Safer Prescribing of Controlled Substances Act

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

Well, it is Groundhog Day come early to the floor of the House. It is cold enough I guess for Groundhog Day, but this will be the 10th time in the last 4 years that the House of Representatives has moved this bill with the assertion that somehow it leads us to energy independence, energy security, lower prices at the pump.

Well, the reality is a Canadian corporation is going to build a pipeline from Canada to Texas. They are going to be exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, unlike most other projects in this country, because of a stupid ruling by the IRS--but that is nothing new--regarding tar sands. So they will be exempt from paying into that. So if this thing bursts, there is an accident, the taxpayers of the United States get the bill, not the taxpayers of Canada. They don't get the bill. The taxpayers of the United States get the bill. Now, that is one of a number of problems regarding this project.

It is somewhat unprecedented, I believe. This may have happened at some other time in American history, but I do find it particularly ironic today, when we had the reading of the Constitution, that the effect of passing this bill, if it were to become law--and the President has already said he will veto it. But if this were to become law, the effect would be to give a foreign corporation the right to take private property from American citizens.

I am not aware of any other time in the history of the Union where we have given a foreign corporation the right to take Americans' private property. And, yes, some people were happy to sell the rights, but many others weren't, including some in Nebraska and some in Texas. It has been quite contentious among landowners who are just having this corporation come.

I would like to put in the Record a letter from TransCanada. We have blacked out the name of the recipient of the letter, but it is a true copy of a letter to a person who will have their private property taken by eminent domain by a foreign corporation, and the foreign corporation informs them that they will begin proceedings this month, I guess because of the anticipated Republican action, to take their private property away.

TransCanada,

Omaha, NE, December 8, 2014

Re Keystone XL Project Update.

Dear Landowner: While we continue to wait for decisions

from the Nebraska Supreme Court and from the U.S. Department

of State regarding our proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, I would

like to provide you with an update on our project.

To date, Nebraska landowners have voluntarily granted us

easements representing 84 percent of the required right-of-

way for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. We continue to work

to acquire the remaining land rights. In Montana and South

Dakota, we have acquired easements for 100 percent of the

privately owned right-of-way.

Between September 2008 and earlier this year, five

successive sets of extensive public comments were taken and

five successive independent environmental assessments were

published by the State Department. Each review confirmed the

safety and environmental soundness of the project. The State

Department is continuing its review of our Presidential

Permit application and will ultimately make a determination

whether the project is in the national interest. The State

Department has not announced a definitive timeline for

reaching that decision.

In addition, reviews have been completed separately by the

States of Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota. As with the

federal reviews, these state reviews included extensive

public input. Each resulted in state approval of the project.

In South Dakota, the South Dakota Public Utilities

Commission approved the project in 2010. Because construction

did not begin within four years, we must certify that the

pipeline continues to meet the conditions upon which the

permit was issued. We have initiated the certification

process and we expect a decision in 2015.

The State of Nebraska enacted legislation in 2011 and in

2012 requiring state review of the proposed Keystone XL

Pipeline route. The Governor approved the route in January

2013, after a year-long public review process overseen by the

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Following a

legal challenge of the new law, a lower court determined that

the law was not valid and that the review should have been

overseen by the Nebraska Public Service Commission. The

Nebraska Attorney General appealed the lower court ruling to

the Nebraska Supreme Court and the Court is expected to make

a ruling later this year or early next year.

Pending a decision on the appeal, the law remains in effect

as does the resulting Keystone XL route. In the event that

the Nebraska Supreme Court affirms the lower court ruling

invalidating the new law, we would expect a second Nebraska

review to be required, this time by the Nebraska Public

Service Commission.

If instead, the Nebraska Supreme Court reverses the lower

court ruling, affirming the validity of the existing state

review, we expect that other aspects of that law would remain

in effect as well. One of those aspects affects the timing

available to complete negotiations to acquire remaining

property rights in Nebraska. If parties ultimately are not

able to reach voluntary agreement on acquisition of necessary

land rights for the project, we are required to commence the

legal process of eminent domain to obtain those rights within

two years of the January 2013 Nebraska approval.

