tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN February 15, 2012 1:00pm-5:00pm EST
eaker. i thank the gentleman very much for yielding. madam speaker, we stand here today considering a rule that is a blatant manipulation of the legislative process which we have been pretty proud of frankly, since the beginning of time here. the process is very important in legislative business. and we have, while it may seen like cookie cutter, we all still hear thomas jefferson in his manual, that's just the way we are, i guess. but breaking with long-standing bipartisan tradition for the consideration of surface transportation bills today's rule throws all notions of bipartisanship and transparency out the window. as up heard it is the first transportation bill since eisenhower was president that was not bipartisan. . it moves toward a transportation bill that's been widely condemned on both sides of the aisle and by almost
everybody who knows about it in the united states. as you can see on the poster beside me, the grand old pretzels rating system tracks the contortions being done by the republican majority as they pursue a hyper partisan agenda. we launched this system to answer the calls of the american people, what in the world is going on there? no matter what party is in power, the american people demand a fair shot, not a rigged game. the legislative acrobatics being done by the majority are quite remarkable. i don't know anybody else on earth who could have even thought of it. no matter what happens, work began late last week as mr. mcgovern pointed out, when we were expecting to come in on monday and deal with a 1,000-page transportation and infrastruck bill legislation we knew already because we'd heard so many complaints about it was cobbled together into a
frankenstein's monster. it was made up of completely, believe me, completely unrelated and most times unvetted provisions that address almost every issue under the sun. the secretary of transportation, as we all know who is our good friend, deplore this is bill. he would like to see this bill fail. however, before the rules committee convened last night, and that's not the first time this year, we were given last-minute notice that frankenstein's monster would be disassembled and broken into three separate bills. this last-minute change would allow the majority to limit the number of germane amendments, 300 were filed, and rule out of order common sense attempts by democrats to make some special interests such as big oil, mr. mcgovern has fought this for year, pay their fair share instead of receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. after forcing through these
three bill the majority plans to direct the clerk of the house to stick it back together. so the whole purpose of it is to try a slight of hand, what shell game are we playing here? that's what we're up to i'm afraid. so that gives the senate a stitched together bill which we had cut into three. i don't want anybody to miss this point and they can take it or leave it or, i hope, have a better bill than this. that's what we're hoping for. but for inventing a way to pass as many republican amendments as possible and block as many democrat amendments as possible while still sewing this monster back again i want to reward the majority four grand old pretzels, the coveted quadruple contortion. the majority has truly achieved the remarkable. unfortunately, their acrobatic achievements come at great cost to the house and by pursuing a
partisan agenda, over transparency and bipartisanship, the majority moves forward alone against the wishes of the -- their colleagues and the american people. i certainly should mention that the president has said this bill will be vetoed by him. he again calls for us to work in a bipartisan manner, not to be throwing more people out of work but to create jobs with an infrom structure bill which is time-honored and may be as cookie cutter as it gets, but by george, it works. i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i enjoyed watching "moneyball" and reading the
book as well. in the book, they talk about the concept of fielding averages players who don't make many mistakes. in the book, billy beane said the talent for avoiding failure is not a great fate. the easiest way to avoid making a mistake is being too slow to get to the ball. in all due respect this administration and our good friends on the other side are simply too slow to get to the ball. they are in the background, their argument against this particular rule for this bill is they wish to fund transportation programs the old fashioned way, which means we spend money we don't have. what we're trying to do with this particular bill is go outside the box and find a way to actually pay for infrastructure improvements, a way to pay for our transportation needs, and to do it with energy development. like we all have a problem with escalating prices of gas at the pump. for the most vulnerable of our society, we have a problem paying for heating oil.
economic development, business development demands a cheap source of energy if it's going to happen and we need to find a way to fund our infrastructure needs and we wrap them together by paying for it with economic energy development. who could be opposed to that? even the president of the united states in one of his arguments for having a payroll tax increase said the reason we need to do it is because we are paying too much at the pump for gasoline which i think is justifiable in his case. when president obama came into office, the average cost of gasoline was $1.79. today, the average cost, not inflated prices, same dollars $3.8. a 83% increase in the cost at the pump since president obama has been in office. we asked the other day, if we went back to the old fashioned way of pay for transportation and paid for it out of gas taxes, how much would we have
to raise to fund this particular program? the guesstimate was around 20 cents a gallon. even if you had a small car that's still $2 or $3 a time every time you fill up. at that rate nobody in the car can afford a big gulp. basically we are trying to do on the republican side, allow people to drive with good drinks on good roads. our friends on the other side apparently want us to walk or if we have good roads, you have to pay significantly more for it. that's simply wrong. we have problems with heating oil in this country. the other side's approach to is it is simply freeze in the dark. there is a better way of doing it. this bill, these bills, try to accomplish that. the other day we heard in the rules committee that there is no oil in anwr. that come as a great surprise to people who live in alaska which is maybe one of the reasons why the state legislateture of alaska has asked us to allow them access
to their resources. the native americans who live near anwr have asked us and begged us to allow them to be able to get to the resources of their area. indeed if we had not usurped the control of the lands of those peel, this would have happened well before that. even president carter has suggested that this particular area in anwr is where we should be developing our gas and oil resources and that specifically is why it was put there. the fact that we haven't done it is nothing more a -- nothing more than a dissatisfaction and shame on us as congress. i heard that there is no plan for oil shale development. we have no technology to do it even though estonia has done it for a hundred years, last year they produced 1.3 million barrels, meeting the european union standards. my friends are looking to estonia, using their oil shale to supplement what they need and we don't have the
technology to go forward with that? we are looking in the western states at a saudi arabia of oil shale. we have more energy potential in those three states than there is in saudi arabia. all we are asking to do is be allowed to deal with it. in the 2000's, the professionals on the ground they did the study they charted the land they he will the town meetings and came up with a plan that this administration threw out the window arbitraryly making a political deal to stop that. we're asking to go back to that as a starting location, what the professionals on the ground did, to use that as our basis for moving forward. i heard the c.b.o. said there's no money to be gained out of it. what the c.b.o. said is, of course there is. but by scoring it, you're not going to score in the future because it's zero because you already know it's going to happen in the future. it is there, it is possible. we can do it. we want alternative energy. we certainly want more solar
power, as long as you're not bailing out failed programs, we want more wind power, especially off the coast of massachusetts, we just want to have every element every element of our energy portfolio developed, including what we have here in the united states, these bills do just that. let me figure out one last reason to do it. for kids. i live in a state where 70% of the land is owned by the federal government. that means quite simply when we try to fund our education system we cannot charge property tax on our lands. when you stop by arbitrary decisions by the department of energy developing resources, we don't get income tax from high-paying jobs severance tax or royalty payments. that meeps the 12 western states who have all the lands
funded education at 35% -- grew their education at 35% but all those states in the east that don't have b.l.m. grew their education funding by 68%. what we are doing in stopping energy development is hurting kids in the west my kids. their education opportunities are retarded because we don't allow the development of resources that are there and that should be done. what we're asking is simply to allow us to develop these lands and in so doing make it possible to have cheaper gas at the pump. make it possible to heat our homes cheaply. make it possible for energy development that goes on cheap energy and build infrastructure with it at the same time. to develop our potential. all i want you to do, madam speaker, is to follow the words that are printed above you on that wall. where it simply says let us develop the resources of our land. call forth its power system of that in our day and generation, we may not perform something
worthy to be remembered. it is time for us to do something worthy to be remembered by developing our resources, using it to pay for infrastructure and for heaven's sakes, for once, congress doesn't need to be too slow to get to the ball. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to make a few points to remind my colleagues of a few things. this bill breaks the tradition of bipartisan action to create jobs and strengthen our economy this bill, the republican bill, kills 550,000 american jobs. it kills them. cuts highway investments in 45 states an bankrupts the highway trust fund by $78 billion. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a statement by the ranking member, mr. rahall, talking about c.b.o.'s prediction that this would bankrupt the highway trust fund. i also want to point out to my
colleagues from utah and florida, under this bill, utah would lose $159 million over five years in highway funding, according to the federal highway administration. that, according to economists is 5,531 jobs. in florida, there would be a cut of $880 million over five years and compared to current law and according to economists that would destroy 30,637 jobs. now granted, this thing is over 1,000 pages so i could forgive my colleagues for not reading the fine print on the bill but if they read the fine print and they were advocating these kinds of reductions for their states, let me just say i'm glad they're not my congressman. that the point, i want to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, this bill is a tragic exercise, it's a waste of time and here's why.
this is probably the only chance for a jobs bill this year but it destroys almost 600,000 jobs. this bill is the only chance for every state to start on its back log of projects for roads and bridges and transit, but it has cuts for every state except for five states. this bill is the only opportunity for federal funding for mass transit across the country but the bill defunds the federal allocations for mass transit if funding that began with ronald reagan. this bill is the only major piece of federal legislation that has paid for itself with user fees but this bill uses federal employee pensions from hard-pressed, middle income
workers to subsidize roads for almost 300 million americans. this bill was -- it was the only chance this year for a bipartisan bill based on the long history of bipartisan transportation and infrastructure bills but it is rife with poison pills that guarantee that it will be stillborn. historically, the transportation and infrom structure bill has been the most -- and infrastructure bill has been the most popular bill. even before coming to the floor today, this bill has received thumbs down across the nation. that's what it should get here too. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i want to remind members that this bill, h.r. 7, will also be allowed to be
amened. it will require another rule, there's no previous question in here, we're not moving toward that, we're going to have the opportunity to amend that bill at a later. so i did say that in my opening remarks, i want to remind the members and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i want to -- i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from florida or anybody if they can explain to me what's happening. i got an email from the rules committee saying the meeting on the transportation bill that was scheduled for 2:00 today to deal with the hundreds of amendments that members have offered has now been postponed subject to the call of the chair. i wonder if my friend from florida, somebody could tell me whether they have any idea why that meeting was canceled and when it's going to be rescheduled. i yield to the gentleman. mr. webster: the answer to that question is that this
difference from the last congress, this congress allows amendments to bills, lots of them and there have been a huge number of amendments. it will take time to make sure it's germane. the meeting is coming. mr. mcgovern: i say to the gentleman, from my understanding there has been a cutoff for amendments, that people can't continue to -- file amendments as we speak. is the gentleman telling me something different? mr. webster: yeah. i am not talking about future amendments i am talking about the ones already filed. there is many, many amendments. reviewing those there is a process. mr. mcgovern: i appreciate that. let me ask the gentleman this. yesterday we were told -- i'm reading right now news reports that one of the problems is that one of your offsets to the payroll tax cut, which is going
after federal workers' pensions is the same offset that you have in the highway bill. is that -- is that the reason why this is being postponed because the republican leadership can't quite figure out how they're paying for any of this stuff? mr. webster: not to my knowledge, no. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to insert in the record the statement of administration policymaking it very clear that this bill would be vetoed. at this point -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. reyes: i thank you madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i am reminded of the broadway play "chicago" when one of the acts razzle-dazzle them. with all due respect with my colleagues on the other side, all the razzle and all the dazzle is not working here. there are conflicts in terms of the offsets that are being used
in trying to offset money, both in this bill and in other legislation, and i think that's indicative of the kinds of issues that are being brought before the floor here. h.r. 7 takes $44 billion out of the pockets of millions of middle-class american workers over the next 10 years by slashing existing pension benefits and cutting employer retirement contributions for new, current and retiring federal workers, and that's according to the congressional budget office. again, new current and retiring federal workers. over the weekend in my district, i heard from many federal workers that are concerned about the kind of proposals that are being brought forward to offset
legislation by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. the $44 billion that i just talked about is in addition to $60 billion that federal workers are already contributing as a result of the existing two-year pay freeze. although house republicans would force federal workers to contribute more than $100 billion, given both proposals toward deficit reduction and now obviously transportation projects and who knows how many times they are overcounting this, they have consistently refused to ask wealthy americans to sacrifice even one penny toward these goals. i am opposed to this h.r. 7, am opposed to this rule and i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop attacking federal workers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. latourette: i thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise to engage with the manager of the rule a question. i don't have a problem with the rule i don't think. the legislation, i filed many, many amendments, particularly on h.r. 7. and what causes me some angst is on page 6 at the conflution of section 3 of the rule -- conclusion of section 3 of the rule it says after general debate the committee of the whole will rise without motion and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by subsequent order of the house. my concern as a conspiracy theorist in training that that line could produce a result, you're asking for us to vote on the rule today, but could produce a result where you don't bring a subsequent rule
dealing with the amendments. and it's fraught with difficulty because out of these 240 amendments out to h.r. 7 i may have a -- another 30 seconds. mr. webster: i yield 30 more seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latourette: i may have a different view on your rule today unless there's some assurance that you are going to produce a second rule that somehow going to resemble an open rule on these remaining amendments. i yield to the gentleman for whatever response you choose to make. mr. webster: thank you for yielding. i would tell you this -- i am only here as the manager of this rule. ok. no other position do i espouse or claim. however, i could tell you over my dead body the rules committee will not go forward unless we have reviewed those amendments and come back with a second addition that would allow for all of the things that you said in that
particular statement out to that page. mr. latourette: the gentleman is an honorable member and i'll go with that. i want the concern to be mentioned. the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, you know, this gets more and more interesting. i share the gentleman from ohio's concern, especially in light of the fact that the rules committee canceled their meeting today at 2:00 that was scheduled to go over all these amendments. we have no idea what's going on. my guess is that the leadership on this side has no idea what's going on. this process is so convoluted and it lacks of transparency and, you know, i quite frankly think my colleagues should be ashamed of bringing this kind of bill under this kind of process on the floor. at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, the ranking member of the committee on natural resources, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. markey: i thank the
gentleman. so last year the oil industry made $137 billion in the united states. this year, of course, heading to $5 a gallon gasoline, they're tipping american drivers upside down so fast that they'll probably make $200 billion this year. well they have to raise about another $40 billion to pay for the transportation bill. they could take away the $4 billion in tax breaks each year over 10 years, $40 billion that they give to exxonmobil. they really don't need that money, and the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay twice, once at the pump and then once as taxpayers, so they could have solved all that by taking away the oil tax breaks. but here's what they do. they say, one, we can drill for shale in colorado and wyoming and we know that shale oil and the department of interior say there is no commercially
available technology. two, they can drill in the arctic refuge but we know there are no votes in the senate that make it possible for that to happen. and, three their next proposal is to drill off of the beaches of california and florida for oil, off the beaches. the republicans are lining up themselves in these states to say i want to make the amendment to make sure we don't do that. so none of this is going to happen in terms of the revenues that they say they're going to generate. these are phantom revenues from phantom drilling that's never going to happen. moreover, they want to export the natural gas out of our country. well, let me tell you what t. boone pickens says about this, this is what t. boone pickens says about exporting u.s. natural gas. if we do it, he says we're truly going to go down as america's dumbest generation.
