Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 338) to promote a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that we are considering this legislation, H.R. 338, a bill to promote a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce, introduced by my friend and great colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

This bipartisan bill takes steps to help make training for energy manufacturing jobs available to women and minorities as well as veterans.

By way of background, the bill was unanimously approved by the House last Congress by a voice vote. It was also included in the energy bill conference negotiations. But, unfortunately, even though the bill received overwhelming support in both the House and the Senate, it didn't make it to the President's desk before time ran out.

The U.S. has undergone an energy renaissance, driven by newly discovered resources, technological innovation, and a skilled workforce. Millions and millions of new jobs had been created, and many more are opening up, but we have got to continue to invest in our workers in order to maintain global leadership and maximize the economic potential of our energy abundance.

This bill, H.R. 338, takes important steps in the right direction by requiring that the Department of Energy modernize and improve coordination among the numerous workforce development programs and activities that expand the Department's programs, offices, labs, and technology centers.

This bipartisan bill places an emphasis on maximizing the Department's existing resources and increasing the diversity of our energy and manufacturing workforce by increasing opportunities for women, minorities, and veterans.

It also improves reemployment opportunities for out-of-work and dislocated workers, which, for example, would provide welcome relief to workers discouraged by sharp downturns in the coal industry.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation before us today is a good government bill that is going to increase benefits for American workers. I would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I have watched these two gentlemen, Mr. Rush and Mr. Hudson, work together, something that our committee does a lot on lots of different issues, from oversight to energy, to healthcare, to telecommunications.

Mr. Rush has had an outstanding career. The gentleman's district is close to mine. He and I have been in each other's districts quite a bit over the last number of years. This bill is a legacy to Mr. Rush. The gentleman has cared with real passion about energy jobs and making sure that we have the expertise and the technical training knowing that we want to compete with the rest of the world. I commend the gentleman again for working with Mr. Hudson--a brilliant star on our side of the aisle--to get this bill done.

We look forward to the President's signing it into law, and we are looking

forward to having the Senate move similar bipartisan legislation so we can get the job done. That is what it is all about.

So I want to thank the gentleman for his tireless commitment to getting this issue done.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill again.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you know, there is an old Upton family quote that my grandfather would always say: Was you always perfect? No, none of us are.

And you know what? This is not a perfect bill. That is for sure. But ObamaCare is broken. One out of three counties has only one provider, and it looks like it is going to get worse as other major insurance companies are on the verge of pulling the plug.

Nearly two dozen of the nonprofit CO-OPS have already gone belly up. In my home State, folks saw their premiums increase by nearly 17 percent. Some States have had premium increases of more than 100 percent. Most had double-digit increases, many over 20 percent, and some forecast 40 to 50 percent increases come fall if nothing happens.

The calls on both sides of the aisle have often used the R word--on this side, ``replace''; on your side, the Democratic side, ``repair.'' Let's both agree. The status quo is not acceptable. But this, this bill, is the only train leaving the station. Is it going to improve if it gets to the Senate? Of course it will. We should all work for that goal.

For me, I worked with Medicaid expansion States like Michigan providing a reasonable transition until 2020 and then grandfathering all those folks until they are off. Some of my colleagues called to end Medicaid expansion even this year. They want total repeal.

What would total repeal mean? Total repeal would mean taking away the ability of HHS to provide flexibility to the States to administer this critical program. It would mean taking away insurance for young kids on their parents' policies. It would reinstall a cap on insurance. And, yes, it would allow insurance companies to discriminate against those with preexisting illnesses.

This bill still allows all of those important protections to stay in place. A number of us will continue to work with HHS to provide even more flexibility to States like Michigan. This has to be a key component of moving forward.

At the end of the day, I would like to think that we could work together on a bipartisan basis. High premiums and a lack of access impact us all. Let's work together. You can't get to second base unless you get to first.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend Joyce Watts.

After 40 years as Allegan County Clerk and Register, this past December Joyce made the tough decision to hang it up and retire.

She did so as the longest-serving elected county clerk in the entire state of Michigan and simply put one of the most dedicated public servants our great state has ever seen.

Joyce juggled many duties in her career. Before she was clerk- register, she was register of deeds for 12 years. She also served on the board of directors of the National Association of County Recorders and Clerks.