We recognize that the Supreme Court ruling may not be

issued before we are required to take action in preparation

for the existing January 2015 deadline. While we would prefer

not to initiate the process to acquire outstanding land

rights while there is uncertainty, we are bound by that

deadline in order to meet our responsibility to continue to

prepare to build the pipeline necessary to safely transport

North American energy.

Regardless of your perspective on the project, we would

welcome the opportunity to address your questions and

concerns and discuss property-specific details for pipeline

construction. When we are able to work with landowners to

achieve mutual agreement where possible, we are better able

to minimize potential effects of construction on land and

operations.

A member of my land team will follow-up with you or your

legal counsel. If you have not heard from us or if you have

questions, you are welcome to contact me. If you would like

to see an operating pipeline, please let us know and we'd be

happy to arrange for a

tour of a pump station on the operating Keystone line in

Nebraska.

Sincerely,

Andrew Craig,

Manager--Land, Keystone Projects,

TransCanada Pipelines, USA.

Now, that is a bit ironic, again, on the day we read the Constitution and also of the party of individual rights for property owners. So that is also of concern.

Yes, there will be construction jobs, and I am the first to admit we need more jobs in America. In fact, I voted against the President's so- called stimulus bill because it didn't invest enough in building infrastructure in this country. Instead, it did a whole bunch of stupid tax cuts because of Larry Summers, a highly acclaimed hack economist, and we didn't put a lot of people back to work. Seven percent went to infrastructure, that created jobs; 42 percent went to tax cuts, didn't create jobs. But that is another agenda the Republicans are pursuing is tax cuts to create jobs, but we won't get into that here today.

So, yes, that will happen, but there are a lot of other investments we should, could, and I believe the chairman supports making that will create significant construction and infrastructure jobs.

Now, were this just in isolation and it didn't involve the total destruction of the boreal forests of Canada, if I were Canadian I would be pretty upset about that; and perhaps the dirtiest, most environmentally problematic way of extracting fossil fuels from the ground to get these oil sands, the construction jobs might carry the day, but sometimes you have to draw a line.

In this case, we also hear it is going to lead somehow to energy security. Well, that is interesting because the crude, tar sand oil, or whatever you want to call it, is going to come down to Texas without paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund--creating a potential problem for the future taxpayers of the United States--go to a refinery in an export zone in Texas, and, yes, it will be refined and then it will be exported.

We are exporting millions of gallons of fuel every day, so to somehow say this is going to lead to lower prices at the pump in America--maybe it is lower prices at the pump in China or I don't know where else, Japan or someplace, but it isn't going to be here because the product is ultimately going to be exported. So it is also not going to do anything for our energy security, and at the moment we have kind of a surfeit because of fracking and other things of fuels, and prices are down considerably.

So those are just a few of the problems.

And by passing this bill, the House of Representatives will attempt to preempt the executive authority of the President in this matter because this pipeline crosses an international border. The President has authority, and the State Department has been considering it.

And even with the Supreme Court of Nebraska refusing to make a judgment, they didn't uphold the law of the Nebraska legislature. In fact, four out of seven judges--normally a majority in most places-- said it was unconstitutional, but Nebraska has a peculiarity that if the other three judges take a walk--which they did--then even though a majority found it unconstitutional, it is not found unconstitutional, and that is the end of the proceeding.

So that is the big news out of Nebraska. They need a little work on their constitution, I think. So it hasn't received a stamp of approval there. There are still aggrieved landowners in Nebraska who object to the route and who are going to have their private property taken by a foreign corporation. So other than that, it is a great idea.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time remains of the 15 minutes that I had?

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

The gentleman just referenced safely transport. Of course that is a hypothetical. And let me give a real example:

In 2010, a Canadian company, Enbridge, had a pipeline burst in Marshall, Michigan, spilling 1 million gallons of tar sands oil.

