, just know that we remain committed to closing this loophole.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Alabama, and I thank her particularly for her persistent leadership and for her generosity with inviting so many Members to her district. We have enjoyed meeting her local officials, and we have enjoyed meeting the leadership of that great city and its great history.

We make a personal commitment to her that as we travel through Selma--and it captures the essence of a town of great history--that we recognize that there is a need to invest many dollars to preserve this great city and to preserve its history. We thank her for her leadership.

To the manager, the gentleman from Michigan, let me thank you very much for your eloquent statements. Isn't it important, Mr. Speaker, to see the number of leaders of our leadership--the majority leader, the minority leader, the whip, and the minority whip--here on the floor of the House joining us in this momentous occasion?

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of working for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, obviously at a very, very young age. It was in that atmosphere, out of their office on Auburn Avenue in Georgia, that I got the sense and the feeling of the moment of the history of Selma.

In the fictional yet truthful movie ``Selma,'' we are reminded of the song ``Glory.'' Today is an example of ``Glory.'' It is an example of the coming together of peoples around what is right, and it is a recognition that foot soldiers, though unknown even some 50 years later, are deserving of being pulled from the ashes of their last words to be able to say to them, ``Thank you.''

That is what this Congressional Gold Medal means to me and means to so many who were among the 600-plus that could be called the foot soldiers. Obviously, by working for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, I knew at that time Ambassador Andrew Young, Hosea Williams, James Orange, and a litany of others.

Certainly, as our Congresswoman from Selma has done, we pay tribute to our leader John Lewis who, himself, was brutalized as he attempted to exercise a simple right protected by the Bill of Rights, and that is the right to freedom of speech, freedom of access, and freedom of movement.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I join in the words of President Johnson on March 15, 1965, looking back over Bloody Sunday. He said:

I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of

democracy . . . At times, history and fate meet at a single

time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's

unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and

Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was

last week in Selma, Alabama.

Yes, it was simply just last week in the thinking of so many of us as we stand on the floor of the House.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Might I say, as we vote on this, we vote together. Might I say, as much as we vote, can we do it in action and vote to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act by simply restoring section 5, giving the Supreme Court what it needs, but recognizing the importance of protecting the right to vote?

In the name of Jimmie Lee Jackson who died trying to protect his mother and grandmother, in the name of Viola Liuzzo, and in the name of Reverend James Reeb, I ask that we stand here today and vote for this legislation to honor them, but vote for reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only as a proud supporter, but as a cosponsor, of H.R. 431, a bill authorizing the award of the Congressional Gold Medal to the ``foot soldiers of Selma,'' those heroic souls who risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to Montgomery in March 1965.

I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Terri Sewell of Alabama, for introducing this legislation paying fitting, and long overdue, tribute to those brave and determined men and women, boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, who loved their country so much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to bring it even closer to its founding ideals that all persons have dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to vote. I also want to thank Congresswoman Martha Roby.

Mr. Speaker, on March 15, 1965, before a joint session of the Congress and the eyes of the nation, President Lyndon Johnson explained to the nation the significance of ``Bloody Sunday'':

``I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of

democracy. . . .

``At times history and fate meet at a single time in a

single place to shape a turning point in man's unending

search for freedom.

``So it was at Lexington and Concord.

``So it was a century ago at Appomattox.

``So it was last week in Selma, Alabama.''

The previous Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote.

``Bloody Sunday'' was one of the defining moments in American history because it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American.

No one who witnessed the violence and brutally suffered by the foot soldiers for justice who gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge will ever forget it; the images are deeply seared in the American memory and experience.

Mr. Speaker, what is so moving, heroic, and awe-inspiring is that the foot soldiers we honor today faced their heavily armed oppressors fortified only by their love for their country and each other and the audacious faith that their cause was just.

The example set by the foot soldiers of Selma showed everyone, here in America and around the world, that there is no force on earth as powerful as an idea whose time has come.

So it is fitting and proper, Mr. Speaker, that we honor today the heroes--the foot soldiers--who won the Bathe of Selma and helped redeem the greatest nation on earth.

But we should not forget that this victory came at great cost and that many good and dear persons lost their lives to win for others the right to vote.

Men like Jimmy Lee Jackson, who was shot by Alabama state trooper as he tried to protect his mother and grandmother from being beaten for participating in a peaceful voting rights march in Marion, Alabama.

Women like Viola Liuzzo, a housewife and mother of five, who had journeyed to Selma from Detroit to join the protests after witnessing on television the events at Edmund Pettus Bridge on ``Bloody Sunday'' and who was shot and killed by Klansmen while driving back from a trip shuttling fellow voting rights marchers to the Montgomery airport.

Persons of faith, goodwill, and non-violence like the Reverend James Reeb of Boston, a minister from Boston who heeded the call of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to come to Selma and who succumbed to the head injuries he suffered at the hands of his white supremacists attackers on March 9, two days after Bloody Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, in the face of all this hostility, violence, brutality, and hatred, the foot soldiers of Selma would not be deterred--would not be moved--would not be turned around.

They kept their eyes on the prize and held on.

And help came the very next week when President Johnson announced to the nation that he would send to Congress for immediate action a law designed to eliminate illegal barriers to the right to vote by striking down ``restrictions to voting in all elections--Federal, State, and local--which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote.''

On August 6, 1965, that legislation--the Voting Rights Act of 1965-- was signed into law by President Johnson and for the next 48 years did more to expand our democracy and empower racial and language minorities than any act of government since the Emancipation Proclamation and adoption of the Civil War Amendments.