it's bad public policy to export natural gas. why is that? because natural gas in the united states is six times cheaper than in asia. it's three times cheaper than in europe. that's why our agriculture sector is doing so well. that's why manufacturing's coming back. the cost of the unit of production of any product in terms of the energy which is needed has plummeted. that's our advantage in coming out of the recession. and finally on the keystone pipeline, why don't we keep the oil here in the united states? the canadians want to take the oil, build a pipeline through the united states over our environmentally sensitive areas, bring it out to texas, an export zone, and then send the oil to asia and latin america. where is the american part of this? what do we get out of the keystone pipeline? nothing. so i will have an amendment that says, if we build that pipeline, if we let the
canadians do it, we keep the oil will stay here in the united states. the oil should stay here in the united states. the natural gas should be staying here in the united states. we shouldn't be pretending we are raising revenues in other places. they are phantom revenues from phantom drilling which is never going to happen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. 160 days ago the president of the united states came to this chamber and put forward a plan to create jobs for our country. and one of the ideas that he had to create jobs for our country was to put our construction workers back to work building schools and fixing roads and bridges and so they could have money in stores and restaurants and help the country. for 160 days, the majority
ignored this idea. now, what they've done is bring this idea to the floor that is doomed for failure and won't work. in the other body republicans and democrats worked together and 80 members have voted for a bill that in fact would bring construction workers back to work. they're cooperating on, i think, is a great chance to be passed and signed by the president. but consistent with their principle, the consensus is always to be avoided. the majority over here did something else. and the something else is a bill that will actually kill jobs in the united states and we should not support. but the way they did it i think merits some mention. many on the other side were outraged when they thought the health care bill was going to be brought up when no one had read it and it wasn't going to be a straight up or down vote. what in fact happened was the health care bill was available to the public and the members for seven weeks, every word of it, and there was a direct up or down vote.
what we have here is a bill that's 1,000 pages long, that almost no one has read, and a procedure that avoids having an up or down vote on the bill. if you thought it was wrong in march of 2010, and it would have been, which is why we didn't do it then it's wrong now. we should oppose the rule, oppose the bill and work together to put americans back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized and is advised that he has six minutes remaining, and the gentleman from massachusetts has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you madam speaker. i'd only remind the members that there's nothing that leaves this chamber without an up or down vote, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: madam speaker, i take modest exception to my good friend from florida. there will be no up or down vote on this package. now, service in congress is often a roller coaster with highs and lows. well, i've had highs and lows in my service in congress but this is one of the worst moments of the last 15 years. at a time when our communities and our economy needs us to rebuild and renew america, we are faced with the worst transportation bill in history. ever. it is so bad that the majority did not even have a hearing on any of the three pieces that they've broken up. it reverses 20 years of bipartisan transportation reform. it eliminates a 30-year commitment for transit and road funding certainty that comes
from the reagan administration. out the window. it is so bad that they aren't going to allow an up or down vote. the strategy they have is to have the pieces dealt with individually and then when they're done if they somehow pass and i hope they don't, then it's deemed passed. now, what's really sad is that this is not just a partisan bill it's a bad partisan bill. like my friend from massachusetts, i served on the transportation and infrastructure committee for 12 years and most of that time, republicans were in charge. but we never, ever had behavior like this, shutting people out, shutting down the process, not involving the public, and moving in the wrong direction. it shatters a bipartisan coalition that i've been working on for years to develop
support for resources and good policy. it's even so bad they get rid of the wildly popular safe routes to school program. it's not worthy of the proud tradition of the t&i committee or the rules committee. it should be rejected. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: it makes no sense to export our gas when it's coming back this is not a comprehensive bill and as well there's no oversight and regulation and that means no environmental oversight. minority contracting needs to be in place and if you want to do something look at h.r. 3710 my deficit reduction job creation bill. this bill needs to go back to the drawing board and do as the president said an infrastructure bill to help all
americans be paid for and not take pensions off the backs of federal employees. with that, madam chair, i yield back and ask for a no vote on the rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from -- yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. shuster: i wasn't going to speak on the rule but i heard my colleague from oregon stand up and criticize the bill, criticize the process and i needed to set the record straight this bill is the first bill that has come out of the committee on a partisan line vote. but it's not because of republicans, it's because democrats refused to participate in the process. when they were in the majority, chairman oberstar brought a bill it's through the committee and we unanimously supported it. there was a stuff -- there was a lot of stuff we didn't like
but we wanted to do it on a bipartisan basis but we were unable to move that bill to the floor because the democrat majority wouldn't even put that bill on the floor. so it's not that republicans didn't reach out to our colleagues across the aisle, we did. chairman micah and many members of the committee traveled the united states, had bipartisan hearings, had a bicameral hearing in california with senator boxer. we reached out and reached out and reached out and the democrats, typically want to work together on the t&i committee, wron if their leadership told them they weren't allowed to work with us on this but this bill is the biggest reform bill that's happened in the transportation industry, transportation in this country since the inception of the highway trust fund in the 1950's. we are consolidating programs that are -- that overlap and today are outmoded so we've consolidated eliminating some -- elimb -- eliminated some. we're compressing the timeline.
most americans don't realize it takes 13 to 15 years to build a highway in this cupry. we're compressing it to seven or eight years. we are going to have more roads built because we are taking the reforms that are necessary. i'm disappointed that my democratic colleagues, all they want to do is raise taxes, increase regulation, instead of making government work better, more efficiently and get the dollars out there quicker that our communities need. i believe this is a significantly improved transportation bill than what we've seen at least two years ago, and it's something that i support whole heartedly and would encourage my democratic colleagues to take a close look and support it also. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. flake: i rise in opposition to the rule. i like the reforms in the bill but the rule waives all poineds
of -- points of order against the bill the bill, as i understand it, it violates the ryan budget, or the so-called house budget we passed. we don't know how much, it could be tens of billions, could be just under that, but it seems to violate the budget that we passed. that's why we're having to waive all points of order against the bill. for that, i voice my opposition to the rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: may i inquire how many more speakers the gentleman has? mr. webster: i'm prepared to close. mr. mcgovern: may i inquire how much time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has one minutes remaining the gentleman from florida has four minutes. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself the remaining time this bill is awful, this process is awful, i
think it's beyond salvageable. i want to talk about one thing in closing. oil companies get taxpayer subsidies for ail injection, extraction drilling, manufacturing, pricing inventory, they get taxpayer subsidies while making tens of billions of dollars in record profits and taxpayers continue to get fleeced with rising gas prices. at the end of this debate, i'll try to defite the previous question. if the previous question is defeated, i will offer an amendment to eliminate one of these subsidies for the big five oil companies. the big five oil companies do not need, they do not deserve this subsidy and the american people don't deserve these rising gas prices. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote to the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern : this is a reasonable amendment. the american people are tired of getting gounled at the pump
by these big oil companies that are making record profits. at the same time we continue with taxpayer subsidies to give them these handouts. i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question, i urge a no vote on the rule and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you madam speaker. improvements to our infrastructure are waiting. stable construction jobs are waiting. unemployment lingers above 8% nationally and near 10% in central florida. a long-term re-authorization is necessary, not just another short-term extension like we have become so used to in this body. it streamlines and consolidates federal transportation programs, cuts red tape and washington bureaucracy, increasing funding flexibility to the states and local government, better leverages existing infrastructure resources and encourages more private sector participation in building our nation's decaying
infrastructure. it provides five years of stability with flat funding paid for without raising taxes. the american energy and infrastructure act is long overdue. we can't delay anymore. it's time to stop putting off until tomorrow what we should have done yesterday. this bill eliminates the typical cookie cutter approach that washington has used over and over again to fund all kinds of programs including transportation. this is a great policy that consolidate miss programs that allows state -- consolidates many programs that allows states to develop their own programs. it allows them to design a program of transportation that fits their needs. it can only be done when we consolidate these programs and make the reforms found in this bill. i ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this bill. i yield back the balance of my
time and move the question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time having yield -- having been yielded back, the question is on moving the previous resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas an nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 547 if order and motions to suspend the rules on h.r. 2079, 46r789 r. 3247, and h.r. 3248. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
vote the yeas are 229. the nays are 181. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for
a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2079 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2079, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 10 main street in east roth away, new york as the john j. cook post office. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 418. the nays are two. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3247 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3247, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1100 town and country commons in chesterfield, missouri, as the lance corporal matthew p. pathenos post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote.
