tv Washington This Week CSPAN January 10, 2015 12:48pm-3:01pm EST
efficiency and into sustainable energy. that should be the direction of this country and we should lead the world in moving in that way. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. guest: white house has already set president obama will veto the bill. 290 members of the full house will need to vote in favor of the legislation. here is the big yesterday from the house floor. -- debate yesterday from the house floor. hat purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 19 i call up the bill h.r. 3, to approve the keystone x.l.
pipeline. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3. a bill to improve the keystone x.l. pipeline -- approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 19 the bill is considered read, the bill shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. wit field and the gentleman from new jersey -- whitfield, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, each control 15 minutes. mr. shuster: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i rise today to support h.r. 3, the keystone x.l. pipeline act, and for those who have not heard, according to the administration, the final hurdle has been removed. and that is that the nebraska supreme court this morning has approved the pathway to -- for
the pipeline, the routing of the pipeline, the keystone x.l. pipeline. again, the administration has said that was the major hurdle. it has fallen. so i hope the president is not going to establish another hurtle, that being himself -- hurdle that being himself. america is undergoing an energy renaissance and the prospect of securing north american energy independence is in sight. however, to achieve our goal of energy security we need to make sure we have the infrastructure in place to keep pace with the changing energy landscape. keystone will be a critical addition to the nation's pipeline network, increasing our supply of oil and helping to reduce its cost. the state department completed its environmental nail sis a year ago. however, there's still -- analysis a year ago. however, there's still been no action on the pipeline. there's no reason to delay this project. and as i mentioned, as the president's main arguments in the premature veto threat is that the bill would authorize the pipeline despite uncertainty due to ongoing litigation in nebraska. that uncertainty has ended this
morning and the supreme court of nebraska's allowed the planned route to go forward in nebraska. again, there is simply no reason to delay. in fact, the southern leg of the pipeline has already been built. in march, 2012, in oklahoma the president expressed his support for expediting construction for the southern leg of the keystone x.l. pipeline. i agree with the president when he stated at that ceremony that he was directing his administration to cut through red tape, breakthrough bureaucracy hurdles and make this -- bureaucratic hurdles and make this a priority to get done. it was the right thing to do then, it's the right thing to do now and it's exactly what this bill does. we should move forward because this pipeline will be a tremendous boone to the economy , economic development, and one that doesn't require a single federal dollar. the very nature of infrastructure improvement creates jobs and keystone is no exception. i know my colleagues have made the argument that it's only temporary. but every infrastructure job is a temporary job. when a road's completed when a bridge is completed, when a pipeline is completed. those construction workers move on to hopefully other
construction jobs. and indeed five unions representing over three million workers, i repeat that to my democratic colleagues five unions representing three million hardworking americans, support this project. and i'd like to submit their letter in the record for support of this project. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shuster: i want to name them off. it's the teamsters, international brotherhood of electric workers, labor international union of america, the operating engineers, it's the pipe fitters of the united states and canada, all supporting this project. again they see it as positive economic impact. and again when these jobs are completed, they'll move on to other hopefully construction jobs. but what's left behind will have a positive impact to our economy, to job creation, for a generation. our energy renaissance is helping make north america more secure and energy independence and -- energy independent and i want to quote the president. in this time of significant political uncertainty in key
oil producing countries and regions and in the context of a difficult economic situation,-opec canada crude oil supplies advance the -- situation non-opec canada crude oil supplies advance the energy of the united states. he said this in 2009. about the end bridge pipeline which started transferring oil sands from canada to the gulf coast last month. the president five years ago supported this type of thing. he should support it now. so other than politics, i don't understand why he hasn't approved this project as he did with end bridge. it's time to build. ladies and gentlemen, i especially look to my democratic colleagues. let's put down our gloves, let's do something positive for america, for those three million union jobs that -- workers that will be rewarded. let's do what's good for the environment. let's do what's good for energy independence and let's be fair to our greatest friends in the world our canadian neighbors. they allowed us to build a pipeline across their land. we should allow them to do the same in ours. they're our best allies, our