Now, here is the thing. All oil has viscosity and other characteristics. The thing about tar sands oil is, it doesn't float. It goes right to the bottom. They are still dredging Canadian tar sands oil out of the bottom of the Kalamazoo River 4 years later. And so far, claims of $53 million have been made, which will have to be paid by American taxpayers against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and not by Enbridge, the Canadian corporation.

Which is what we are setting up here: an even greater transshipment by a foreign corporation, exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, creating even bigger potential for spills with this oil, which has unique characteristics which are much more difficult to clean up if it comes in contact with water and, God forbid, it gets into the aquifer in one of the States that are being transected.

The chairman did reference the 15 hearings. We have a difference in counting. But let's say 15 hearings. Three were in the Rules Committee. Those aren't hearings. That is sort of a little star chamber where you take things before you bring them to the floor of the House. You don't discuss substance there. One was in the Senate. There were 10 in the House, but not a single one of those hearings was in the principal committee of jurisdiction, which would be the Transportation Committee. And of course the bill that was marked up by the Transportation Committee in the first session of the last Congress was very different than the bill that is being advocated for today, which has not been marked up.

And we heard a lot about regular order, read the bill, and all that stuff. It is fine to say, gee, we have voted on this a lot of times before. With 61 new Members of the House, gas prices are down by almost 50 percent, a lot of things have changed. I would even wonder about the viability of this project.

I did just recently learn that the Koch brothers, though, have a significant investment in tar sands in Canada. But that probably has nothing to do with an attempt to expedite this project.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this moment, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

In response to the transport, yes, pipelines are generally safer, but the

consequences--look at the case in Michigan--when a pipeline goes are generally much greater, much greater volumes.

Even in the horrific train accidents we have had, the volumes were relatively small that were spilled, even though the consequences-- particularly in the one in Canada--were very, very damaging. Minimally, you should have added to the bill requiring them to pay into the oil spill liability trust fund. That would make that slightly less objectionable.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are exporting more than 60 percent of the oil that we produce every day either as refined or even as crude product. In this case, Canadian oil, exempt from a tax, will flow

through the United States to a refinery.

It will be processed and exported overseas. Somehow, that is going to lower prices further at the pump. Somehow, that is going to lead to American energy security.

You have to blow the dust off those arguments. They are a little dated, so we have raised a number of concerns here today.

Minimally--minimally--the Republicans should require this Canadian corporation to pay the same tax that most U.S. corporations pay when they transport products through pipelines and not put American taxpayers at risk.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 19, I call up the bill (H.R. 3) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I enthusiastically rise today to support H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act. And for those who have not heard, according to the administration, the

final hurdle has been removed, and that is that the Nebraska Supreme Court this morning has approved the pathway for the pipeline, the routing of the pipeline, the Keystone XL pipeline.

Again, the administration has said that was the major hurdle. It has fallen. So I hope the President is not going to establish another hurdle, that being himself.

America is undergoing an energy renaissance, and the prospect of securing North American energy independence is in sight. However, to achieve our goal of energy security, we need to make sure we have the infrastructure in place to keep pace with the changing energy landscape. Keystone will be a critical addition to the Nation's pipeline network, increasing our supply of oil and helping to reduce its cost.

The State Department completed its environmental analysis a year ago. However, there has still been no action by the administration on the pipeline.

There is simply no reason to delay this important project. As I mentioned, the President's main argument in this premature veto threat is that the bill would authorize the pipeline despite uncertainty due to ongoing litigation in Nebraska. Well, that uncertainty has ended this morning, and the Supreme Court of Nebraska has allowed the planned route to go forward in Nebraska. Again, there is simply no reason to delay. In fact, the southern leg of the pipeline has already been built.

In March 2012, in Oklahoma, the President expressed his support for expediting construction for the southern leg of the Keystone pipeline, and I agree with the President when he stated at that ceremony that he was directing his administration to cut through red tape, break through bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority to go ahead and get it done. It was the right thing to do then, it is the right thing to do now, and it is exactly what this bill does.

We should move forward because this pipeline will be a tremendous boon to the economic development and one that doesn't require a single Federal dollar. The very nature of infrastructure improvement creates jobs, and Keystone is no exception.

