Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 1) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, and providing for proceedings during the period from February 16, 2015, through February 23, 2015.

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 thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, you are not permitted to sing in the House of Representatives, and I shall not do that; but I will take this opportunity to do as my colleagues in the Rules Committee did yesterday, a little bit in advance of my friend's birthday. Today is the birthday of my friend, Mr. Woodall. And as one who has had many more birthdays than he, I hope he has as many birthdays as me and many, many more. Happy birthday to you, Rob.

As my friends are already aware, the President has already said that he is going to veto this measure. We introduced last night the statement of the administration with reference thereto. That means that the likelihood that this bill will become law is highly improbable at best. I wish I was standing here under different circumstances. I wish that the House were about to vote on something it knows that the President will sign into law. I wish we were working on something that would actually help our economic recovery instead of hamstringing it.

I listened to my friend very attentively when he pointed out that the marketplace will dictate three different circumstances. One that he did not allude to that I will is that the marketplace will dictate where the oil, once refined if the Keystone pipeline is approved, the marketplace will dictate out there in that neverland where we don't participate, where the oil will go. Therefore, I want to make it very clear that I do not believe that it means that there will be cheaper prices in the United States of America.

I am standing here because House leadership would rather pass purely symbolic measures than work with the President. And I recognize that, as my friend has pointed out, that a long time has passed with reference to this measure. I did a little added research to determine what would Enbridge and the other companies up in Canada do in case there was no Keystone pipeline. In addition to rail, they also have plans to send oil east and west and plans to send it north. And, I might add, for all that same period of time, the resistance inside Canada, based on a number of circumstances having to do with the Beluga whale, all of the way back to farmers, having to do with environmentalists, the same as in our country, the same arguments, whether East, West, or North in Canada, have been going on while our debate has been going on here with reference to the Keystone pipeline.

The 113th Congress is going to be remembered, and I believe everyone now understands, as the least productive Congress ever. That is the one that we just came out of. However, it seems that the current Congress is going to take its best shot at accomplishing even less if we stay on the course that we are on. Virtually every bill that has come before the Rules Committee the House already passed in the 113th Congress. Most have no more hope of becoming law now than the last time around. We have yet to see one really new idea from the Republican leadership of this body, which has shown zero interest in actually doing its job, in my opinion.

How many more times are we going to have to vote to repeal so-called ObamaCare, a program that now unquestionably is improving the lives of some hardworking Americans. Instead, we are voting on bills handpicked for

their ability to demonstrate the Republicans' message of the week, regardless of chance of enactment, regardless of whether it is a good idea, regardless of whether it is something that will help everyday Americans. And because these bills are handpicked for specific purposes, most have come to the floor under a closed rule, which means that Members cannot change the measure in any way, not even to make it better and not even with bipartisan solutions.

A good example is so far this body has voted on 15 rules during this 114th Congress, of which 8 of those 15 have been closed. The closed rules we will pass this week will be numbers 9, 10, and 11. Listen, my friends, on this same measure last week and before, the United States Senate, operating under regular order that is now majority-led by Republicans, considered on this very same measure 18 amendments, six that were approved, and some of them that were offered were bipartisan.

Among the reasons I believe that the Senate majority leader determined that he would operate differently than the previous majority leader is so as to give his membership, smaller than ours, of course, an opportunity to participate in the process. All the more reason, I believe, that we should have open rules. We have new Members, too, as do they. We have Members that have ideas that may be bipartisan with reference to support and opposition to the Keystone pipeline. But no, we continue to operate under closed rules.

Do you know how many rules were closed at this same point in the last Congress? The most closed rules ever, six. The gavel might as well be a brick wall.

Furthermore, much of the legislation this Congress has voted on has evaded regular order, escaping the review, hearings, and markups that ensure appropriate deliberation and consideration. Those of us on the Rules Committee have a wonderful opportunity. We are becoming sort of like the place of first resort for legislation. It isn't coming from hearings. The American public doesn't get an opportunity to see the various committees. It just comes up to the Rules Committee and we massage it back and forth about what our views are, but it does not come under regular order.

Just like the original version of this bill, the House is considering the Senate version of this bill without a hearing or a markup.

These are not just academic procedural disagreements. It matters because Members are not able to represent their constituents. It matters because good ideas are being deliberately kept hidden.

I have been here a long time. I have seen some pretty great Congresses under Republican and Democratic control, and I have seen some pretty lousy ones.