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 419. the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3248, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3 48, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 112 south 5th street in st. charles, missouri, as the lance corporal drew w. weaver post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 412, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 3408. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 547 and rule 18, the chair declares
the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3408. the chair appoints the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, to proside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3408 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to set clear rules for the development of the united states oil shale resources, to promote shale technology research and development, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time.
general debate shall not exceed one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey will each control 20 minutes. the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, and the gentleman from california, mr. waxman will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the committee is not in order. the chair: committee will be in order. members will take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr.
chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of h.r. 3408, which contains the energy provisions in the american energy and infrastructure jobs act. this is an action plan to create jobs that will vastly expand american energy production, lower gasoline prices, strengthen our national economic security, and generate new revenue to help pay for infrastructure. mr. chairman, all without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. in this year's state of the union speech, president obama proclaimed his support for expanding american energy production with an all of the above energy strategy. sadly, m chairman, the president's actions while he has been in office, has been anything but pro-energy. in fact, his rhetoric, i dents say this slightly, mr. chairman, is 180 degrees from his actions. since taking office this
administration has repeatedly blocked u.s. energy production. the offshore drilling moratorium and the keystone pipeline are just the tip of the iceberg. he's canceled withdrawn scheduled lease sales, blocked mining and mineral rich areas and issues countless job destroying regulations. mr. chairman, actions do speak louder than words. the bill we are considering today is an action plan that clearly contrasts president obama's anti-energy policies with the pro-energy, pro-american job policies of republicans. while president obama has closed off new areas for offshore drilling, this area -- this bill will open areas known to contain the most oil and natural gas resources in the atlantic, pacific, and arctic oceans. as a result economic analysis has shown that well over a
million jobs, long-term jobs, long-term american jobs, can be created. while president obama opposes energy production in anwr, this bill will open less than 3% of the total area to responsible and safe drilling. anwr, that issue has been around a while, mr. chairman, and anwr represents the single greatest resource of onshore area production in the united states. this is one of the reasons that way back in 1980 when jimmy carter was still president and the democrats controlled the congress but they specifically setaside the north slope of anwr for energy production. safe and responsible energy production in anwr will protect the environment while creating tens of thousands of jobs and providing upwards of 1.5 million barrels of oil today. by the way this is more than the u.s. imports daily from saudi arabia.
while the president has delayed leases and withdrawn over a million acres into rocky mountains to oil shale development, this bill will set clear rules and require additional oil shale leases to be issued. according to the government estimates, this region may hold, mr. chairman this is a significant number this region may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil equivalent. that's six time saudi arabia's proven reserves. and enough to provide the united states with energy for the next 200 years. i'm just talking about oil shale. robust oil shale development can also create hundreds of thousands of jobs and that should be self-evident. finally, while the president refused to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, this bill would require the federal energy regulatory commission or ferc to approve it within 30 days. the keystone x.l. pipeline will create more than 20,000 american jobs and displace less stable
energy imports with millions of barrels of safe and secure north american oil. since this president took office, mr. chairman, gasoline prices have climbed by 91%. meanwhile, iran is threatening to close off the straight of hormuz which is responsible for transportation -- strait of hormuz which is responsible for transportation of 17 million barrels of oil today or 20% ever all oil traded. price also own climb higher if we don't take action now to increase our energy independence and develop our own energy resources. today, mr. chairman, republicans are moving forward with a plan to create more jobs and create more american energy. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, is recognized. mr. markey: i thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. markey: unfortunately
according to the congressional budget office, these drilling measures the republicans are bringing out on the house floor today, together, would only raise $4.3 billion over 10 years. less than 1/10 of the revenue shortfall needed to fund our highways. in reality this bill amounts to little more than a give away of our public lands to big oil under the guise of funding our nation's transportation projects. and most estimates are that no new revenue will be produced. that is usable for this transportation bill. under the united states -- across the united states oil production is at its highest level in nearly a decade. natural gas production has reached levels we have never
seen before in the united states. oil production on public lands offshore is higher than it was during each of the last three years of the bush administration. according to industry analysts by this summer there will be nearly 30% more floating rigs operating in the gulf of mexico than there were prior to the b.p. spill. yet the republican bill would threaten the tourism and fishing economies of coastal states by allowing drilling off of our beaches in florida in california up and down our east and west coasts and as well in an area extensively used by the military where even secretary rumsfeld said quote, drilling structures and associated development would be incompatible with military activities in this area. this congress has not enacted a
single safety improvement since the b.p. spill. the bill would allow for drilling in the arctic national wildlife refuge in alaska, ripping out the heart of the crown jewel of our national wildlife refuge system. the arctic refuge is america's serengeti. it is one of the natural wonders of the world like the grand canyon, niagara falls or the great barrier reef, and it should be protected. if we allow drilling in the arctic refuge, it will set a precedent that will allow the oil and gas industry to place a bull's-eye on each of the 540 wildlife refuges across this country. and this legislation would rush to give away 125,000 acres of public land in colorado, utah and wyoming to big oil for oil shale development. however, there is no commercially viable oil shale
technology and oil shale developments could have significant impacts on water quality and quantity in the west if there was a commercial viable technology available, which shell oil and the department of interior says does not yet exest. in fact, the -- exist. in fact, the government accountability office says the impact of oil shale development on water could be significant but are unknown. what's more, this provision has been included by the majority despite the fact that the congressional budget office says that it would not raise any revenue over the next 10 years to fund our highways. understand that. . c.b.o. says raises no revenue in the next 10 years. it's just stuck in here. oil and gas industry would like to see it so they toss it in. nothing to do with funding transportation. and the majority's drilling bills wouldn't even ensure that american natural gas stays here
in america to help our consumers. natural gas prices are six times higher in asia than they are right here. they are more than three times higher in europe than they are right here. low natural gas prices have been driving the economic recovery of the united states. we have far more natural gas in our country, and it's very low priced than we have oil. and what the republican bill will allow to happen is for this natural gas to be exported around the world and exporting of our natural gas would eliminate our competitive edge by driving prices up by as much as 54%, according to the department of energy. not ensuring that the natural gas stays here in the united states ensures that the
majority, the republicans, have imposing a de facto natural gas tax on american agriculture, manufacturing, chemical, steel plastics by allowing our gas to be exported. here's what t. boone pickens says about the idea of exporting american natural gas. here's what he said. "if we do it, we're truly going to go down as america's dumbest generation. it's bad public policy to export natural gas." our natural gas is six times cheaper than asian. it is three times cheaper than european. what are we doing exporting it? we should keep it for our own farmers, for our own industries for our own consumers. that's how we put ourselves on a path toward energy independence. i agree with t. boone pickens.
we should keep our natural gas here. we should not be following the republican energy plan of drill here, sell there and pay more. if we sell this natural gas around the world the department of energy says the pry's going up 57% here because -- price's going up 57% here. the same dynamic exists in the keystone portion of the bill where republicans have failed to include any assurances that even a drop of the oil or the fuels will stay in this country. when i ask the president of transcanada, the pipeline company from canada whether he will be willing to commit to keep the oil that passes through this pipeline in the united states, he says no. and why? because the oil companies and the refineries want to export the fuels to the highest bidders around the world
leaving the american people with all of the environmental risk and little or none of the energy or economic benefit. so drill here, sell there, pay more, that's not the republican mantra. drill here, sell there, pay less. now they've morphed into what the oil and gas industry want and all the economic indicators point to the conclusion that our consumers will be harmed by that. and on the question of the totality of the economic benefits for our country, they are simultaneously proposing to kill the tax breaks for the wind industry which is now creating 85,000 jobs in our country in the face of the wind industry saying that they will have to lay off 40,000 people
over the next year unless the production tax break for the wind industry stays on the books. so all of this is basically upside down as an energy policy. my strongest admonition to the members who are listening to this debate is to vote no on this republican proposal. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield three minutes to the former chairman of the natural resources committee and the former chairman of the transportation committee, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young. mr. young: thank you for yielding. thanks for yielding and i rise in support of 3408. i am really here to talk about anwr. you know, i just wrote a little poem that's not too good. lo and behold none was there. lack of action by this congress beware. anwr still lace bear.
time to drill for the people of -- still lays bare. time to drill for the people of america. the gentleman from massachusetts says no use for atomic power, no use for anwr. we're in good shape. but look at the price of gas, mr. and mrs. america. it will go to $5, $5. you say this won't solve the problem. i've heard this before. if you want to add money for transportation i pass this bill out, get it to the senate side. this is the 12th time. president clinton vetoed it. we would have saved $4 trillion if we had anwr open at that time. $4 trillion. think of the highway bill we would have had then. that's something i think the american people should recognize. we do have the fossil fuels in america. we do have the oil. we do have the gas. but we haven't had the will to develop them because we brought them overseas. we are dependent upon the
mideast and, yes, venezuela our good neighbor venezuela, chiefs. it's time for america to wake up. we need the supply of fossil fuels, and it's going to stay here. not wind, not solar because fossil fuels is still the cheapest way to move an object. it is the commerce of this nation. it moves our trains, our planes, our automobiles, our trucks and our ships and it will continue to do that. that's what keeps us moving in this country keeps our economy strong and as long as we will have that fossil fuel within the united states it is criminal to continue to rely upon the foreign countries. we talk about big oil. pick on big oil. big oil this, big oil that. big oil does help the united states of america. it keeps our trucks and planes flying. it keeps our economy strong. so i am urging you to vote on this aspect of anwr. vote on it. let's provide for this nation.
let's do what's right for the people of this nation. it covers dulles airport. 19 million acres less than 3,000 acres will be developed. let's think about 3,000 acres will be developed to divide us for probably 39 billion barrels of oil, 74 miles away from the pipeline. a pipeline that can deliver two million barrels a day to the united states of america as we have done in the past. we've had one shipment of oil go overseas, heavy oil. all of the rest has gone to the united states of america, it's gone to our refiners. it's time for us as congress to act responsibly. all due respect to my friend from massachusetts, against nuclear power, against oil. in fact, i questioned the wind power because one time he was against that. i am saying, wait a minute, what are we doing to run our country for power? how do we get our economy going again? it's the key to our economy, energy. good, cheap energy. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields
back his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: yes, i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. markey: when the democrats controlled the congress in 2009, we passed a bill out here on the house floor that created an advanced energy technology bank that included $75 billion that the nuclear industry could have qualified. $60 billion for the coal industry for clean coal technology. although we also built in incentives for wind and for solar and for energy efficiency, we did it all. we did it all. we gave everyone a running head start. we didn't say nothing for nuclear. no. what have the republicans sent over the past year that passed on the house floor a bill that
zeroed out the loan guarantees for wind and solar but they left in the loan guarantees for the nuclear industry. that's not an all-of-the-above strategy, and you all voted for it unanimously. no. here's where we are. this oil above all strategy that you have, not all of the above, this is basically at the heart of what this whole debate is all about. last year the oil industry in the united states made $137 billion. this year they're going to blast right past that $137 billion. every person watching this debate is looking at the pump right now at $3.50 $4, $4.50 that they're paying and it's going straight up. they're going to be reporting profits of upwards of $200 billion. the republicans continue to keep in the $4 billion a year for tax breaks for the oil
industry. over 10 years that's $40 billion that would pay for the transportation bill. subsidizing the oil industry in 2012 to drill for oil is like subsidizing fish to swim or birds to fly. you don't have to do it. the consumer is already doing it at the pump. they're being tipped upside down. and so there's an easy funding mechanism here. take away the oil company tax breaks. that's the -- i will yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. markey: that is the only way that we can substitute the money that stays within that sector. ok. these guys are going to cut back on the pension plans of federal retirees in order to pay for a transportation bill when we should be keeping the funding stream within this energy sector because that's why we have tires on the road,
in order to use this petroleum, and the oil industry right now is having it both ways. they're getting tax breaks from the taxpayers at the same time they're taking the other pocket of every american as consumers and taking money out of their pocket as well. that's really at the heart of what this debate is all about. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, i am very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank the chairman of the committee, doc hastings. i rise in support of h.r. 3408. this legislation does three vital things. it will open up land in the west to oil shale development, open up one of our most promising areas for energy development in the united states, the arctic national wildlife refuge, and increase offshore production as well. these provisions will create hundreds of thousands of american jobs and ensure the
continued production of new domestic increases in our energy security and decrease our reliance on foreign oil, a goal the administration has professed to support time and time again. oil shale is one of the most promising new sources of american-made energy. the u.s. geological survey estimates that the western united states holds more than 1.5 trillion with a t barrels of oil, six times saudi arabia's proven resources and enough to provide the united states with energy for the next 200 years. opponents to this legislation will argue that this legislation attempts to promote technology that isn't proven. however, while the american oil shale industry is forced overseas due to regulatory uncertainty and burdensome federal regulations here, other nations are profiting right now from this technology. countries like jordan, china and estonia.
just this morning we heard from secretary ken salazar who expressed the administration's support of emerging technologies. you would think that would include oil shale. unfortunately the obama administration's support amounts to offering leases with such extremely restricted terms that it attracts hardly any industry support at all. as a result, countries overseas which get over 90% of their total energy supply from oil shale, like estonia, have robust oil shale industries. i asked secretary sal czar how this administration -- salazar how this administration can stifle this production of oil shale and he had no good answer. now, this legislation also opens up energy in alaska, specifically the less than 3% of anwr that the bill deals with. this area was set aside by president carter in 1980
precisely for oil and gas development. the arctic national wildlife reserve holds the single greatest potential for new energy source in the united states. offshore this legislation would increase drilling in federal waters while ensuring protection for our offshore military operations and fair and equityible revenue sharing for all coastal states. this energy legislation will create consistent policies to move the domestic energy industry forward and create good-paying american jobs for thousands of americans. people say all the time to me, why don't we have a better energy policy in this country? this legislation does exactly that. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3408. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: may i in--
mr. markey: may i inquire how much time is remaining on both sides? the chair: both sides have nine and a half minutes remaining. mr. morekey: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you mr. speaker. my good friend and colleague asked a good question, why don't we have a good american energy policy? you won't get it with this policy. this may be the worst american energy policy i've seen. oil shale? there's no way you'll see oil shale developed within the united states in any time probably in our lifetime. it didn't work in the 1980's, it's not likely to work in the next two decades. so what's this all about? by the way, if you happen to be from colorado utah, arizona california, new mexico you'd want to go whoa, wait a minute, oil shale? that takes a lot of water. we don't have enough water and you want to use it for that?