But our work is not done; the dreams of Dr. King and of all those who gave their lives in the struggle for justice are not behind us but still before us.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which severely crippled the Voting Rights Act, we have seen many states across our nation move to enact legislation designed to limit the ability of women, the elderly, racial and language minorities to exercise their right to vote.

In Texas alone, new voter ID laws are estimated to have prevented or deterred as many as 600,000 citizens from registering to vote in 2014.

To honor the memory of the foot soldiers of Selma, we must rededicate ourselves to a great task remaining before us--to repair the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by working to pass the Voting Rights Amendments Act of 2015, which I am proud to be one of the original cosponsors.

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated many times, the 1965 Voting Rights Act is no ordinary piece of legislation.

For millions of Americans, and for many in Congress, it is sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things.

As we honor the foot soldiers of Selma by voting to pass H.R. 431 awarding them the Congressional Gold Medal, let us resolve also to restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965, so that it remains a lasting monument to their heroism and devotion to the country they loved.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 431) to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Foot Soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, or the final Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March in March of 1965, which served as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record concerning H.R. 431, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this very important bill, H.R. 431, a bipartisan bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the foot soldiers, the courageous men and women who participated in historic days such as Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, and the final March from Selma to Montgomery to ensure voting rights for African Americans.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes, it is hard for people in today's society to realize the historical significance of the events that took place in the past. For younger people, it may seem like a lifetime ago, but for those who lived through those experiences, it may seem like it just happened yesterday.

One series of events that we cannot and must not allow to fade away are the historic marches that began in Selma in the spring of 1956. On March 7, 1965, led by two fearless men, the Reverend Hosea Williams and a man many in this Chamber know well, Representative John Lewis, 500 of those brave foot soldiers determined to have their voices heard and their right to vote be recognized as they bravely lined up at the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

These initial marchers were then brutally assaulted and beaten by Alabama State troopers as they attempted to cross the bridge, seeking to assert their constitutional right to vote. That atrocity became known as Bloody Sunday.

Two days later, nearly 2,500 foot soldiers, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., peacefully assembled and again attempted to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The group marched to where the attacks occurred a few days before on Bloody Sunday, and at Dr. King's request, they stopped and knelt in prayer. Following the prayer, the marchers turned around and returned to Selma.

Finally then, on March 21, under the protection of the U.S. Army, Federal marshals, and the federalized Alabama National Guard at that point, that group had swollen to 8,000 foot soldiers who were escorted safely for 54 miles from Selma to Montgomery.

By the time the march reached the steps of the State capitol, that group had grown to approximately 25,000 people strong there on those steps in Montgomery.

Mr. Speaker, instead of bringing the campaign to search for voting rights to a halt, 50 years ago, the photographs and blurry television images of that violent attack on Bloody Sunday on that bridge galvanized the national attention. In fact, the first march was a catalyst for action.

Just 5 short months after the first march, Congress had passed and President Johnson had signed into law the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, we, as a Nation, must do more to ensure voting rights are protected for all Americans, and in doing so, we must remember the sacrifices of those individuals who came before us and worked so tirelessly to make a difference and to create voting rights equality.

It is truly a privilege for me personally to stand before you today as Congress recognizes these brave men and women and the historical significance of those marches that began in Selma and forever changed the direction of our great Nation.

I thank the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) for highlighting these historic events, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 431.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), who is the lead cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), a member of the Committee on Financial Services, which has been dealing with this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished House majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I have no interest in politicizing this great bipartisan Gold Medal act that we currently have before us. And let's not turn this important act into a debate that will be, frankly, held in the Judiciary Committee, rather than on the House floor.

We know that the Voting Rights Act--being a man who represents a significant part of Gerald R. Ford's congressional district, it was men like him that were hand-in-hand, arm-in-arm with those in that movement that helped create the original Voting Rights Act. And I know that this body

can rise again to do the right thing and move forward in a bipartisan manner.

With that, Mr. Speaker, recognizing that the other side has numerous requests for time on this bill, particularly from the Congressional Black Caucus, I ask unanimous consent that 7 minutes of the majority's time be transferred and placed under the control of my good friend and colleague from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), who is the Democratic manager.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this moment.

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

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

To my friend, it is amazing to me today the irony as we talk about the Edmund Pettus Bridge, a man who served as the grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama, who just 100 years ago was serving in the U.S. Senate, and to have that be a symbol and discussed in the same breath as a man like John Lewis and Martin Luther King and so many others and in that short 50 years for us, even though we may be of a different political persuasion, for me to be here and witness the first African American to be President of these United States, what an amazing journey this has been.

Gone are the poll taxes, gone are the reading and history tests, gone are a number of those legal impediments and formal legal impediments that were there both in the North and in the South that dictated to someone where they could or couldn't live.

What has not gone--I am struck by this time and time again--is sin and hatred in human hearts. As C.S. Lewis talks about in his book ``Mere Christianity,'' by means of laws, a man can attempt to change a man's actions, but they will not succeed without a change to those men's hearts.

I think that is our legacy. I think that is our duty as Americans, and I think that is part of what we are doing here today--to honor, to recognize, and to celebrate, knowing that the journey is not done necessarily, knowing that we have other areas where we need to work on this as a society, but knowing that progress has been made.

It is truly an honor to be a part of this with you as well, my friend.

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