But the last few years, this body has been like a hamster on a wheel, spinning and spinning, but never getting anywhere. You don't have to look farther than a couple of amendments the Senate made to this bill to see my friends spinning their wheels.

Climate change is real. Because a few Senators decided to get cute in parsing a few words, it is in the bill. We are going to vote on it. And then what?

Just yesterday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the United States Department of Agriculture is making more than $280 million available for rural agricultural producers and small business owners to apply for resources to purchase and install renewable energy systems or make energy efficiency improvements.

Once more, those funds were made available in the 2014 farm bill, which shows what Congress can accomplish when we work together. I might add, because farmers in this country have experienced a 37 percent reduction--and I, along with others, represent many of those rural areas--I am delighted that we were able to do that in the farm bill, and I am pleased that Secretary Vilsack made his announcement.

The Senate also included an amendment that finds that Congress should--as opposed to shall--require oil companies to pay an excise tax to fund oil spill cleanups.

While I appreciate this expression, the amendment effectively does nothing to mandate contributions to the oil liability trust fund. I would invite my colleagues on the other side to explain that. Tell us why it is that these oil companies should not be required to contribute in a mandatory manner to the oil liability trust fund. Instead, what is happening is we create the illusion that oil companies will actually be accountable in the event of a spill.

Alternatively, simply closing the tax loophole that allows oil and gas companies to deduct the cost of cleaning up oil spills would discourage oil spills and save hardworking American taxpayers an average of $1.3 billion per year.

The American people were led to believe that changing control of the Senate would lead to an end of this gridlock. But sadly, this has not been the case.

My friends are not going to be able to, like the hamster, spin their wheels continuously. Even the hamster gets tired. And sooner or later, when that hamster gets tired of the nonsense of spinning going nowhere, he either gets off or he falls off.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell both of us the remaining amount of time on both sides.

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

Here we are, only 17 days before the Republican Homeland Security shutdown and with just 6 legislative days left until the Department of Homeland Security shuts down on February 28, closing down many of the crucial Department of Homeland Security operations that have kept our country safe from terrorist attacks.

If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a clean version of the Department of Homeland Security funding bill. With such serious consequences, it is time to put politics aside in order to strengthen our homeland and protect American families.

To discuss our proposal, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, my colleague just said to me, as my friend was looking at the Associated Press' fact check, that it would seem that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security would know a little bit more about what he is doing than would a reporter. I would hope that that is the case.

I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), my classmate and good friend.

Madam Speaker, I would also take the opportunity to encourage the previous speaker to read Jefferson's Manual because some of the things he talked about on rules are not, at least, my understanding. So I accept his expertise on certain matters, but his ideas about what we can do in the minority strike me as strange.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would also advise my friend from Georgia that I have no further speakers. I don't know whether my friend from Georgia does or not.

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

I earlier asked several questions. I believe Mr. Cramer addressed one of them. I have yet another that I did not ask, and I am not asking him to respond.

I might add, I think those of us here in the body--and I said this to him when he was in the Rules Committee--I do believe Mr. Cramer from North Dakota really does have a comprehensive understanding of this matter.

While I disagreed with him about many matters, I do believe that he points out something that we need to pay attention to, in that there are already, without Keystone, a lot of pipelines in the United States of America, and in the period of time of this recent debate, there have been a lot of pipelines that have had spills and have caused major damage. Without getting into them, three of them have really been substantial. Shutoff valves become important.

We haven't discussed many of the things regarding the technology that has improved over time, but I keep hearing my colleagues talk about this being a jobs measure. Indisputably, if there were to be a pipeline built, there would be jobs.

I agree with my friends on the other side that most, if not all, construction jobs are temporary jobs, and there are those in labor unions who are very supportive of this matter for the reason that it would create jobs.

But I have in mind something that many of us have advocated for years. The greatest reminder occurred the night before last right here close to us, in Maryland, when a piece of concrete from a big, old bridge fell off and, fortunately, when I saw the lady on television, her car was damaged and she was frightened out of her wits. But she is alive and was unharmed. That is concrete off of a bridge.

There are thousands of bridges in this country, and all of us know that we could be about the business of dealing with our infrastructure, which would create a whole lot of jobs and not leave us to these ideological debates.

I might add, if we approve this matter, in order for people to litigate, they have to come here to the Federal Circuit in the District of Columbia. That does not make sense to me, and it precludes those who would want to bring actions from being able to do so. This legislation allows that as the only vehicle.