i don't think so. let's get real here. we do need a real energy policy. you're going to open up anwr? there are some very special places in this world. and anwr happens to be one of them. the arctic national wildlife refuge happens to be one of those places. you're not going to open it up and by the way, those of us from california, my good friends on the republican side are always talking about state rights. always talking about state rights. and your little piece of legislation here strips away the right of california to take care of its own coastline. it's not just authorizing the offshore drilling you take away california's coastal zone management powers. stripping away from california -- californians, all 38 million of us, our ability to take care of our own coast. something's terribly wrong with this piece of energy legislation. and you're going to fund the
transportation with this? while stripping money away from the land and water conservation fund? how does that work? how does that work? and by the way, the money won't be there anyway. this is not an energy policy. this is a stupid policy. and it ought to be 435 reasons each and every person in this house is affected in a negative way by this piece of legislation. 435 of us ought to say, put this aside just as we have discovered the underlying bill on transportation has found little support and has to go back and be reworked because of its insufficiencies. this is no way to fund a transportation bill. this is no way to treat california. this is no way to have an energy policy for america. yes, we do need an energy policy. we do need to have many different elements to it but we don't sacrifice those special
places. like the california coast. like the arctic national wildlife refuge. like bristol bay. like the coast of florida. like the east coast of the united states. we do not sacrifice that for an energy policy that doesn't solve the problem that this is purported to solve. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. duncan: thank you mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from washington for yielding me this time. i thank him for his leadership on this bill. i rise in strong support of this legislation. this administration, mr. chairman, has a secretary of energy who told "the wall street journal" that we should be paying the same price for gasoline as they're paying over in europe and at the time he said that, they were paying $8 of $9 a gallon.
i know that most environmental radicals come from wealthy or upper income families and perhaps they can afford gasoline at $8 or $9 a gallon but most people can't. in fact, mr. chairman, many experts are predicting we're going to be at $5 a gallon by as soon as this summer. i can tell you that's going to hurt a lot of poor and low income and working people if we go to $5 a gallon and it's going to hurt a lot of small towns and rural areas because people in those places generally have to drive longer distances to go to work. i represent, mr. chairman, a large part of the great smoky mountains national park. that national park is slightly under 600,000 acres. we get between nine million and 10 million visitors a year. anwr and i happen to be one of the few member who has been to anwr twice, it is the most barren place i have ever been to. mr. young, chairman young, estimated there's 100 miles without a tree or bush on it.
anwr is 19.8 million acres, 35 times the size of the great smoky mountains. "time" magazine said they get 200 to 300 visitors a year and you have to be a survivalist to go in there. now we want to expand our energy production there with just a few thousand acres, a min us kuhl portion of anwr, to help our own people. if we don't do that who we're helping is foreign energy producers but wear hurting a lot of poor, lower income and working people in this country. some have said before with when we passed anwr in the mid 1990's and it was vetoed by president clinton, it was said it would produce one million barrels a day coming into this country. but president clinton vetoed it. they said at the time it wouldn't help right away. well, it would be helping now if it hadn't been vetoed. and if we start now, producers
would have to bring the prices down and i think this legislation would start helping right away or at least in a very short time and we need to start putting our own people first once again instead of just helping out foreign energy producers. i yield back the brans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. markey: here's the reality. the republicans need money. to build roads. and so they want to drill in the arctic national wildlife refuge. which senator inhofe from oklahoma has already made clear doesn't have the votes to pass in the senate. the same thing is true for california, florida, off the coast of massachusetts, and new jersey, they want to drill there as well. and it's very clear that the votes aren't there in the senate to accomplish that goal either. and if the gentleman from -- as
the gentleman from california just said, the likelihood of finding revenues from oil from shale is at least two decades away, so there's no revenues there. this is another bill, by the way, that's going to come out here on the floor and in order to find the revenue do you know where they're going to drill? they'll drill into the pensions of f.b.i. agents, they're going to drill into the pensions of the researchers for cancer at the national institutes of health. they're fwoipping to drill into the pension -- going to drill into the pensions of the border patrol agents down on the mexican border protecting us right now. that's where they're going to find almost all the money for this bill, the pensions of those people. is that really the way we want to build the roads of our country? i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i am pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman, mr. tipton. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr.ityton: thank you chairman hastings mr. speaker.
clearly an interesting position from our democrat colleagues. they say we need roads, they say we need job, they say we -- mr. tipton: thank you, chairman hathesings mr. speaker. clearly an interesting position from our democrat colleagues. they say we need roads, we need jobs. but not here, not now. this is something we all stand together for. we're looking at developing oil shale as a potential resource for this country right here in america to be able to create american jobs on american soil using american energy resources , let's explore this. from the republican side, we have clearly stood for an all of the above policy. why is there such reluctance from our democrat colleagues to embrace developing technology to be able to create certainty for america's energy future? to be able to help struggling young families, senior citizens on fixed incomes, to make sure their utility bills gas bills
don't continue to rise. that's what we're proposing. when we're talking about protecting colorado, my home state, many of our colleagues -- may i have one more minute? mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman another minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. speaker. when we're talking about colorado, many of your democrat colleagues joined the amendment i put forward stating that the secretary wouldn't consider but shall address local concerns. if you understand colorado water, you can't just take it. it's a priority-based system. you have to actually own that water to be able to develop it. we have a reasonable plan that we're trying to put forward. to develop american energy certainty. but our democrat colleagues, their solution of having no, not here, not now, not anywhere is not a solution that will work for america.
let's get our people to work. let's create certainty for america and stand up for the american consumer for a change. i yield back, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: mr. chairman, i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: just two weeks ago president obama stood right there in this chamber and he said that he was going to propose opening up 75% of the oil and gas resources off of the coast of the united states. that's a great plan. he doesn't want to drill off the california beaches, he doesn't want to drill off the florida beaches or off of the new jersey or massachusetts beaches, but the rest of it, he's pretty much saying he's open to. but they're not happy with it over here. the president has a real plan and a plan that can be
implemented. what they do is bring out proposals here that try to build real highways with fake oil revenues that are never going to materialize. so rather than working here in the real world, with the real transportation needs of our country are dealt with with real revenues coming in, they talk about oil shale which shell oil says is 10 years away. i yield myself 30 seconds. not some shell collector along the beaches, shell oil says it's 10 years away. jim inhofe in the senate says the votes aren't there to drill in the arctic national wildlife refuge. that's zero dollars as well. and the likelihood of drilling off the coast of florida california, massachusetts for oil is zero. so why are we going through this facade of trying to
pretend that real highways can be built with fake oil revenues? we should be taking up the offer of president obama, where he says he'll open up 75% of all the drilling possibilities off the coastlines of our country that is what this debate should be all about. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. olson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. olson: i thank the chairman of the natural resources committee for the currency of speaking in support of h.r. 3408. mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of h.r. 3408. the pioneers act. and by doing so, i'm standing up for american inmoe vation, american jobs, and renewed american prosperity. shale oil is a game changer. and you don't have to look any
further than my home state of texas to see the economic benefits of this stable american energy resource. this past sunday, when i went to the area, there were 171 oil rigs and 93 natural gas rigs drilling thousands of wells, more rigs are coming. and major pipeline projects are under way to support production that will go to 420,000 barrels per day. let me say that again. 420,000 barrels of oil per day. what my friends on the other side of the aisle said oil shale, no way. i've seen with my own eyes at the eagle shale and i say oil shale, yes way. eagle ford shale job creation is now in full swing with scores of new businesses opening up to support the boom. more than 10,000 jobs have
already been created and 58,000 more are on the way. the economic recession is a thing of the past -- past in this part of our country, of my state. as we have noted, the world is changing in front of our eyes. our long-established dependence on imported energy could be a thing of the past if we harness america's energy resources. h.r. 3408 will get us one step closer. i thank the gentleman for the time and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back, the gentleman from washington reserve the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i yield myself one minute at this time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey:, you know, the republicans over the past year have betrayed their agenda. they have pretty much voted out on the house floor to gut the budget for wind, gut the budget for solar, gut the budget for
plug-in hybrid vehicles, and at the same time kept in the money for the nuclear industry, kept in the tax breaks for the oil industry. so that's pretty much what the debate is all about. it's about the past versus the future. in our country, right now the american people want to know that we're embracing a future-oriented, technology-oriented, advanced technology-oriented agenda for our country. that's what all the republicans keep voting against out here. all of the new technologies that allow us to move on from the fossil fuel era, and it will be one thing if they didn't just vote far, but then they have the at the matter to stand up -- at the matter -- at that matter to stand up because they wouldn't vote to kill wind and solar out here on the house
floor over the last year. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, senator inhofe's quote has been thrown around here recently. let me give another quote from senator inhofe. "as i have said we can make great strides by developing our own domestic resources. we can do this and support millions of american jobs produce affordable energy for consumers and reduce our dependence on foreign oil." he said that march, 2010. i think that's important. mr. chairman, i want to make one other point. there's been implication here that it's the policy of this administration to increase oil and gas supplies. but if you look at the president's own budget that came out this week, there are two aspects of revenue coming in from oil and gas production. you have the lease sales and you have the royalties. if you look at the president's
own budget this year it came out just two days ago, you will see that this year and in the outyear money coming in from lease sales decreases. that means that the policy of this administration is not more energy production on public lands. it's less. he's taking advantage of the situation that's going on, state and private lands and taking credit for it with what's happened in north dakota. this plan here puts together a solid footing for america energy production on public lands. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i think it would be helpful for both sides to understand what the time situation is for the conclusion of debate. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington, a minute and a half. mr. markey: does the gentleman intend to conclude debate with his next speaker? mr. hastings: my intent is to
hold that minute in case you say something that needs to be responded to. mr. markey: all right. so what i'll do, i will -- i will yield myself the balance of the time so that i can utter the sentences that will need responding to by the chairman of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. markey: i thank you. i thank the chairman. so again, let's go back a little bit to this issue of natural gas and what this republican bill calls for. more drilling for natural gas in our country. ok. we can look at that. we support natural gas. we think natural gas is the best story that's happened in our country in the last 10 years. we love natural gas. democrats love it. and it's half the pollutants of coal, it's domestically produced, we have to make sure
that when we're extracting it that we don't shoot chemicals down into our surface so we pollute the water that children drink, but we think we can work through those issues if people of good faith are willing to work together. otherwise, it's a fantastic story. why is that? because natural gas is not a world market. the world market is for oil. $116 a barrel in china. it's $116 a barrel in the u.s. global market. however -- and that's what allows opec to hold us hostage, because they control all that oil coming out of the strait of hormuz. they control all of that oil that they can basically hold the rest of the global -- globe's economy hostage. but natural gas, not true. here we've seen a 30% increase in our natural gas reserves
over the last five years. what does that mean? well, in china it's $16. japan $16 per million cubic feet of natural gas. what is it in the united states? $2.42. six, seven times cheaper in the united states. that means it's cheaper for every manufacturer, cheaper for every farmer, cheaper for every consumer. what do the democrats think? we love natural gas. let's keep it here. let's not be setting up terminals all across our country to export the natural gas across the planet with the department of energy saying that if we did that the price of natural gas in the united states would rise 57%. how can that be good for consumers? isn't that our advantage? saudi arabia is the saudi arabia of oil. we are the saudi arabia of
natural gas. why don't we use that to our advantage? why don't we use that to inoculate ourselves against what saudi arabia of oil does to us, by jacking the price of oil up and down? why don't we become independent of them? why don't we move to all natural gas vehicles? why don't we use natural gas in the generation of electricity? why don't we use natural gas in the production of all of our products? why don't we use natural gas in the homes of our country and the factories of our country, in the industries of our country? it's six times lower than china and japan. three times lower than europe. that's what we're calling for here, an energy strategy that is all-american. if we can get to that -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. markey: i think the american people will be the winners. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i just reserve my minute and a half until the intend of the overall debate.