Joyce always impressed me with her professionalism, work-ethic, and tireless advocacy on behalf of our corner of the state. Joyce was someone you could trust to get the job done right. And as a clerk handling elections, it's absolutely imperative you have someone of her character and integrity serving in that position.

There is no doubting her passion and commitment. But above all, Joyce was a wife, mother, and a friend to me and countless others in our Allegan community.

And so, I want to wish Joyce, her husband John, and their son Jason and his wife Lesley best of luck in the coming years and I look forward to remaining close friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a very good friend, certainly a trusted adviser and, by everyone's account, one of the very best staff directors ever on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Gary Andres.

I first met Gary when he was a young staffer working in the White House for President Bush 41. Over the years, I became so close with both Gary and his wonderful wife, Sue.

Gary came on board day one for my committee chairmanship, and we assembled an all-star staff of the most professional, talented, and kind people on Capitol Hill. In Gary, we got a trusted counselor with a strategic mind second to none. Gary also understands that sometimes you can't change the direction of the winds, but you can adjust your sails so that you are always going to reach that destination.

Nowhere was this more important than during our herculean, bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act effort. For more than 3 years, Gary was our five-star general; and thanks to his tireless leadership, we got the job done for patients and families across the country.

What drove us more than anything else was that the clock was ticking for folks with terrible diseases, and we couldn't waste a day to get this bipartisan bill to the President for him to sign into law. It ended up being what many say was the most significant legislation enacted in the 114th Congress.

But it went beyond the 21st Century Cures Act. There were 562 hearings, 354 measures through the House, 200 signed into law in the last 6 years, substantial legislative wins. Whether it be the doc fix, saving Medicare, pipeline safety, health reforms, opioids, so many more, Gary was with us at the table.

Gary understands how important this institution is. He has a reverence for the people's House. But Gary was also quick with a smile, a witty insight, or a laugh. He never lost his perspective, his temper, or eagerness to engage on an issue.

I know I speak for all of the Members and staff on both sides of the aisle when we say: Thank you, Gary. We are going to miss you, but we know that we are going to continue to lean on you for advice no matter what the issue is.

As Gary moves on to that next venture, I wish him the very best.

To his wonderful wife, Sue, who is in the gallery today, it has been an honor to work with this distinguished gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 511) to provide for consideration of the extension under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of nonapplication of No-Load Mode energy efficiency standards to certain security

or life safety alarms or surveillance systems, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 511. I would note that this is our colleague Mr. Welch's bill that moved through the regular process through the Committee on Energy and Commerce last year. It received extensive bipartisan support. I am again glad to move this bill today.

External power supplies, EPS, are used with a wide variety of devices, and we have learned from experience that the Federal energy efficiency standards for them are not compatible with some of these applications. In particular, we need an exemption from these rules for security and life safety alarms and surveillance systems. This bill, H.R. 511, the Power And Security Systems (PASS) Act, provides a targeted exemption that allows these critical systems to stay on the market.

Devices like home security alarms or fire detection systems need to be on 24/7, but the 2007 energy law requiring energy efficiency standards for external power supplies did not allow for this. Subsequent legislation created an exemption for external power supplies used with these always-on devices. This exemption will end on July 1 of this year. This bill extends that exemption until 2023.

The result of the bill would be that these important security systems will continue to be available, preserving the jobs of those who make them and certainly the safety of those who use them. As with H.R. 518, the other external power supply bill that we are addressing today, these provisions enjoyed strong bipartisan and bicameral support when they were added to last year's energy bill. They also passed under suspension last year.

I urge my colleagues to once again vote ``yes'' on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just again urge my colleagues to support this good bipartisan bill. I appreciate the kind words always by Mr. Welch. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 587) to amend the Federal Power Act to provide that any inaction by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allows a rate change to go into effect shall be treated as an order by the Commission for purposes of rehearing and court review.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I complimented Mr. Welch, I want to thank Mr. Kennedy for his leadership on this bill. I would note that we passed this bill through regular order again in the last Congress, passed with bipartisan support. It is appropriate that we bring it up early this year. Again, this is another bipartisan bill. We must allow the public to have administrative process relief in those cases where FERC does not actually issue an order, and this legislation will do just that. I urge passage of the bill.