I might add, the litigation isn't concluded yet in many of the places where there may continue to be concerns--in South Dakota, where Mr. Cramer is close to--Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, and certainly in Nebraska.

In the midst of trying to combat all of the problems that we have here in this country, attaching conditions and ultimatums to fundamental legislation is not the way to go about addressing the policy that was earlier raised and that I will raise in the previous question with reference to immigration.

If my friends really want to debate immigration issues, they should work with us and the President to reach a comprehensive and bipartisan consensus. Perpetuating the Department of Homeland Security stalemate is as dangerous to our country's security as it is corrosive to our democratic process.

Please, let's stop the pointless politicking. Let's end these games of chicken with our national security. Pass a clean DHS funding bill, and let's get back to the business of the American people.

I didn't know that this was in the drawer in front of me. It kind of looks like a hamster. The wheel just keeps on spinning. But my little friend here is still with us and has, in many respects, like my friends, stopped, by virtue of his being inanimate, his spinning. And that is what the Republicans need to do: stop spinning like the hamster on the wheel and get on with the business of the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 100 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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, we are here today to talk about House Resolution 100, which provides a closed rule for consideration of S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act. Folks might find that a little unusual to talk about a bill that begins with the title S. 1, but there is a new day in Washington, D.C., that excites me, and it is that the ``open for business'' sign is there on the Senate side. It is not a function of Republicans doing this or Democrats doing that. It is a function of the process working the way that it should.

The first vote I took on the Keystone pipeline, Mr. Speaker, was back in 2011 when I was first elected to Congress. It passed the House by a wide bipartisan margin. It was never given the time of day in the United States Senate.

As we come here today, we are not just talking about approval of the Keystone XL pipeline in S. 1. We are talking about the inclusion of another bill that has passed time and time again, the Better Buildings Act. Mr. McKinley from West Virginia has language that would promote energy conservation across this land, a bill that has passed time and time again in this House but has never been passed by the Senate.

It is an opportunity here today, Mr. Speaker. It is an opportunity to do those things that the American people sent us here to do: bipartisan votes, commonsense legislation for the first time in a long time, Mr. Speaker, and what I hope will be the beginning of a long trend here in the U.S. House of Representatives.

As you listened to the Clerk read, Mr. Speaker, you heard that there are a lot of different points in this bill. It is not just a bill for consideration of S. 1. It is also a bill so that when the House is not in session in D.C. next week, the Speaker will have the ability to call the House back into session to continue to conduct business because the business must continue to go on. I am glad the Rules Committee was able to include that provision as well.

Seven years ago is when the permit process started on the Keystone XL pipeline, Mr. Speaker. Since seven years ago, longer than it took to build the Hoover Dam, we have been trying to approve a small section of pipeline. I say ``trying to approve'' somewhat loosely. I think if we had been committed to getting it done, we could have absolutely gotten it done. Again, it is a commonsense piece of legislation that decides rather than building a pipeline across Canada to carry oil to Canadian refineries, which will provide lots of jobs for Canadians, if our partner to the north is willing, we will build that pipeline through America to deliver that oil to American refineries to create Americans jobs.

This is not a bill that mandates that, Mr. Speaker. The marketplace is going to control this construction decision. The marketplace is going to control where the oil is refined, and the marketplace is going to control whether or not the oil comes out of the ground to begin with.

Too often, I think we have been treating the Keystone XL pipeline approval process as if it were an environmental decision. There are those who wish the United States would reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. I am one of those. I don't think there is any advantage to be had by putting all your eggs in one energy basket. I am in favor of an all-of-the-above strategy that makes sure that America's energy security--North America's energy security--is based on multiple-- multiple--avenues for energy production. But we do not get to decide in this Chamber whether or not the Canadians bring oil out of the ground. We only get to decide whether or not, once that oil comes out of the ground, it is moved with U.S. jobs and U.S. construction to U.S. refineries, or whether or not those jobs go elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, time and time again folks come to the floor and they say: Where are the jobs? Where is the jobs legislation? I am thrilled to be carrying this rule for the Rules Committee today, Mr. Speaker, because this is one of those jobs bills--bipartisan, common sense. And if we pass it here in the House today, Mr. Speaker, headed to the President's desk, that signature will change the lives of those hardworking Americans looking for jobs today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank my friend for his well wishes and to tell him I am sympathetic to the hamster wheel scenario that he describes.