-- until the end of the overall debate. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. >> mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today in support of h.r. 3408, which is known as the protecting investment in oil shale, the next generation of environmental, energy and resource security act. this is primarily about the keystone pipeline. the keystone pipeline has been a topic of discussion in america for the last three or four years. when it came to the attention of congress which this pipeline which is promised to create tens of thousands of jobs and increase our access to safe and
secure supplies of oil was experiencing an unreasonable level of delay congress decided that we needed to step in. we have in keystone pipeline a company willing to invest $7 billion in private funds at no expense to the taxpayer. they would ultimately bring nearly a million barrels of oil per day from canada to the u.s. additional oil per day. even the president's job council agrees, they suggested that the pipeline is a win-win-win for job creation modernizing the nation's infrastructure and helping ultimately to lower gasoline prices in america. mr. woodall: i would also like to point out that five major
labor unions support the building of the keystone pipeline. a few years ago secretary of state hillary clinton was in san francisco giving a speech at the commonwealth club. in response to a question about keystone pipeline, whether or not they would issue the permit to build it, secretary of state clinton said, we are inclined to do so. this project has now been studied for over 40 months by seven or eight agencies of the federal government and normally to build an oil pipeline in america, it takes on the average of 24 months. and when the department of state issued their final environmental impact statement back in august, 2011, they concluded that there were not
any significant environmental issues and they also said that when they looked at the option of either, one building a pipeline or, two, not building a pipeline, that the preferable option was to build the pipeline. of course, the rationale for that if you don't build the pipeline and you bring oil in from other countries, you either have to do it by truck or by rail, which certainly emits a lot into the atmosphere. but despite all of these positive reasons to build this pipeline, president obama made a blatantly political decision when he said, i don't want to decide until after the presidential election. and that's when congress got involved and said we'd like a decision by february of 2012, and the president said, well, i don't have enough time to study it so i am not going to allow
it even though it's been studied for 40 months. this is a 1,700 mile pipeline. the only issue left relates to about 60 miles in the state of nebraska, and the governor of nebraska supports building this pipeline. so this is a win-win-win situation for the american people, and i would urge our fellow members to support this legislation to require ferc to make a decision on this pipeline and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, my colleagues, i rise in opposition to this legislation. last week the republicans filed this bill, this transportation bill that the secretary of transportation called the worst transportation bill he had ever seen. the republican leadership
realized not even republican members would vote for this monstrosity of bad policy. so they've chopped the bill up into three parts and hoped to get a separate majority on each part. this way the house republicans hoped they could pass the bill and give their members the deniablity at the same time. now, that's not a transparent process or a fair one. it's a way to hide what is really going on from the american people. some republicans don't want to vote for drilling in the arctic national wildlife refuge. others don't want to vote for the money for the highways because some of the right-wing groups in this country are against it. so we have this shell game going on. the bill before us, h.r. 3408 contains the text of a very bad bill that came out of the
energy and commerce committee. we considered that bill earlier this month. the bill provides a legislative earmark that would direct the federal energy regulatory commission or ferc to issue a permit for the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline within 30 days of receipt of an application. now, existing law requires the president to make a determination whether this pipeline is in the national interest. serious questions have been raised about whether this pipeline is in our national interest. it is being built with steel imported from south korea and pipes from india. the oil it transports, i believe, will be exported to china. meanwhile, the risks of spills from that pipeline could contaminate drinking water
which will be borne by american families. these are factors the president should take into account, but this law ties his hands. it requires, it mandates that the federal energy regulatory commission approve the pipeline without addressing any of these issues. in fact, it requires approval before we even know the root that the pipeline will take. this follows some keystone cops activities on the republican side of the aisle. they worked themselves up about this pipeline, so in order to get unemployment insurance or middle class tax break they put in the extension for two months of those areas and a requirement that the president decide the issue within two months or three months. two months. and the president said i don't have all the information. i can't make that decision. so he said i'm not going to
approve it within two months. i'll consider it later but i'm not going to approve it. suddenly the republicans realize they were outsmarted, hoisted by their own petard. they forced the president to make a decision and he made a decision against them. they don't want to take that chance again this bill would put in an exemption from all the laws for one pet project from the ordinary permitting requirements that apply to every other oil pipeline crossing our borders. during the committee process, we asked a simple question. who benefits from this unprecedented congressional intervention into the regulatory process? many media reports said that a private oil company coke industries -- koch industries, is, quote, one of the big winners, end quote. but the committee refused, even
though the democrats asked them, to even inquire from the company, koch industries, whether it had a direct and substantial interest in the pipeline. they wouldn't even ask that question. could you imagine, they talk about they're against earmarks, then where there is an earmark that they want, they won't tell us who benefits from it? under this bill, the oil industry gets a conduit for exporting tar sands, products from canada to china. india gets the opportunity provide pipes to build it. south korea gets a market for its steel. but what do we get? mid western farmers and ranchers will have their land seized through eminent domain and may lose vital water supplies to an oil spill in the oglala aquifer, oil prices will increase as fuel supplies come
into their area and we are left with a dirtier, fuel -- a dirtier fuel supply and higher emissions of carbon pollution, worsening the climate change that is already starting to afflict our nation. i urge all members to oppose this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> i yield three minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. the chair: the gentleman veck niced for three minutes. mr. terry: the language we're discussing at this time is allowing the keystone pipeline a path forward. it's based on the bill i introduced back in september, which is 3548. keep in mind the president of the united states killed the keystone pipeline.
we think that was kowtowing to the environmental extremists, some of which may be in the house of representatives, or represented here today, but the reality is it was a wrong decision. it is in the best interest of our nation to have the keystone pipeline bringing oil from alberta oil sands into the united states where it can be refined and used in the united states. offsetting imported oil from venezuela and saudi arabia. it creates keystone pipeline would take these supplies from canada use them in the united states, creating tens of thousands of jobs over a two-year to two and a half year construction phase with permanent jobs thereafter to maintain the pipeline and its pipes along the 1,700 mile
pipeline. as far as the environmental objections to the project are concerned, i wish more people would have read the administration's own final environmental impact study. it found that not building the keystone x.l. would lead to more oil being transported by riskier means such as tankers trains, and trucks. for this reason, it concluded the ad-- it concluded, the administration's folks concluded, that the building of the pipeline is environmentally preferable to not building the pipeline and that its route was safe. then the nebraska governor requested that it -- that just for a little bit of nebraska, that they do a 30 or 40-mile loop. the path was set except for this little loop. it would take a long time to dispel all the myths that have been per pitch waited by the
opponents in the environmental community but it's worth noting that these are intra-state issues well on their way to being resolved and in fact were carved out in the previous bill mentioned by the gentleman from california but the president ignored the nebraska exemption, giving nebraska time to work through its change of route for about 40 or 50 miles of the 1,700. never mentioned that. and killed the pipeline system of we give a pathway forward to transcanada to refile its permit with all of the environmental documents that it has gathered over the last three years presented to the administration last year and give time to nebraska to resolve their issue. now, 30 seconds more. mr. whitfield: i yield the gentleman one minute.
the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. terry: politics of the extreme put us in this position. but let's ask, who benefits from this oil coming into the united states from our partner, canada, and being refined and used in the united states of america? if we have this, everyone benefits from our nation. if we don't have this pipeline to displace the oil who wins? venezuela continues to send us 900,000 barrels per day. saudi arabia. our reliance just grows for these nations' oil supplies. that's who wins. saudi arabia and venezuela. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska yields back the remainder of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. waxman is recognized.
mr. waxman: i'm pleased to yield to the ranking member of the energy subcommittee, the gentleman from illinois, four minutes. mr. rush. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for four minutes. mr. rush: i want to thank the ranking member for this time and thank him for his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, i find it remarkable that we are here today debating a bill that essentially a regular lair to -- regulatory earmark for just one company and that company is called transcan ka. -- transcanada. we are debating whether to build a pipeline through the heart of our country without allowing the appropriate state and federal agencies to completely conduct their due diligence and their oversight responsibilities. mr. speaker, this legislative
gift wrapped in fine gift wrapping to transcanada on behalf of my republican colleagues will completely circumvent the state department and the other state and federal agencies those agencies will have the -- who have the know-how and expertise to thoroughly examine this process and will require, mr. speaker they will require that first the federal anti-regulatory commission that they issue a permit for the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline within 30 days of the receipt of the application. and if they do not issue it,
then it shall be considered approved automatically. mr. speaker, how insane can insanity get? how ridiculous can ridiculous be when we are allowing an agency federal agency that if they don't pass this permit within 30 days, if they don't do all the investigation within 30 days, then this permit will automatically be approved. mr. speaker, the keystone x.l. project is too big, too consequential, too important to the american people, so this country, for this congress, rather, to completely ignore all the established protocols
that have existed prior and exist now and set a precedent by bypassing state and federal oversight procedures. the very people whose lives will be most affected by this pipeline deserve to have the responsible agencies complete their review process to ensure the american people that this project has been thoroughly examined and vetted. mr. speaker, even my colleagues, who may support the merits of the keystone x.l. pipeline are appalled and should be appalled at the majority party's attempt to hijack the process, circumvent the appropriate state and federal agencies in order to hastily irresponsibly green
light this project. this sentiment can be summed up by letters sent to me on february 9 by a a citizen of this nation, a nebraskan rancher by the name of randy thomas who said, and i quote, the short circuiting of the process leaves those of us who live and work along the proposed pathway of this project with many lingering doubts about its safety and the impact it could have on our livelihoods. may i have 30 seconds? mr. waxman: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. rush: the american people deserve better than this shoddy attempt to give transcanada an earmark that allows them to bypass the established rules
and procedures we have in place. i can't support this and i ask my colleagues to join me in not supporting this particular bill and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. waxman: i would yield the gentleman another 30 seconds if we how old yield to me. on the other side of the aisle, the comment was made that extremists are pushing opposition to this pipeline. and from what i heard from mr. rush and what i understand the case to be is that those who ordinarily make this decision should have all the facts. and i don't think that is an extreme position at all. thank you for yielding to me. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: how much time do i have. the chair: the gentleman has two minutes.
mr. whitfield: i recognize myself for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. whitfield p: we are here today because it's time to decide. president obama and his administration made a decision not to decide. even though his own secretary of state, in their final economic environmental impact statement made the decision that if you looked at two options, one build the pipeline, or two not build the pipeline the preferable route was to build the pipeline. one million more barrels of oil a day coming to america ultimately. we're facing ever-increasing gasoline prices. there's only 60 miles at issue at all in this pipeline out of 1,700. five major labor unions support this pipeline. there's not one dime of federal dollars in this pipeline,
unlike the millions and billions that this administration have given to wind power and solar power and battery companies, many of which are in bankruptcy just like solindr of a which received $538 million from the taxpayers of america. s that private company willing to put in $7 billion to bring 100,000 more barrels of oil a day, willing to provide 20,000 additional jobs to construct this pipeline, and so i think the decision here is very easy for the american people and that's what mr. terry's legislation does. since the president won't make a decision, mr. terry directs the federal energy regulatory commission to make the decision. we have all the data necessary and it's the right decision to
make and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'll yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of titles 14 and 17 of rules committee print 112-14 shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as an original bill for purpose under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment shall be in order except those printed in part a of house report 112-398.
each such further amendment shall be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 112-398. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. eshoo: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by ms. eshoo of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 547, the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.
the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. chairman. last year in the bipartisan pipeline safety bill that was signed into law, i worked with chairman upton to include language which requires the pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration, which is called phmsa, to complete a comprehensive review of hazardous liquid pipeline reclamations. this review will determine whether the current regulations are sufficient to ensure the safety of plinse used for the transportation of tar sands oil. everyone agrees that this review makes sense. the house and the senate both passed the pipeline safety bill without a single member of congress voting against it. what doesn't make sense is directing the federal energy regulatory commission to issue a permit for the keystone x.l. pipeline before we know whether
safety standards are adequate. the administrator of phmsa testified before the energy and commerce committee that the agency -- stating that the agency had not done a study to analyze the risks associated with transporting diluted bidimum. we heard concerns pipelines carrying tar sands oil may pose greater safety risks and may be more corrosive than pipelines carrying conventional crude. according to a recent whistleblower who worked as a safety inspector for the first keystone x.l. pipeline he said quote, this oil has the consistency of peanut butter and is similar to sending heavy grit sandpaper down the pipe, unquote. so we're not talking about a theoretical risk. in july, 2010, a pipeline carrying tar sands oil ruptured
near marshall, michigan. over 800,000 gallons of oil flowed into the kalamazoo river. a year and a half after the spill, the cleanup continues and is expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. oil tar sands, unlike conventional crude oil sinks to the bottom of a river, making it especially difficult to clean up. transcanada's first keystone pipeline doesn't really inspire confidence either. this is a brand new supposedly state-of-the-art pipeline. it was predicted to spill no more than once every seven years, but in just a year and a half of operation, it's reported 14 separate oil spills. in north dakota, over 21,000 gallons of tar sands oil have been spilled, and these spills are a warning to all of us that we need to get this right. this is not a subject to be taken lightly.