The Federal Power Act sets forth processes to set rates for electricity, including opportunities for the public to protest a rate change filed with FERC. New rates take effect if FERC approves them or if FERC fails to issue an order approving or denying the filed rate within 60 days.

The failure to approve or deny a rate may result from agency delay or, in some limited cases, from a vote that results in a deadlocked Commission, for example, a 2-2 vote. In such cases, the rates become effective by operation of law, even when these rates were not approved by a majority of Commissioners.

The Federal Power Act, of course, provides administrative redress for members of the public to protest Commission rate decisions. However, if these rates become effective by operation of law, for example, that 2-2 deadlock, the administrative processes are not available to the public because FERC did not actually issue an order for the public to protest. The public literally gets shut out.

I don't want to speak for the gentleman from Massachusetts, but I think some of his constituents recently experienced this firsthand. As a result of that and of the hard work by Mr. Kennedy and of his staff and certainly of the committee staff on both sides of the aisle, the legislation was drafted. We considered it in committee during the 114th Congress, where it passed on a voice vote. We have it on the floor today.

I urge all Members to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a new member of the committee but an old hand in Congress.

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

I would just like to reference the kind remarks by my friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado. This is the start of the next Congress. We are certainly looking forward to governing in a bipartisan way. That is what our committee has done for hundreds of bills in the last number of years. I look forward to that continued partnership. I know Chairman Walden on the full committee looks forward to doing that as well.

This is just the first step, literally one of the first days, obviously, in the new Trump administration, but we look forward to working with the Senate to get this bill to the new administration and get it signed into law, showing, again, the bipartisan support.

I want to compliment my friend, my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), for his good work on this. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 590) to foster civilian research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies and enhance the licensing and commercial deployment of such technologies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 590, the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2017.

This is a bipartisan bill. It passed in the last Congress as well. It was cosponsored and led by Congressmen Latta and McNerney. And it will help American innovators and entrepreneurs develop and license advanced nuclear technologies. The U.S. will require reliable, baseload, and affordable energy in decades to come, and nuclear power has to remain an integral part of our electricity generation portfolio.

Unfortunately, an outdated and rigid regulatory regime will stifle new nuclear technology development. This bill will help modernize the regulatory framework for the 21st century to be adaptive, technology inclusive, and certainly predictable.

Advanced nuclear technologies may provide breakthroughs in safety and efficiency over the existing fleet of nuclear power plants. Absent the proper regulatory framework, our nuclear scientists and industry will look to other parts of the world to construct game-changing nuclear technologies. So the U.S. has to remain a global leader to create and maintain highly-paying and highly-skilled jobs right here at home.

This bill is a step towards ensuring that the NRC has the necessary expertise and the resources to be able to review and license new technologies and reactor designs, while appropriately collaborating with the Department of Energy's nuclear energy research programs and the private sector. With the Federal Government, national labs, universities, and private industry all working together towards a common goal, the future of nuclear industry energy is certainly bright.

In the last Congress, as I mentioned at the beginning, this legislation passed unanimously out of the Energy and Commerce Committee and passed the House by a voice vote. I am pleased to support this legislation again, as part of our efforts to address burdensome regs that stifle economic growth and new technologies. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology,

Washington, DC, January 23, 2017.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning H.R. 590, the

``Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2017,''

which was introduced on January 20, 2017.

H.R. 590 contains provisions within the Committee on

Science, Space, and Technology's Rule X jurisdiction. In

order to expedite this bill for floor consideration, the

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will forego

action on the bill. This is being done on the basis of our

mutual understanding that doing so will in no way diminish or

alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology with respect to the appointment of conferees,

or to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject

matters contained in the bill or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming

this understanding, and would request that you include a copy

of this letter and your response in the Congressional Record

during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you in

advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to again support this legislating on a bipartisan basis, and I thank all of my colleagues for speaking in support of it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 518) to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to exclude power supply circuits, drivers, and devices designed to be connected to, and power, light-emitting diodes or organic light-emitting diodes providing illumination from energy conservation standards for external power supplies, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise certainly in support of H.R. 518.