I don't particularly enjoy these opening weeks of a new Congress, Mr. Speaker, because committees haven't gotten organized, legislation hasn't started to flow, and it puts the committee in the very unfortunate situation of having to act as the legislator, as the authorizer, to begin moving pieces of legislation to the floor.

That is unfortunate. But that is not the situation we are talking about today, Mr. Speaker. What we are talking about today is a bill that not only passed the floor of the House but went to the Senate, a bill that not just went to the Senate but went through that wonderful open debate process that my friend from Florida described and has now come back to us today.

Four years we have been trying to move this bill forward, Mr. Speaker. It is a closed rule here today so that we can act on the same legislation that the Senate has passed, so we can send this bill to the President's desk, so we can get off the hamster wheel of futility that my friend from Florida describes.

I am optimistic, Mr. Speaker. But it doesn't happen by itself. It happens with years and years of work.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), whose advocacy and leadership have made having this bill on the floor today possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 5 minutes.

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

I was just reading an article from the AP, which is doing a fact check on whether or not a conversation about

the Department of Homeland Security is a fair and honest conversation. They say, in reality, most people will see little change if the Department's flow is halted, and some of the warnings of doom are as exaggerated as they are striking. They go on to list word after word of folks announcing those warnings.

What is striking to me, Madam Speaker, is that, if we had the same open process going on in the Senate right now that the gentleman from Florida described--the great process that brought S. 1 to the floor--we would be bringing the Department of Homeland Security bill to the floor of the Senate as well; but, as you know, the Senate minority leader today is filibustering any effort to even bring this conversation to the floor, going back to the hamster wheel my friend from Florida described earlier.

How often do we hear that? How often do we hear about the procedural stunts that get in the way of doing the business that every single one of us knows our constituents sent us here to do?

This bill, though, is one about which we can be proud. This bill, though, is one that gets to the heart of what our constituents have asked us to do. This bill, though, has been done right from the start in a bipartisan way, in an open way, and it can make a difference for people tomorrow if we pass it on the floor of the House today and send it on to the President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to take the gentleman from Florida's advice and yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris), an expert on the appropriations process.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to the gentleman from Texas, my heart sits where his hearts sits--with American workers and American products. We build the best products in the world. There is absolutely no reason not to purchase the best products in the world to build something particularly as important as our pipeline.

The box we find ourselves in is that, candidly, some of us--in fact, I dare say all of us--are a little surprised the Senate was even able to move through this bill. I have not seen the Senate move like it has moved in this open process, in this expedient process. In the entire 4 years I have served in this institution, I have never seen it happen before.

It is a good bill. I don't take issue with the work the Senate did. It looks substantially similar to what we passed here in the House. We may never get a chance to send this bill to the desk.

Again, we are just trying to debate a small part of the appropriations process and the Senate right now can't even move into debate because of filibusters in the Senate.

So I say to my friend from Texas, I am absolutely sympathetic to his amendment. I would like to have an opportunity to debate more amendments on the floor of this House.

I think back to my early days here 4 years ago. We had a 3\1/2\-day what I call festival of democracy. We came down here and worked night and day on H.R. 1 until every Member had a chance to be heard. That is the way it ought to be done. And I regret that in this situation we did not have a chance to make the gentleman's amendment in order because it was a good amendment and it would absolutely be worthy of debate and consideration here on the floor of the House.

Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I also have no further speakers.

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

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

I may be an unnatural optimist, but I believe these 2 years that we are about to have in this institution are going to be the finest that I have seen in my lifetime. The reason I believe that is exactly because we are responding to the plea that my friend from Florida has made to get on about the business of the people.

It is hard being in the minority around here. It is hard. My friends on the other side of the aisle may feel like they are in the minority today. For the last 4 years, we had the Speakership in this Chamber, but I sure felt like I was in the minority.

The Senate, held by the party on the other side; the White House, the party on the other side--and things got to be about party, day in and day out, and it wore on me, wore on me.

That is not why I ran for Congress, Madam Speaker. It is not why you ran for Congress. It is not why any of my colleagues here ran for Congress. They ran for Congress to get about the business of the people.

We are 1 month and a week into this new session of Congress, and the Senate has already managed to do what it hasn't been able to do for 4 years, and that is hold an open debate and move legislation where Members had a chance to have their voice heard.

We have that measure in front of us today. The only thing standing between us and considering that measure, Madam Speaker, is passing this rule. I am excited about it. I am excited about it.

I am proud of what is in this underlying legislation. I am proud of the process that produced this legislation. I am proud of the leadership of folks like Mr. Cramer who moved it through the House first.