we've seen in my neck of the woods in the northern part of the county where i live in san berno, california, a natural gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people, injured dozens and destroyed 38 homes. the federal government has been regulating plinse since 1968, and we're still seeing explosions line the ones in california. i think it's dangerous, mr. chairman, to move forward with the tar sands pipeline before we have the proper safety knowledge and procedures in place. so my amendment is really quite simple. it requires the ferc, the federal energy regulatory commission, to review the results of phmsa -- of the phmsa study before issuing the permit for the keystone x.l. pipeline. i think this review is important for the safety of the americans who will be living near this pipeline for decades
to come and who rely on the rivers and the streams and the aqua fers it will cross -- aquafirs it will cross. this is better than to replace or fix a line that is already built. for all of these reasons i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. and i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. whitfield: to speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: and i do so reluctantly because we all have such great respect for ms. eshoo of california. that is a hardworking member of the energy and commerce committee and provides great leadership. but we oppose this amendment for a couple of simple reasons. number one, this study by the department of transportation is going to be made anyway. we're not stopping that at all.
number two, keystone will transport a grade of crude oil that has been in our nation's pipelines for decades. there's nothing really new about this substance. venezuelan oil has about the same density. certain saudi arabian oil have the same density. studies by the canadian government and private sector engineers in this country have demonstrated that heavy oils in tar sands are not more dangerous or corrosive than regular grade of oil. simply we have not found any evidence to the contrary of those studies. and the reason that we're opposing this amendment is this -- because this amendment would say you cannot begin this pipeline until this study is completed. and our position is we want the study to go forward. we have waited over 40 months
to get approval of this pipeline. the american people need this pipeline. america needs this additional oil. and if the study comes back and comes up with significant or any safety issues, i can assure you that congress is ready to act to address those. but there's no indication that there will be a problem, and so for that reason we feel quite confident that this pipeline should be built. we want the study to go forward, but we want the permit to be issued to build it now as the department of state recognized in their final environmental statement back in august of 2011, and so i would urge the defeat of the eshoo amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 6 of -- the question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. eshoo: i'd like a roll call vote, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 112-398. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. markey: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 547, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. mr. markey: mr. chairman, i
yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. markey: mr. chairman, the purported benefits of the keystone pipeline have achieved mythic status. we said this pipeline will lower gas prices even though transcanada says gas prices will go up. we've been told tens of thousands will be hired to build it even though about 5,000 or 6,000 temporary construction jobs will be created. and a particularly egregious dissent into fairy land, we said that the oil will enable us to reduce our dependence on oil from not friendly middle eastern or venezuelan neighbors. when we look at the iranians threatening to block the strait of hormuz, i think this just illustrates how critical it is
that supply to the united states be north american. but under this bill the republican bill there is no guarantee that even a drop of the tar sands oil and fuel will stay here in this country. they keep saying how great it would be that we have a million barrels of oil coming to the united states from canada. there is no guarantee in this bill and that's because many of the refineries where the keystone crude will be sent plan to re-export the refined fuels. this is the map of what the oil industry plans on doing with this oil. comes right through the united states and then it heads off to asia, south america over to europe. and valero, one of those refineries, says in its investor presentation that it plans to refine the canadian crude at the same facility it is building in port arthur texas, an export zone because
doing so leverages its export logistics. our amendment will say this oil coming through this pipeline from canada stays here in the united states and doesn't head off to china. that's what the amendment's all about. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. terry: thank you. this is one of those myths that we must try to dispel, i guess if you say it enough times some people will start believing it. but the reality is why would you build a pipeline 1,700
miles, branching off to several refineries along the way to our main refineries in texas and louisiana simply to put it on a boat, send it through south america, over to china when they're already discussing because the president denied this permit and set off a little bit of an international fury sending a message to the rest of the world that we're going couch over to the environmental extremist as our energy policy in the united states, they are now talking about or have been for sometime of just building a pipeline straight from the alberta tar sand up here all the way to vancouver coast. now, let me just read some of the articles since prime minister steven harper went to china last week. to quote him, to buy the oil that the united states just rejected when the president denied the keystone x.l. permit
. this is from ottawa c.t.v. article. says he also, meaning the prime minister, made a subtle dig to help block transcanada's plan of the keystone x.l. pipeline which would have carried canada's oil to refineries in the united states. we uphold our responsibility to put the interests of canadians ahead of foreign money and influence that seek to obstruct development in canada and favor of energy imported from other less stable parts of the world, he told him. by the way, he was referring to saudi arabia, middle east and venezuela where we're getting our oil now and will continue to do so unless this keystone pipeline is built, offsetting up to a billion barrels a day. on bloomberg harper said he's committed to profoundly diversifying the country's energy exports that will facilitate construction of new infrastructure needed to ship
the country's oil to china. he's not talking about the keystone pipeline but the new one along the west to vancouver. canada is seeking to reduce its reliance on the united states after president barack obama rejected transcanada corps' $7 billion keystone pipeline to ship canadian oil to the gulf coast. we want to sell our energy to whoever wants to buy it. that's why he went to china because obviously it's not the united states. in an oil and gas journal states that harp -- states that harper's visit was an open warning to washington after barack obama rejected the keystone pipeline. it's not a subtle warning, it's an open warning. it was a wakeup call said an energy expert at the university of alberta.
"washington post," chinese state-controlled has a stake in the pipeline that would boost investment in alberta oil stands. from today "the houston business journal," says that the chief of the port metro vancouver, the city's port authority, said port would be willing to undertake the drudging and infrastructure work necessary to allow bigger ship into the port that would carry crude shipped to the coast from alberta oil sands. the reality is if you want this oil to go to china kill the x.l. pipeline, the keystone pipeline and let this one be built in canada, which canada is already preparing to do. and i will reserve the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i yield one minute to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. keystone is not the energy future that advocates claim it is but if in fact the keystone pipeline is built, then this amendment says that that oil in fact should be used in the united states to reduce our dependence on oil. it appears right now that if this pipeline is built, it will be for the purpose of transporting tar sands oil from canada down to houston for refining and then export to la tain america -- latin america and china. that's very much what is on the mind of many people. you can't have both. have that pipeline be essentially a conduit for export and claim it's going to reduce american dependence on overseas oil.
this amendment speaks directly to that and it allows those who claim the keystone will allow us energy independence to guarantee in law that that will happen. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: may i inquire how much time is remaining on either side? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has two minutes remain, the gentleman from nebraska has one minute remaining. mr. terry: i -- mr. markey: i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: oil companies are running a multimillion dollar lobbying campaign to prove the keystone pipeline, a pipeline the owner itself will cause the price of oil in middle america to go up, not down. here's what the oil company transcanada said in its own application. additional producer revenues are possible if the keystone
pipeline relieves the oversupply problem in the midwest. it goes on to say the market prices of canadian heavy crudes should rise in the midwest this gives new meaning to the phrase voodoo economics. only in a party bought and paid for by the koch brokes -- brothers would politicians have the audacity to claim that raising prices will lower prices help consumers or improve national security. our amendment prevents oil companies from gouging american consumers by requiring any oil produced in the pipeline to stay in america. with that, i yield back to my friend from massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman yields bark. the gentleman from nebraska continues to reserve. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: again, could we get a review of the time remaining. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has one minute the gentleman from nebraska has one minute. mr. markey: and who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from
nebraska has the right to close. mr. markey: i yield myself the remaining minute. the gentleman from nebraska says, what's the problem? all the oil is going to stay in the united states. it's not going to china. that's what will happen if we don't build the pipeline so they should vote for the markey amendment pause the markey amendment could only be guilty of redundancy, saying all the oil stays here in america. so if that's your purpose that's what the markey amendment says. we'll hold you to your word when we have your vote but here's the real plan. transcanada puts the dirtiest oil on the planet into the brand new pipeline republicans are giving it to transcan -- two, transcanada sends that oil to the gulf coast where it can make billions more than where it currently sells it in the midwest, three refineries on the gulf coast export it to other countries at world oil prices and don't pay taxes to the u.s. for doing so. four americans get higher gas
prices and no increased energy security. five transcanada hugo chavez and the sheikhs of saudi arabia laugh all the way to the bank. please, vote yes for the markey -connolly-cohen-welch amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: this ealt -- amendment defies logic in that the refined product of gasoline will be used in the united states. the fall soif this amendment here is it says all the refined products, well there's stuff that's left over after the process that we can't even use in the united states that's currently exported today. for decades. we actually don't use all the diesel and we trade with europe to bring in more gasoline. so what this amendment is trying to do is, a start a trade war, because it violates
all trade rules and regulations, but the reality is it's a misnomer. if you really want this oil to go to china and us to have to continue to import from venezuela and saudi arabia, then vote yes on this amendment because evidently you're more concerned about jobs in china than you are in the united states. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. markey: on that, i request the yeas an nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceed thonings amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number three printed in part a of house report 112-398. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek
recognition? mr. rush: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in part a of house report 112-39 offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 547, the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, an a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, why is it that proponents of this bill is walking around this capitol smiling and smirking? well it's because this bill requires the hasty approval of a permit for the keystone x.l. pipeline. they're smiling and smirking because their friends, the big oil companies, are big winners with this bill while the little people, the property owners,
will be the big losers. mr. speaker, people might be surprised to learn that transcanada has been bullying american people, american land owners and pressuring them to allow the company to build a pipeline through their land. in fact during the subcommittee hearing, we heard testimony from witnesses who live along the path near the proposed route of this pipeline that transcanada is doing just that, bullying them, bullying them. they don't even have a permit to build the pipeline yet we are tole that they are threatening american citizens with imminent domain, basically telling people if you don't give us access to your land, if
you don't give us your land, then we're going to take it. mr. speaker, this is wrong. this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong. why are we rewarding a private, foreign company trying to intimidate and coerce american citizens with this regulatory earmark? in order to protect private owners mr. speaker, along the path of this pipeline. i am offering an amendment to restrict the use of eminent domain. it requires that a permit for this pipeline will only be used eminent domain to take private property against their will. my office was in contact with a nebraska rancher named randy thompson who wrote me a letter february 9 and i want to read an excerpt for my colleagues to
consider. i quote mr. thompson. he said dear congressman rush, i would like to express to you, sir, my concerns about the bill introduced to fast forward the permitting process for the keystone x.l. pipeline. it seems inherently wrong to me that a foreign corporation can force american citizens to forfeit their individual prolt rights through the use of eminent domain which is the per -- on a -- transcanada has for the time being suspended their property search in nebraska. but i can assure you they'll be back on our doorsteps with a vengeance was a permit has been granted. it appears to me that some members of congress are too eager to subsidize the big oil
companies not only with our tax dollars but now with lan that belongs to american citizens. mr. speaker, we have a right to protect our citizens from being bullies into giving up their land against their will for a a -- for the gain of a private foreign company. we need to wipe the smile and smirk off the face of the proponents of the bill. pass this amendment, protect the american people. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? mr. terry: rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: none of us are smiling over the fact that the president killed the pipeline that would have created 20,000 jobs and provided us a newer level of energy security. in this amendment -- this amendment, in essence, is a way of killing this pipeline. let's be clear about this. the pipeline is 1,700 miles.