I know my colleagues have made the argument that it is only temporary, but every infrastructure job is a temporary job. When a road is completed, when a bridge is completed, when a pipeline is completed, those construction workers move on to hopefully other construction jobs.

Indeed, five unions representing over 3 million workers--and I repeat that to my Democratic colleagues, five unions representing 3 million hardworking Americans--support this project, and I would like to submit their letter in the Record for support of this project.

International Brotherhood

of Teamsters,

Washington, DC, November 17, 2014.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator: I am writing to express the support of the

International Brotherhood of Teamsters for S. 2280, a bill to

approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline

project has been subjected to over six and one-half years of

scrutiny, including review by 10 federal agencies, as well as

numerous state and local agency reviews. We believe that it

is time to end the delay and to move forward with the

construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. We ask you to

support S. 2280 when it comes to the Senate floor this week.

The Teamsters Union believes that the Keystone XL Pipeline

will contribute to enhanced energy security, economic

prosperity and, of critical importance, the creation of good

paying jobs. Unemployment in the building and construction

workforce remains too high. Construction of the pipeline will

provide much needed and good paying jobs for this workforce.

The utilization of a project labor agreement will enhance the

safety, technical performance, reliability and quality of the

project as well as maximize employment opportunities for

local residents along the proposed corridor. Further, the

fifty-seven special conditions agreed to for the project will

provide an even greater degree of safety than any typically

constructed domestic oil pipeline.

If the pipeline is not built, important socioeconomic

benefits will not be realized--the positive impacts of local,

state and federal revenue, spending by construction workers,

and spending on construction goods and services. Building the

Keystone XL Pipeline will enhance U.S. energy and economic

security. It is time to move forward without further delay.

Sincerely,

James P. Hoffa,

General President.

I want to name them off. It is the Teamsters; it is the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; it is the Laborers' International Union of North America; it is the Operating Engineers; it is the pipefitters of the United States and Canada all supporting this project. Again, they see it as positive economic impact.

When these jobs are completed, they will move on to other, hopefully, construction jobs; but what is left behind will have a positive impact to our economy, to job creation for a generation.

Our energy renaissance is helping make North America more secure and energy independent, and, in fact, I want to quote the President:

In this time of significant political uncertainty in key

oil-producing countries and regions, and in the context of a

difficult economic situation, non-OPEC Canada crude oil

supplies advance the energy security of the United States.

Now, I wish he would have said that about this pipeline, but he didn't. He said it in 2009 about the Enbridge pipeline, which started transferring oil sands from Canada to the gulf coast last month. The President, 5 years ago, supported this type of thing. He should support it now. So other than politics, I don't understand why he hasn't approved this project as he did with Enbridge. It is time to build.

Ladies and gentlemen, I especially look to my Democratic colleagues. Let's put down our gloves. Let's do something positive for America, for those 3 million union workers that are out there supporting this. Let's do what is good for the environment. Let's do what is good for energy independence.

Finally, let's be fair to our greatest friends in the world, our Canadian neighbors. They allowed us to build a pipeline across their land. We should allow them to do the same in ours. They are our best allies. They are our greatest friends. They are a great neighbor. So let us, today, pass this bill and build the Keystone pipeline.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I just want to remind my Democratic colleagues that, first of all, I am from Pennsylvania. Punxsutawney is several miles outside of my district. That is where Punxsutawney Phil resides. So I am somewhat knowledgeable on Groundhog Day. And I just want to point out to my Democratic colleagues that in the movie ``Groundhog Day,'' Bill Murray learned from his mistakes the day before and improved his situation each day. So hopefully today, your references to your learning from yesterday and how we can move forward--I think the Nebraska situation improves the whole situation for all of us. And I certainly don't question the wisdom of the Nebraska Supreme Court.