Now, this is the Senate version, but this is the process that folks have worked in tandem. This is a process that folks back home can be proud of.

Now, that is not to say every Member of this Chamber supports this legislation, Madam Speaker. They don't, and they have myriad reasons for choosing not to support this legislation, but the majority is going to work its will.

I don't mean the majority, the Republican majority. I mean the majority--let's have a show of hands, see where people stand--and Republicans and Democrats are going to stand together and say, I support these American jobs. They are going to say, I support our largest trading partner, which is Canada. They are going to say, I support finality on a process that began 7 years ago.

I long for the debate we will have on this House floor, and I hope the gentleman from Florida and I get to manage the rule when we bring the surface transportation bill to the floor of this House because America needs that surface transportation bill. We need to build America, Madam Speaker.

What does it say when getting approval for this pipeline consumed more time than the entire construction of the Hoover Dam? Have we so hamstrung ourselves with bureaucracy that we can no longer do those great building projects as a Nation?

I hope that the answer is no, but if the answer is yes, we have the ability in this Chamber to change it to no. We are a society that does great, great things. We do have responsibilities that are great, great responsibilities, and we cannot accomplish those in a partisan way. We cannot accomplish those without partnership and cooperation.

For the next 2 years, Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity to move bills out of a Republican-led Congress that get signed by a Democratic- led White House. That is kind of the way the Founding Fathers envisioned it, and I am pleased to be a small part of it today.

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

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 gentleman for yielding, and I thank my friends on the other side as well on the Rules Committee. I have been before them twice now on this topic and have enjoyed it immensely.

I might say as a word of encouragement with regard to the hamster wheel, because I share the same concerns, but I am also encouraged by the fact that we are actually passing the Senate bill today. As many times as we have tried to pass this, we have never been able to get it to the President's desk. That will happen soon. That is progress, and I think we ought to celebrate the progress of that.

With regard to being the least productive Congress, veto threats before voting on important things sort of leads to gridlock, I suppose. But I don't think that should stop us from doing our job and forwarding the ideas that our constituents have asked for. My constituents want the Keystone XL pipeline built.

What we are doing today, as was teed up by the gentleman from Georgia, is, of course, talking about a Senate bill. We passed H.R. 3 when I introduced it the first week in the House, a closed rule, as the gentleman from Florida said, a simple bill. We have passed similar bills in previous Congresses, well vetted. And my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, who is really the originator of this whole concept, introduced S. 1.

The other reason I think we should be encouraged is not only did the Senate have an open process, they voted on 47--at least 47--amendments. That is more than three times as many amendments on S. 1 as the Senate voted on in all of the bills last year. That is progress. That is not hamsters on the wheel.

I want to take a few minutes to describe the amendments that came over from the Senate and why I suggest to leadership--and I am pleased leadership accepted--that we just simply accept the Senate amendments and move this forward rather than going to conference, although I think that would have been a good exercise for a lot of us as well.

But there were a couple of amendments introduced that deal with energy efficiency programs, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, dealing with federally leased and owned property, as well as schools. It sets up programs and processes and gives authority to the Department of Energy to sort of coordinate energy efficiency issues in programs and projects, which I think is a noble goal.

There is that sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax. Now, we can throw that out as sort of meaningless. But the reality is that a statement like that passed 98-1 by the Senate is a pretty strong statement. I think the President ought to view that as currency--as currency. He argues that Keystone, because oil sands are somehow supposed to emit more greenhouse gas emissions than other production--I am here to tell you it is not true, and I will point out the very specific facts on that.

But in the spirit of compromise, he has this statement that I think provides currency for him to go to Paris next December and say: This is the sense of the Congress of the United States. I hope he views it as a positive.

Senator Mikulski has that amendment--which the gentleman from Florida spoke to--the sense of the Senate that all forms of unrefined and unprocessed petroleum should be subject to the nominal per-barrel excise tax associated with the spill fund.

While it says it is the sense of the Senate and it isn't put into law, I think it is important to note that we are talking about a tax, an excise tax that is placed on domestic crude, for sure, not placed on--if you can imagine this now--bitumen. Bitumen is the product that comes from the oil sands, and because bitumen is not in the Tax Code, it is not subject to the excise tax. That should be corrected. We should do that in the proper order, probably through the Ways and Means Committee.