and in each state that this passes, this pipeline, proposed pipeline would pass, the oil company or the pipeline company, excuse me negotiating with the land owners on the proposed route. so if you have one person that objects, then they can ostensibly kill the pipeline. so in every state there is a mechanism in its own state laws that resolves any disputes for a right of way and we've heard some language here about taking people's property. this is for use of a property and a right of way a small strip of land. ok. so their rights are protected, the straight' rights are protected, what this amendment would do is strip the states of their rights here and send it off to an unknown area that has
no rights to resolve any disputes and they only need one land oner to kill a 1,700 mile project. the gentleman's letter that the gentleman from chicago mentioned is one of those people. he belongs to bold nebraska, an organization of environmentalists to kill the pipeline. at this point, i yield my remaining time to the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from nebraska for yielding. i'm here to speak on mr. markey's amendment, the previous amendment. i want to oppose my good friend from chicago, mr. rush's amendment, but i think mr. terry eloquently made the case why it's not in order at this point in time. but i want to go back to the previous amendment that mr.
harky offered, to restrict the use of oil, both crude oil and refined products, that come in through the keystone x.l., to have to be sold in the united states. it goes without saying that if it's crude oil it would make absolutely no sense to transship it through the keystone pipeline, to the gulf coast, and then put it in a tanker to go overseas. if you're going to export crude oil it makes much more sense to export it directly from canada. on the refined product end of it, you have to know one thing. that this crude oil that we would be importing from canada is a heavy crude oil. we have some of the best refineries in the country that have been -- really been upgraded by billions and billions of clars so we can handle -- dollars so we can handle not just the light sweet crudes like west texas interneedat or saudi light, but we can handle these heavy crudes like the canadian crude oil that would come down. when you have a barrel of crude oil you can't just say, i want to make it all gasoline.
you can make a lot of gasoline, but you're going to end up having to make diesel oil and asphalt and a lot of other products and our refineries are the best in the world at cracking these heavy crudes. as they come down through the midwest to the louisiana and texas refineries, most of the refined products would be sold in the united states. but the united states is primarily a gasoline market. the european market on the other hand is primarily a diesel market. so as our refineries have become better and more competitive, it makes sense to not put a restriction on the refined products but let the market allocate it. it would actually create jobs in the united states. we could ship some of these refined, primarily diesel but some of the difficulty lats could go to the european market. you get a better margin, create jobs, protect jobs here in the united states. the primary market will always
be the united states. currently about 75% of the crude oil that's refined on the gulf coast is used in refined products that are sold in the united states. but somewhere around 20% to 25% has been going to europe primarily the diesel. the markey amendment would turn that market on its head. it would be counterproductive to our economy, counterproductive to our consumerses and counterproductive to the -- consumers and counterproductive to the general oil markets in the world. i know mr. markey has, you know is trying to do what he thinks is the right thing, but if we passed his amendment, which we defeated in the committee i think 34-14 or something like this we got eight democrats, about 40% of the democratics -- democrats to vote with us against the markey amendment in committee. we ought to defeat it by that same margin here on the floor of the house of representatives.
i want to thank mr. terry for yielding. i also want to thank mr. wit field for his excellent -- whitfield for his excellent leadership on this issue. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from illinois has one minute remaining. mr. rush: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rush: mr. speaker, let me just say we, as members in this congress we were elected to this body to protect the american people, to protect our citizens to protect their property. and, mr. speaker these actions that's owcurring by the republican majority -- that's occurring by the republican majority, it's going to pass. it's going to make it
meaningless for the protection of the american people. why don't you protect the landowners? mr. terry: will the gentleman yield so i can answer the question? the answer to that question would be that -- mr. rush: we were sent here to protect them and not to let big oil companies come in and just take take their land. mr. terry: there's a legal process set up and the only thing they're taking away -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from nebraska will suspend. the gentleman from illinois' time has expired. the chair would ask members not to interject during comments of another member. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. rush: roll call vote. the chair: the gentleman from illinois requests a roll call. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 112-398. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. murphy: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. speaker. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by mr. doyle of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 547, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i will take as much time as i can consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doyle: mr. speaker despite
all the controversy surrounding this pipeline, i think this is a good opportunity for us to examine some of the claims that the applicant for the keystone x.l. pipeline has made. now let me say at the onset, i support building this pipeline in a way that protects the environment and helps create american jobs. i don't support the rush 30-day manner that this bill would have us do. but i do support the pipeline. when i started reading about the 800,000 tons of steel to be used in the keystone x.l. pipeline like everyone else i was pretty excited about the prospects for our u.s. manufacturers and especially coming from pittsburgh, our steel manufacturers. so i have to tell you, i was a little confused when i talked to my friends in the u.s. steel industry and they told me they weren't making any of the steel for this project. now, i knew this had to be a mistake because transcanada had told us that there would be 7,000 direct manufacturing jobs
created by this project so surely someone somewhere in the united states has to know what these jobs are. i've also heard folks talking about the wonderful jobs being created at steel mills in southwestern pennsylvania. trouble is i can't find a steel mill in southwestern pennsylvania that's making steel for the keystone x.l. pipeline. in fact, i'm having trouble finding a single u.s. steel maker that has any orders for any of this pipe. now, i reached out to the permit applicant, transcanada, and several other sources for some clarifying information regarding their claim that 75% of the steel used in the keystone x.l. pipeline will be sourced from north america. unfortunately the best i seem to get is that there's a single pipe manufacturer in little rock arkansas, that is providing much of the steel pipe for the pipeline. the trouble is that manufacturer
doesn't actually use u.s. or north american steel to make the pipe. in fact, the little rock plant very clearly told me that they make their pipe out of foreign steel imports. they also told me they have imported and are housing on their site 140 miles of ready-made pipe that they got from india to be used in the keystone x.l. pipeline. so, all my amendment does is asks for some truth in advertising. transcanada has told us that they make every effort to source as much steel from u.s. mills as they can. i'm simply asking the applicant to certify their claims along with other members of the energy and commerce committee. i have sent a letter to transcanada asking for this information. but i've yet to receive a response. i think members deserve this information. if there is in fact a u.s. steel maker out there that is making all or some of the steel for the
keystone x.l. pipeline i think we have a right to know about it. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i seek recognition to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> first of all, i would like to say to the gentleman of pennsylvania that, who's a very hardworking member of the energy and commerce committee and provides great leadership, that we reluctantly oppose his amendment. mr. whitfield: his amendment is very simple and it is very direct. it simply says the permit will not be issued until the permit applicant certifying and -- certifies and provides documentation that at least 75% of the iron and steel used in the construction of the pipeline is produced in northern america. -- north america. which is a goal many of us have. i'd like to point out a couple
of facts here. number one this is a private company that's putting up $7 billion of its own money. number two in order to keep costs down, it's already acquired all of the steel and iron that's going to be used in this pipeline. now, some people say, well why in the world would it spend over $2 billion buying this material when they didn't have a permit? well, they filed this permit 40 months ago and all of the information coming out from the secretary of state, the democratic of state in their -- department of state in their final statement would indicate that the pipeline was going to be approved. so they bought this material many months ago to try to keep the costs down. and i would tell you that from the information that we have 74% of the pipe was milled here in north america. and in fact it's milled in four
different locations. not all of them are in north america. the steel comes from seven different sources. some of it from america and some of it not from america. but the reality is that if we adopted this amendment, the permit would not be issued because the applicant cannot certify that 75% comes from america because it bought this material a long time ago. and i might add, there's not one dime of taxpayer money in this project. so our feeling is that the practical aspects that you would basically stop the building of this pipeline, we would lose all those jobs, we would lose all the additional oil that we would be getting and we believe that there would be more negatives
from it than there would be positives. one other comment i would make is that the american iron and steel institute that represents many of the companies that mr. doyle is concerned about is supporting our legislation. we have the letter that they support this legislation and they support building the pipeline. and i might also say that five of the major labor unions in america -- i yield myself an additional 0 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitfield: five of the major labor unions in america support this legislation because they recognize the additional jobs that will be available to them in the construction of the pipeline. so for that reason reluctantly oppose mr. doyle's amendment and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield
one minute to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. sutton. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. sutton: thank you and i thank you, mr. doyle, for your leadership. this is a great amendment. it's a commonsense amendment. now, we don't know if the x.l. pipeline will be built, many have strong opinions on whether or not it should be built at all. but one thing that we should all agree on is that if it is built it should be built with materials made right here in america. you see, when we talk about producing energy in america, that doesn't just mean oil gas, wind, nuclear and other sources that power our homes and businesses. it means materials used to extract refine and transport that energy. and why does it have to happen that it needs to be american-made materials? because it means jobs, good paying jobs that can help to strengthen our middle class. it means stronger communities and a stronger economy at a time when we need that now more than ever. and it means a future with more security and more certainty for the next generation. this pipeline is going to run
through america. it should be made of american iron, steel and manufactured goods. i ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense amendment, in supporting the american middle class and in supporting american jobs. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has one minute remaining. mr. doyle: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 30 seconds. the mr. green: i found out this last monday, i asked, i know the chair of our energy committee has heard me ask about project labor agreement for the whole part of the pipeline but doesn't cover texas, the largest state in the union, does not have a project labor agreement with transcanada. i consider maybe transcanada didn't deceive me, but they sure didn't answer the question when i asked them in committee.
i talked to them about that. i know our labor support nationwide but they have a project labor agreement from the canadian border but not the oklahoma -- and to the oklahoma border but not for texas. it's important that that job be done safely. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i have 30 seconds left? the chair: yes. mr. doyle: the gentleman said the amendment can't go through because it's impossible for transcanada to certify what they said was true. they've misled us. i think we ought to be honest with the american people, it's obvious from the discussion today and past discussions that this steel is not being manufactured in north america. it may be finished in north america at some of these plants but no steel was made in north america, congress has been
misled. this is not a way for a company to do business. they're a private company they can use anybody they want. what they can't do is lie to congress. mr. speaker, i yield back and ask for a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. whitfield: i reiterate this is a private company spending their own money, before this ever became an issue, they acquired this material spent over $2 billion acquiring this material. everyone is talking about jobs, one of the reasons they're offering this amendment is because of job. there's nothing we can do about the material already being acquired. it's already purchased. so all we would do if we pass this amendment is we would make sure that the permit for this pipeline would not be issued. this material, all this $2 billion worth of steel would be moved to canada, they would
build the painline to the west coast and move the oil to china and they would get the construction jobs so we would end up with no jobs. so i know the gentleman's intentions are the very best and we all are concerned about the issue through were no taxpayer dollars involved in this. it's a private company, they acquired this material this never did become an issue until i suppose about a month ago and the material was even acquired at that point. so i would respectfully request that members oppose this amendment, let's build this pipeline and let's help america be less dependent upon foreign oil. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. to mr. doyle: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman
requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the jell from pennsylvania will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in part a of house report 112-398. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five printed in part a of house report 112-358 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis and a member opposed each shall control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: my amendment gets to the heart of what sustains our western communities from colorado to new mexico to montana, our water and our land. my amendment is the answer to concerns from my constituents in colorado, outcries from farmers, from ranchers, local communities, from sportsmen from recreationists, and from
many others who know this bill threatens their livelihoods and my amendment corrects that component. mr. speaker, this bill continues to -- contains a troubling oil shale provision. it was originally included to help pay for the bill's overall cost but it was found to provide no revenue system of how can something help pay for a bill when it provides no revenue? the c.b.o. score confirms it receives no revenue, there's no reason to include it. we might as well take up any random natural resources bill and in fact the whole discussion of oil shale certainly deserves its own discussion and since it's not going to help pay for our highways, i would urge my colleagues, even if they're supportive of this end product, remove this from this bill. let me be clear. my amendment has nothing to do with one form of energy over another. you'll probably hear people on both sides of the argument talk about the potential for oil shale in the fauch. it's not about dirty or clean forms of energy, it's about common sense. if a technology doesn't exist
and won't bring in revenue, why is it being considered as a revenue provision for an unrelated infrastructure bill. -- bill? we've all heard of former presidential candidate herman cain's 9-9-9 plan, but the formula for this bill is the 0-0-0 plan. it tchands wellock up land at fire sale prices to those kecked enough to make bids for a technology that doesn't exist and would threaten jobs, would threaten water in western colorado and threaten our western way of life. my amendment simply strikes that section leaving rev mue for the overall bill unaffected and keeps our western lands and waters as they currently are, outside of what's supposed to be an infrastructure and transportation bill. now you might hear some hold up estonia as an example of oil shale development but by all accounts,est tonian oil shale has been an economic disaster. even a representative othe rand
corporation said that oil shale in estonia is not used to produce transportation fuels. you'll also hear that we're the saudi arabia of various energy resources. now i continue to question the wisdom of looking to estonia and saudi arabia for leadership and energy infence for our country. even industry insiders know that if a provision -- provision like the one contained in this bill is the wrong thing to do. a professor who heads the industry-sponsored oil shale technology at the colorado school of mines said he's doubtful any firm would bid on commercial leases, leaving them to speculators. he also said it isn't obvious to me yet we need to put a bunch of commercial leases out there because no one has a commercial process yet. that's something that industry admits. there's no feasible cost effective commercial process for extracting oil from shale. we're talking about a potential technology, one that will have profound implications on water,
profound implications on land use, and yes profound implications on national energy policy. but it's a technology that doesn't exist. this component of the bill, if we don't remove it will remove speculators rather than those who can actually play a meaningful role in providing for our energy infeint future. i strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this common sense amendment an i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, reserves. the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born is recognized. mr. lamborn: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognize. mr. lamborn: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment, it would strike a key provision of the bill that would provide american jobs and tap into a potential natural resource, american oil shale. this amendment also increases the federal take from drilling in anwr from 50% to 51%, leaving the state of alaska with that much less. now, proponents of this
amendment will argue we should get rid of the oil shale provisions because the technology is not proven. estonia does get a sizable amount of energy from oil shale currently. and i'd like to ask why is the proponent of this amendment so concerned that this is going to be a big thing in the future and affect the western way of life if he thinks it's never going to take off an amount to anything. he can't have it both ways. so why don't we let the companies experiment on their own expense at their -- on their own dime and see if they can find a commercial, viable process that works -- works to extract this hugely potential source of energy? the usgs estimated that there are 1.5 trillion, with a t, barrels of oil equivalent in these oil shale formations.