And with that, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I just want to say that there have been 15 hearings on the Keystone pipeline. This is the 10th time we have debated it on the floor. This, quite possibly, could be the most debated piece of legislation in the history of Congress. I don't know that for sure. But I do know that it has been out there for 2,303 days, and 60 percent of the American people support it, while 20 percent don't support it. So I think the American people are fully aware of what is going on here. They understand it, and they do support it.

With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would just like to remind the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation Committee, arguably the most knowledgeable man in Congress when it comes to transportation issues, with many years of service plus an intellect that is very sharp--I would never presume to tell him--I just want to remind him that the safest way to move product, to move oil is by pipeline. And I think the gentleman knows that, but I just wanted to remind him of that.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), a Nebraskan.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

Mr. Speaker, the final hurdle has been removed. The Nebraska Supreme Court has said that the Keystone pipeline can move forward. That should be enough for my Democratic colleagues.

But there is more. It is safe. It is the safest way to transport this oil, this natural resource. It is the most studied pipeline. It is going to be safe and environmentally sound. It will protect the environment. It creates jobs. Don't listen to me; listen to the five unions that represent 3 million workers. Three million union workers say the Keystone pipeline should be built.

Mr. Speaker, it provides energy security for us, it is good for our economy, and it helps our allies--it strengthens our allies, and it weakens our enemies.

The last point is it is fair to our best friends in the world, the Canadians, who have allowed us to build a pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48. We ought to return the favor to our best friend--our best ally--and say: ``Yes, you can build a safe pipeline, you can build a pipeline that will help all of North America, that will help all of our allies around the world and weaken our enemies.''

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

I am in agreement with the chairman of Energy and Commerce. This is, again, something to be dealt with on a tax bill.

Two things that are good have happened today. One, the Nebraska Supreme Court has removed the final hurdle to move this bill forward; and number two, my good friend from California and I agreed today on something--that this thing should be dealt with. But this is not the place or the time to deal with it.

Moving forward, we want to make sure that this is dealt with in the proper way, and I believe that the Ways and Means Committee will do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we are voting once again to grant special treatment--and I stress ``special treatment''--to TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline. It is the 10th time since Republicans took control of the House.

American families face many pressing problems, and they want us to use this new Congress to work together to solve them. Unfortunately, we will begin this new year with a bill crafted solely to help the Canadian tar sands industry. The administration issued a statement in opposition to this legislation and indicated that the President will veto the bill. I heard my Republican colleagues talk about the action or inaction, whatever it was, by the Nebraska Supreme Court today; but I would stress that the White House press office still says in a statement that regardless of the Nebraska ruling today, the House bill still conflicts with longstanding executive branch procedures regarding the authority of the President and prevents the thorough consideration of complex issues that could bear on U.S. national interests, and if presented to the President he will veto the bill. So the bill will still be vetoed by the President, which is another indication why we are wasting our time today.

Mr. Speaker, oil prices are at their lowest level in more than 5 years. Gas prices are now below $2 a gallon. Domestic U.S. oil production is skyrocketing. Tar sands are among the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive of

all fossil fuels. Approving the Keystone XL pipeline will create a dependence on tar sands crude, reversing the carbon pollution reductions we have been working so hard to accomplish. According to some experts, building the Keystone XL pipeline will triple production of the tar sands, and that is totally inconsistent with any future scenario for avoiding catastrophic climate change.

We don't need this oil. Approving and constructing this pipeline won't lower gas prices for Americans. In some areas, it may even raise prices. This pipeline is a terrible deal for the United States. We get all of the risk while the oil companies will reap all of the rewards.

I was at the Rules Committee the other night and all I kept hearing was how wonderful Canada is, how we have to help Canadian companies. This is all about Canada. Frankly, I don't know why we are so worried about a Canadian corporation. It wasn't clear during the Rules Committee hearing, based on the conversations and debate we had with the Republican side, that this pipeline would even ever be built. And yet here we are rushing to basically say to the President: We don't care what you or the State Department or the Department of the Interior says what is in the national interest; we are just going to do this because of some Canadian interest.