Regulations are based on the state of technology at the time that they are developed and may have the unintended consequences of hindering new advances in products. Such has been the case with the Department of Energy's efficiency standards for external power suppliers, EPS. As the regs on the books now stand, it is not legally possible to make certain types of light -emitting diode--LED--devices, as well as some kinds of ceiling fans.

So this bill, H.R. 518, the EPS Improvement Act, provides a carefully tailored solution to the problem. And I want to thank two Members, Republican and Democrat, Mr. Guthrie and Ms. DeGette, for their good work on behalf of both the manufacturers, as well as the users, of these products.

The bill carves out an exception for these devices while giving DOE the option of setting separate efficiency standards that are more suited to them.

This bill has been thoroughly vetted--yes, it has. It was included in last year's energy package. And although that bill didn't make it to the finish line for unrelated reasons, language virtually identical to that in H.R. 518 enjoyed very strong bipartisan and certain bicameral support.

In addition, the bill passed the House on suspension last year as well, but failed to make it on the Senate calendar.

For the sake of the manufacturing jobs that are associated with these products as well as the consumers and small businesses that rely on them, I would urge all of my colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 518.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this side of the aisle either.

I would urge my colleagues on both sides to again vote for this bill. Let's hope that the Senate can get it on their plate and get it to the President for him to sign into law.

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

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, they say that you can't have too much of a good thing, but with our impressive natural gas production, that is exactly what we have today. We now have so much natural gas that we cannot only meet our own energy needs and still have extra to sell, but our natural gas boom can be used as a force for good here at home as a source for jobs and across the globe as a source of stable energy.

There is no question that the whole shale revolution helped break the fever of the Great Recession. Thanks to innovation and technological advancement, energy production remained a welcome bright spot in our national economy, but we aren't out of the woods yet. We all know that. Millions of folks, certainly in Michigan and across the country, still find themselves unemployed, underemployed, or facing stagnant paychecks. This bill, this legislation, will help accelerate their return to full employment.

At the request of the Department of Energy, NERA Economic Consulting evaluated the economic impacts of U.S. LNG exports. The NERA study showed a net positive impact to the United States economy and estimated that LNG exports would actually reduce the average number of unemployed workers by as much as 45,000 people by 2018. We will also see tens of thousands of additional jobs created in the supply chain. I am talking about good-paying jobs that will help families achieve a better life.

The bill will also advance our foreign policy goals. U.S. LNG exports can provide our allies with a secure and affordable supply of energy and can reduce the influence of hostile exporting nations like Russia, which continues to threaten Ukraine and, really, all of Europe's natural gas supply. Passing this bill will send the welcome signal to our allies in Eastern Europe that, yes, an alternative source of energy is on its way.

The domestic and geopolitical benefits make increasing U.S. LNG exports a win-win, but the Department of Energy continues to hold up the process. Since 2010, the DOE has only issued a final decision on five applications to export LNG to countries with which we don't share a free trade agreement. This bill would help jump-start approvals so that we can start creating jobs and sending our surplus gas to those countries that need it the most. It would give the DOE 30 days to issue a decision following the completion of the environmental review.

The U.S. is now a global energy superpower, and with that power, we have a chance to do some real good. Saying ``yes'' to energy is good for workers here at home and is good for global allies.

I thank Representative Bill Johnson for his leadership on this issue, and I would hope that everybody would support this bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 398, the Trafficking Awareness Training for Health Care Act of 2015, introduced by Energy and Commerce Committee member Renee Ellmers of North Carolina.

I wish this bill and others related to trafficking today were not necessary. But the sad reality is that according to the U.S. Department of Justice, human trafficking is the second fastest growing criminal industry--just behind drug trafficking. Adding to the urgency is that approximately half of all victims are children. It makes you sick.

Human trafficking is a serious crime and a grave violation of human rights. Too often, this is a crime that goes unnoticed and it is one that is not well understood. It is simply too hard to imagine that a crime this horrendous could be happening right here on American soil, let alone in your own backyard. But it is. Not only does human trafficking occur in the United States, it is a lucrative business with billions of dollars in profits. It continues because victims are not easily identified and they are afraid. It happens in our own communities, because we are unaware. Today, we stand up and say no more.