That said, it is important to note that TransCanada is 100 percent responsible for spills and cleaning them up. I sited the first Keystone pipeline through the State of North Dakota, 600 landowners' land. They had some issues in the early going at one of the pumping stations. They did clean it up. It didn't contaminate water or the surrounding area. All of the tools worked properly.

My point is that they are responsible, and that is as per each State's law. This line will be permitted in each State, and they have to be responsible for cleanup.

Another one, Senator Cornyn had an amendment: Land or interest in land for the pipeline may only be acquired through constitutionally appropriate means. That only makes sense. Maybe it doesn't need to be stated, but it is important to state, similar to the Barrasso amendment that clarifies that treaties with Indian tribes must remain in effect. That should be obvious as well, but it doesn't help to restate those important points.

I think that these amendments are important amendments, they are good amendments, and they help broaden the appeal of the bill.

I want to take this map down and I want to speak to just a few of the merits of the Keystone pipeline bill because I know them very well, the extraordinary benefits of Keystone XL.

Employment opportunities--Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. State Department, 42,000 jobs will be supported by the construction. I can assure you, having been on the construction site of the original Keystone bill, it is true. These are real jobs. These are good jobs. Some people refer to them as temporary jobs. Referring to a pipeline project as temporary is like referring to a wind farm as only temporary construction.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the gentleman from Georgia. Thank you.

But all construction jobs are temporary until the construction is done and you move on to the next project. There are thousands of miles of pipeline under the ground in the United States. The steel workers, the truck drivers, the backhoe operators, the welders, and the local hotels and restaurants and retailers benefit tremendously. This is the make-or-break in many cases for some of these smaller businesses that benefit from the construction of this dynamic economy.

Energy security--we can't overstate energy security. We are talking about displacing Venezuelan oil. We are talking about displacing Middle East oil. In fact, the 830,000 barrels per day that will run through the Keystone pipeline into U.S. refineries is equal to about 50 percent of what we import from the Middle East. That is security.

When we talk about energy independence, that is one thing. Security means that we have our security in our own hands, and we are not subject to bad guys from other parts of the world; that, in fact, we are part of the security solution. And it relates directly to national security, I might add.

Enhanced safety--I was a pipeline regulator for years. There is no safer way to move crude oil than by a pipeline. It is the most efficient and it is the safest by far.

We have seen some of the things that happened when we cluttered our highways. In fact, the Department of Transportation in North Dakota anticipates the saving of three to six fatalities on the roads in North Dakota if this pipeline is built because, remember, it is not all Canadian oil sands. About a quarter of this capacity is reserved for Bakken crude oil as well. That removes a lot of trucks from our roads. That is much safer for the traveling public.

Trains--another issue we have. We have a lot of trains. This would represent 10 trains a week that could be hauling food to hungry people rather than oil to the marketplace.

Environmental protection--we hear a lot about the environment and the issues pertaining to it, and rightfully so. The good news is that after 6\1/2\ years of study, this is the most environmentally studied pipeline and the most sophisticated and highest-tech pipeline in the history of the world.

In fact, moving oil by rail actually emits 1.8 times more CO2 into the air than moving it by pipeline. Moving it by truck emits 2.9 times more CO2 than does moving it by pipeline. Moving it by barge to China, where it will be refined with far lower environmental standards than the United States, that is priceless.

Exchange with Canada--I don't think we should understate the importance of our relationship. Our number one trading partner, $2 billion a day of goods and services travels between our two countries-- our top trading partner and best friend, Canada.

If we were doing this to Canadians and to Canadian companies, or if they were doing this to us, I can't imagine how we would respond. I have worked closely with the Embassy. I have worked closely with the new Premier, Premier Jim Prentice, from Alberta, who, by the way, just won the election this last fall on the pro-environmental stewardship platform.

Exchange with Canada is so important. We need to restore and care for that important relationship. I would rather enhance that relationship, quite frankly--and it gets right back to this energy security issue-- than be fighting over oil or fighting to protect the transportation of oil in other places.

At the end of the day, with everything else that has gone on and with these other important issues, to me, the final thing is this, and it is what I would say to the President, Mr. Speaker:

You have asked for bipartisan bills. You have asked for us to work together. Here we have a bipartisan, bicameral solution, one that the American public supports in a big way, one that would create jobs, one that would lift up the middle class, Mr. President.

I would just beg, Mr. Speaker, that the President would reconsider his veto threat on this important bipartisan jobs bill and sign it when it goes to his desk so that we can get people back to work, can become less dependent on foreign sources of oil from across the sea, and can become more interdependent with our neighbors in Canada.