Mr. Speaker, this is a new year and a new Congress. We have new Members who will vote on this bill without the benefit of any hearings or markups or floor amendments, without the benefit of learning how our changing energy picture alters the need for this pipeline, and without considering whether our time might be better spent on efforts to promote other cleaner energy sources.

We need sound energy policy in these challenging times. As the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I am anxious to begin working with all of my colleagues on pragmatic energy policy; but we need a balanced energy policy, one that takes into account current circumstances, one that takes into account our need to combat climate change, and one that works with the President rather than against the President to actually deliver legislation that the President can sign rather than veto. This legislation doesn't meet any of these criteria, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time is available on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Keystone XL pipeline moves us in exactly the wrong direction: enabling production of the dirtiest crude oil on the planet to expand and increasing our carbon pollution for decades to come.

We still have a lot of work to do to cut our carbon pollution and avoid catastrophic carbon change. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just hit 400 parts per million for the first time in human history.

Although this administration is making great progress, we are far from achieving our pollution reduction goals, and the need to act is more urgent than ever. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' The President is going to veto this legislation. It is just a political exercise at this point.

Again, it bothers me that I hear so much from the other side about trying to help this Canadian company. We should be concerned about the United States. We should be concerned about the world and the environment that results from climate change and the continued production of greenhouse gases.

My concern and the concern of the President is that this is simply not legislation that has been proven to be, so

far, in the national interest. The President is just asking for more time to make that determination.

Vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I just heard a word that is almost hard to believe. We have been accused of expediting this process. Ladies and gentlemen, this is day 2,303 of this process. It is time now.

It is time because it is good for job creation. It is time because it is good for the environment. It is not just the safest way, as the chairman said; the most environmentally sound way to move tar sands oil is in a pipeline. It is good for national security. It is good for economic security. It is good because 62.8 percent of labor force participation is the lowest since 1978. It creates jobs. And it is for these reasons that not only does the majority of the United States House and the majority of the United States Senate support it, but it is because of these reasons that the vast majority of the people of the United States support it, including the people of Nebraska. And for those reasons, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to address a couple of things.

First of all, I will place in the Record letters I received from the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council and Caterpillar.

January 7, 2015.

Hon. Kevin Cramer,

Longworth Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Cramer: The Small Business &

Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) and our nationwide

membership of business owners and entrepreneurs strongly

support H.R. 3, the ``Keystone XL Pipeline Act.''

Delays in approving this important project cannot be

justified on any grounds. This is a critical energy supply

and security issue, as well as being vital for U.S. economic

growth, job creation and small business development.

This project means quality job growth, new business

formation, and an increase in oil supplies from reliable

sources. The building and operation of Keystone XL would

benefit small businesses via affordable energy and economic

growth. Small businesses within the energy sector would see

growth opportunities as a result of the pipeline's

construction and operation. An underreported fact is that the

U.S. energy sector is dominated by small businesses.

Consider the latest U.S. Census Bureau data:

Among oil and gas extraction businesses, 91.1 percent of

employer firms in 2011 had less than 20 workers.

Among oil and gas pipeline and related structures

construction businesses, 65.5 percent of employer firms in

2011 had less than 20 workers.

And among oil and gas field machinery and equipment

manufacturing businesses, 57.6 percent of employer firms in

2011 had less than 20 workers.

Among support for oil and gas operations businesses, 83.3

percent of employer firms in 2011 had less than 20 workers.

Among drilling oil and gas wells businesses, 79.8 percent

of employer firms in 2011 had less than 20 workers.

The energy business is all about small business. A new

study released by SBE Council on November 13, 2014, found

that small businesses are driving America's energy

renaissance. For example, from 2005-2012, construction

businesses related to oil and gas pipeline and related

structures grew by 12.2 percent among firms with less than 20

workers; oil and gas extraction businesses grew by 4.1

percent among firms with less than 20 workers; businesses

drilling oil and gas wells grew by 7.9 percent among firms

with less than 20 workers; businesses supporting oil and gas

operations grew by 29.1 percent among firms with less than 20

workers; and manufacturing businesses related to oil and gas

field machinery and equipment grew by 8.5 percent among firms

with less than 20 workers. It is important to understand that

during this same period, the total number of small and mid-

size employer firms declined, but the opposite was true in

the energy sector. Construction of Keystone XL would mean

increased small business growth, opportunities for

entrepreneurs, and a stronger economy for America.