In order for victims of trafficking to break free, they need help. Health care professionals are one of the few groups to interact with trafficked women and girls and can be one source of help as twenty- eight percent of trafficked women sought treatment from a health care professional while being held captive. Recent studies show that health care professionals are well positioned to be first responders if they have the training and skills to identify and help victims.

The Trafficking Awareness Training for Health Care Act would provide for the development of evidence-based best practices to help health care providers to identify and assist victims of human trafficking. The bill requires HHS to award a grant to a medical or nursing school to develop best practices for medical personnel. These best practices will be tested in a pilot program conducted at Community Health Centers (CHCs) in each of the 10 administrative regions. The results of the pilot will be shared with the medical community for their consideration. This bill offers us an important opportunity to work with the medical community to improve awareness and ensure that human trafficking education and practice becomes a part of basic health care training.

I thank Rep. Ellmers for her hard work this important piece of legislation and urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to natural gas production, we are number one. What was once a pipe dream is now a global reality, thanks to American ingenuity and technology. An impressive accomplishment, especially considering where we were only a decade ago--fearful of running out of supplies.

With this new wealth of natural gas, folks in Michigan and across the country should no longer worry about access to affordable energy. But budget-busting power bills are still hitting too many Americans.

The New York Times recently reported that customers in New England could expect electricity rates to spike

close to 40 percent higher this winter. Why? Well, we may have fixed our supply problems, but now we have a serious distribution problem. Our archaic energy infrastructure and outdated regulatory system is blocking American consumers from reaping the benefits of our energy abundance. We have the gas, but we don't have the pipelines to get cheap energy directly to families and businesses that need it most.

This legislation seeks to fix the problem, inserting accountability into the permitting process for natural gas pipelines and establishing firm deadlines for agency reviews. It does not exempt any environmental laws. It just makes sure pipeline projects get sited and built without unnecessary delay.

Last night, the President here made the case for more Federal funding of transportation infrastructure projects like roads and bridges as one way to create jobs while modernizing our economy. But the energy infrastructure projects unleashed by this pipeline bill are every bit as necessary, with all of the economic benefits, and the best part is, since they will be paid for by the private sector, it won't cost taxpayers a dime.

We voted on this legislation last Congress, and it passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. With the President's comments last night about wanting to work with Congress, I hope the President can join us in supporting this bipartisan, commonsense energy and jobs solution. Now that we are the leader in energy production, there is no reason America shouldn't be number one in energy affordability as well.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in strong support of H.R. 5185, the EARLY Act. This very important bipartisan bill would reauthorize education and outreach programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention created to highlight the breast cancer risks facing young women.

Breast cancer, as we know, is an issue that hits close to home for many Americans. While most breast cancers are found in women who are over 50 years old or older, about 11 percent of all new cases of breast cancer in the U.S. are found in women 45 and younger. And while diagnosis and treatment are difficult for women of any age, young survivors often find it even more challenging.

This bill would reauthorize the important programs created in the EARLY Act, first passed to increase an understanding of breast cancer among young women by conducting prevention research and a campaign to raise awareness among the public and medical providers about early cases of breast cancer.

This bill continues to improve the health and quality of life of young breast cancer survivors and young women who are at a higher risk of getting the disease.

I want to particularly thank the two authors of the bill, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, herself a breast cancer survivor, and Energy and Commerce Committee member Renee Ellmers, who is managing the bill this afternoon. I am so proud to support this effort.

The prevention, treatment, and ultimately curing of diseases requires an all-hands-on-deck effort to not only educate but also innovate on new cures and treatments.

Early this year, the Energy and Commerce Committee embarked on the 21st Century Cures initiative with a goal of finding cures and treatments for thousands without one, including this terrible disease.

Sadly, we have all been touched in some manner by cancer or some other disease, whether it is a personal diagnosis or a courageous fight by a loved one. We have been encouraged and humbled by the support that we have seen for this initiative, but also understand that there is a great deal of work ahead. We look forward to meeting that challenge, and this bill helps us.

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, I particularly want to commend the two gentleladies who will be speaking here this afternoon and urge all my colleagues to vote for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.