i think it's worth experimenting to see if it can be commercially extracted. that would be a huge relief from having to get foreign oil and it would create money for the treasuries of states and the federal government an create american jobs as well as the security aspect. so i just don't see why there's such opposition to this when they say it's not going to work. that doesn't make sense. they can't have it both ways. i say let the companies experiment at their own expense, no cost to the taxpayer and so i strongly urge opposition to this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb burn -- lamb born reserves, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis is recognized. mr. polis: perhaps my friend and colleague isn't aware that there is already experimentation about the potential for oil shale to meet our energy needs. there are millions of dollars spent every year that industry itself has invested in this technology.
furthermore, there's three million acres of oil shale lands in colorado, utah and wyoming under state private, or tribal leadership and have been for decades. there's a couple of sites in colorado where they're looking to try to develop cost effective methods. in fact, by the end of of 2012 there'll be nine active federal research and development leases. no one has figured out a cost effective way to develop these areas. again, this is not about the research. in fact, the second round of bids in early 2009 when the obama administration affirmed the bush administration's decision there was a significant reduction in industry bids. tri-was less interested in trying to figure out this it's been a nut they've been unable to crack for nearly 100 years. this amendment is not about the environment. it's about common sense. mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time remains?
the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. polis: i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly support this common sense amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born, is recognized. mr. lamborn: this is one more example of the proo because ma administration stifrling the proux -- production of domestic energy in this country. they put out restrictive regulations that made it so untenable for commercial companies to even go into the research and development leases as it was changed after poth because ma took office that there was little interest in pursuing under the new format. so we need to go back to the previous way of offering these leases so there is at least interest on the part of industry at their own expense to see if this technology is commercially viable. once again, i ask the question, why is there opposition to
something that i say is not going to work. we don't know if it's going to work or not and with the possibility of 1.5 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, let's at least let that happen to see if that can be feasibly explored and developed and produced. we have nothing to lose. s that great win for the american consumer, especially should a commercial application and scaleable venture be produced, it would create energy and jobs and money for the treasury. i urge strong opposition to this amendment. i have to disagree with my friend and colleague from colorado on this particular issue and i urge a no vote. thank you and i yield back. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. polis: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote. mr. polis: i request a recorded
vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number six printed in part a of house report 112-398. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number six printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by mr. hastings of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 347 the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: this is a technical manager' amendment making changes agreed to with the armed services committee to
make sure we are fully addressing the needs of the military community. it adds further protections to those already included to ensure production in our national defense exists in our nation's offshore areas. this amendment also includes a slight adjustment to the timing of the leasing of one offshore area off the coast of alaska, in fact, it moves it back to 2015. these have been talked with with the minority. i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i rise to strike the last word, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is reck -- does the gentleman claim time in opposition. mr. markey: i claim the time of the minority. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank the chairman. i will say that this amendment marginally improves the bill,
but it does not change our fundamental opposition to it, but progress on any front is welcomed. i'll be glad to yield. mr. hastings: i agree that progress in any way is beneficial. so i appreciate the gentleman's accepting the bill or amendment. mr. markey: we do not oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 112-398. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will
designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 -- amendment number 7 offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 547, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: mr. chairman, this is a straightforward amendment and it is overwhelmingly supported by my constituents. so i hope we can all agree to it. the amendment strikes a harmful and unnecessary provision in the underlying bill that mandates new drilling, mandates new drilling in the sensitive waters off santa barbara county in california. the majority says this new drilling is necessary to help fund the transportation bill. but according to c.b.o., the new drilling, any new drilling off southern california would at best generate tens of millions of dollars in revenue while the gap in transportation fund something measured in the tens of billions of dollars.
mr. chairman leaving aside the funding arguments that the authors of the bill have made, the people most affected my constituents they don't want new drilling. my colleagues have heard me enadvocate santa barbara's devastated 1969 oil spill before. and that's because it galvanized central coast residents and vertly -- virtually the whole state of california against more offshore drilling. we were outraged by the damage to the environment and the wildlife, to our economy. and we understood the havoc that similar blowouts would have upon our economy, including tourism and fishing industries. and that's why california permanently banned new oil and gas leasing in state waters in 1994. it's why californians fought to pass groundbreaking environmental laws like the national environmental policy act and the coastal zone management act. it's why some 24 city and county governments including both santa barbara and ventura counties
have passed measures requiring voter approval before any new onshore facilities to support offshore drilling could be built. and that's why in 2008 then republican governor schwartz neglect told president bush and -- schwarzenegger told president bush and congress to oppose new drilling off the west coast. most recently, an oil company in santa barbara thought it could capitalize on the high gasoline prices by placing a measure on the ballot to allow drilling from the shore. that plan was rejected by 70%, that's right 70% of the voters in the communities that was affected by it. and that was just in 2010. we're also aware of the pentagon's concern with new drilling in our area. so close to the air force base. and in 2008 -- in a 2008 letter to an oil company proposing to slant drill from the shore, the air force replied, and i have a copy of the letter to submit with my statement, this is a quote, the drilling and production facility would
present a wide range of significant operational constraints inconsistent with the air force base's national space launch mission. mr. chairman, californians have spoken loud and clear. we do not want more drilling off our shores. we want to protect our coast line from the devastation that the 1969 spill, oil spill brought to santa brarb a -- santa barbara and now because of this legislation these communities are at risk again. it's not just the new drilling mandate in this bill but also because the bill would gut critical environmental laws like ccma and nepa, the very laws passed in response to the 1969 spill off the santa barbara coast. it's outrageous, this bill specifically denies california and only california any role in new offshore drilling decisions under the coastal zone management act. it also removes california citizens' ability to voice their concerns about new drilling during the environmental review process. i find it ironic that some of
the same people in this body who decry an overarching federal government have no qualms about forcing new drilling upon a local population which is directly against its wishes. this approach rubberstamps restrictive drilling, cuts out virblee reviews and closes down the public's input. it might be good policy for oil companies but bad policy for my constituents and it's bad energy policy for our nation. so mr. chairman, american families want us to pass a balanced transportation bill that creates jobs, fixes our roads and bridges and ensures that they have a safe way to get to work and back home again. they don't want more politics, especially the kind that put our coasts, our communities, our very way of life at risk. so i urge my colleagues to join me in striking these harmful, unnecessary provisions from this bill. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself as
much time as i may consume. mr. chairman according to the u.s. census, the state of california's largest import is petroleum. let me repeat that mr. chairman. according to the u.s. census bureau, the state of california's largest import is petroleum. so i guess it's a good thing that private geologists estimate that over 1.6 billion barrels of american-made energy are ready and waiting to be developed from existing infrastructure in southern california. what does existing infrastructure mean? well, there are currently about 23 oil and gas platforms located offshore southern california which account for about 24 million barrels of oil and 47 billion cubic feet of gas annually. the lease sale proposed in this legislation allows drilling from existing platforms or to put it
in another event ac lar, those that are already in place. if we are going to have a serious discussion about offshore drilling, it makes perfect sense to drill only where there is already drilling going on. but from where the petroleum already exists which is why this bill specifically states no new infrastructure. we need to drill where there are -- known resources. and this california lease sale is a commonsense way to limit the drilling footprint while accessing our resources that are known in southern california. in fact, mr. chairman, the state of california is already working with the bureau of ocean energy management on a permit to allow a company to drill from existing platforms in federal water into state water for state resources. let me say this. the state of california has entered into the same concept that's embodied in this bill.
so let me repeat here one more time. it's governor brown's administration that is pursuing drilling off these same platforms in the coast. additionally this amendment completely eliminates all coastal states and u.s. territories from receiving fair and equitable income for drilling that would come from their shores. this means states like florida and virginia will not receive any portion of any revenues for drilling that will occur after their coasts under the bill if this amendment were to be adopted. this underlying bill is a drill smart plan that directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known resources. and that includes a vast resource of southern california. this amendment would lock away significant resources that belong to the american people. it would keep our country shackled to the foreign powers upon who we rely for foreign oil and gas imports. it would also hinder our nation's energy security.
this amendment also ignores the soaring gas prices that american families are facing at the pump right now. and many of these families don't have room in their budgets to pay for the hundreds of more dollars just to drive to work or drive their kids to school. and by the way, i might add mr. chairman i think if there is an epitome of an area in the country that does a lot of driving, it's in california. we need to get america producing energy again and i urge my colleagues to vote and oppose this amendment and vote for the underlying legislation and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. the gentlelady has 30 seconds remaining. mrs. capps: i would just comment to remark that the very project my colleague from war, my friend described is the project that the local constituents rejected by 70%. the project that was -- that was mentioned. we are interested in california
and ending drilling, not just stopping leasing. and i'll reserve the rest of my time to close. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i would ask the gentlelady if she is prepared to close, i'm prepared to close. i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from washington has the right to close. mrs. capps: mr. chairman, our nation should be investing our time, our energy and creativity into real solutions that put us on the path toward clean energy solutions for our future. we've seen time and time again that our congressional district doesn't want to be known for chasing after yesterday's energy solutions but for leadership toward the renewable energy solutions of today and tomorrow. i urge an aye vote for my amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: how much time do i have left, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from washington has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i just want to reiterate once again, and this seasoning that people in our great country have
different views and i certainly understand what happened in southern california some 40 years ago. listen, that picture is indellably on everybody's mind. but nobody can argue, nobody can argue that it has not been advances in oil exploration in this country and certainly in the o.c.s. but as a recognition of that in this bill we didn't say just go anywhere you want to go in southern california, we said, go to the existing platforms where you're drilling and existing infrastructure where there has been drilling. that seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable way to utilize the resources that we have by -- have, by the way in federal waters, not state waters so, we can make ourself less dependent on foreign energy. the last thing i would say, the state of california is pursuing precisely the same thing that's embodied in this underlying bill, only on state waters.
so i urge my colleagues to oppose my good friend's amendment from southern california, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. capps: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentlelady from california, do you seek a recorded vote? mrs. capps: i seek a recorded vote. the chair: the gentlelady from california seeks a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number printed in part a of house report 112-398. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. bilirakis: i have an amendment at the dess, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by mr. bilirakis of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 547, the gentleman from florida and a member
opposed each shall control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bilirakis: thank you. with the national unemployment rate hovering around 8% in my home state its rate is closer to 10%, there's no question that our nation is hurting for economic growth. this year the focus of efforts here in the house of representatives has sebtsered on creating a framework -- centered on creating a framework for the private sector to innovate and grow, to create the jobs we desperately need. to that end mr. chairman, my amendment seeks to take all prudent steps to ensure that jobs and the economy are the focus. my amendment simply requires the secretary to conduct an economic impact survey to assess any affect lease sales would have on the florida tourism and fishing industry. people from all over the