A vote in favor of H.R. 3 is a vote for small business and

quality job creation. Thank you for considering America's

small business sector on this critical issue. SBE Council and

its members look forward to House passage of H.R. 3.

Sincerely,

Karen Kerrigan,

President & CEO.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the climate change issue because I think it is an important issue to a lot of people.

The argument that the other side makes is based on the false idea that somehow oil sands are not going to be developed without the United States. It is. Moving anything by rail is 1.9 times more the emissions of CO2 than moving it by pipeline. Moving it by truck creates 2.8 times the CO2 emissions as moving it by pipeline. Moving it by barge to China is priceless.

Mr. Speaker, do you like cheap oil? Most Americans would say ``yes,'' and a number of us have strongly pursued a North American energy independence plan for years, and our friend, Canada, is a big part of that.

In August of 2009, President Obama signed off on a new pipeline called the Alberta Clipper. Guess what? It brings 400,000 barrels of oil a day from western Canada to the United States.

We have been waiting for the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline for years--over 6 in fact. I remember well when President Obama promised to do whatever it takes to create American jobs. That was followed by a so-called year of action; yet here we are, 6 years later, and nothing has happened.

By the administration's own estimates, tens of thousands of jobs will be supported by this landmark project. Bringing oil from Canada to the U.S. displaces imports from Venezuela and the Middle East. Isn't that a good thing?

I also note that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled that she was inclined to support the project, and that was way back in 2010.

In fact, in the summer of 2011, the White House issued its first veto threat against congressional action on the Keystone XL, claiming that legislation was unnecessary because their process was working and a decision would be reached by the end of that year. Since then, we have upgraded new oil and gas pipeline standards, and Keystone will exceed those, Mr. President, as it should.

We used to be a nation of big ideas and big dreams. We imagined building the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge and accomplished both in far less time than it has taken the President to muster the courage to simply say ``yes'' or ``no.'' We can do better.

The election, Mr. President, is over. There has been broad, bipartisan support for this project from the very first day. The President has been hiding behind the Nebraska court case to block the critical jobs project called Keystone XL, and with that contrived roadblock cleared, the White House is now out of excuses. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the motion to recommit, and I would just say to all my colleagues: our side certainly views that as a procedural issue, not as a real amendment.

I would say that in the markup that we had on this bill in earlier years, I pledged to work with Mrs. Capps on our committee to find a solution that would be fair to the bill.

I support the concept of what the gentleman is doing, and in fact, I sent a letter in 2012 to the then-chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp, asking for help on this, and we were hoping that we would see comprehensive tax reform, and this would have been included as part of that.

But that did not happen. We didn't get tax reform.

So as this bill comes forward, a review does have to be made in terms of how to treat crude oil derived from oil sands for the purposes of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. But I have to say that really is a Ways and Means issue, now a Transportation issue, not an Energy and Commerce issue.

I know that this issue is going to be raised in the Senate with an amendment probably in the next week. I would just say to the gentleman and those that support this idea, I look forward to working with our Senate colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, as well as Republicans and Democrats in this body to, in fact, address this situation that does need to happen.

But as a motion to recommit, we shouldn't do it now. So let my Democrat friends vote ``yes.'' I would urge my Republicans on this side to vote ``no.'' I just want to give them the assurance that, in fact, as this bill moves into the conference, as what I expect to happen, that I certainly intend to see an understanding go forward.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Transportation Committee.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, we understand that this will not be part of a comprehensive tax reform bill. We need to act earlier than that.

With the Senate now passing a bill, in all likelihood next week, likely with an amendment addressing this situation, we can deal with it as part of that conference report, and I look forward to supporting that and the inclusion of such in the final package.

I would again urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the procedural motion to recommit so that we can get to final passage.

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