greatest friends, a great neighbor. lets us today pass this bill -- let us today pass this bill and build the keystone x.l. pipeline with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- pipeline. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the nc ofis te. the lanroos regned. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may conme the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: well, it's ground hog day come early to the -- grundhog day come early to the -- groundhog day come early to the floor of the house. it's cold enough, i guess. this will be the 10th time in the last four years that the house of representatives has moved this bill with the assertion that somehow it leads us to energy independence, energy security lower prices at the pump. well, the reality is, a canadian corporation is going to build a pipeline from canada to texas. they are going to be exempt from paying into the oil spill liability trust fund unlike most other projects in this
country, because of a stupid ruling by the i.r.s. but that's nothing new. regarding tar sands. so they'll be exempt from paying into that. so if this thing bursts, there's an accident, the taxpayers of the united states get the bill. not the taxpayers of canada. they don't get the bill. taxpayers of the united states get the bill. now, that's one of a number of problems regarding this project. it's somewhat unprecedented, i believe -- this may have happened at some other time in american history, but i do find it particularly ironic today, when we had the reading of the constitution, that the effect of passing this bill, if it were to become law and the president has already said he'll veto it, but if this were to become law would be to give a foreign corporation the right to take private property from american citizens. i'm not aware of any other time in the history of the union where we have given a foreign
corporation the right to take americans' private property. yeah, some people were happy to sell the rights. but many others weren't. including some in nebraska and some in texas. it's been quite contentious among land owners who are just having this corporation come. i would like to put in the record a letter from transcanada. we have blacked out the name of the recipient of the letter. but it is a true copy of a letter to a person who will have their private property taken by eminent domain by a foreign corporation. and the foreign corporation informs them that they will begin this month, i guess, because of the anticipated public inaction, to take their private property away. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. defazio: thank you. now, that's a bit ironic, again on the day we read the constitution, and also of the party of individual rights for property owners. so that is also of concern. yes, there will be construction
jobs. and i'm the first to admit we need more jobs in america. in fact, i voted against the president's so-called stimulus bill because it didn't invest enough in building frturethisoury insteadt d a wleunch of stupid tax cuts because of lay summers, you know, a highly acclaimed hack economist. and we didn't put a lot of people back to work. 7% went to infrastructure. that created jobs. 42% went to tax cuts. didn't create jobs. but that's another agenda the republicans are pursuing, is tax cuts to create jobs. but we won't get into that here today. so yes, that will happen. but there are a lot of other investments we should, could make that will create significant construction and infrastructure jobs. now, were this just in isolation and it didn't involve the total construction of the forests of canada, if i were a canadian i'd be pretty upset about that, and perhaps the dirtiest, most environmentally
problematic way of extracting fossil fuels from the ground to get these oil sands, the construction jobs might have, you know, might carry the day. but sometimes you have to draw a line. and in this case, you know we also hear it's going to lead somehow to energy security. that's interesting because the crude is going to come down without paying any crude, tar stand oil or whatever you want to call it, it's going to come down to texas without paying into the oil spill liability trust fund creating a potential problem for the future taxpayers of the united states. go to a refinery in an export zone in texas and it will be refined and then it will be exported. we're exporting millions of gallons of fuel every day. so to somehow say this is going to lead to lower prices at the pump in america -- maybe it's lower prices at the pump in china or japan or someplace but it isn't going to be here. because the product is
ultimately going to be exported. so it's not -- also not going to do anything for our energy security. and at the moment we have fracking and other things, fuels and prices are down considerably. so, you know, those are just a few of the problems. and we are by passing this bill, the house of representatives, will attempt to preempt the executive authority of the president in this matter because this pipeline crosses an international border, the president has authority and the state department halls been considering it -- department has been considering it. and even with the supreme court of nebraska refusing to make a judgment, they did not hold the law of the nebraska legislature, in fact, four out of seven judges, normally majority in most places, said it was unconstitutional. but nebraska has it where if
the other three judges take a walk, which they did even though a majority found it unconstitutional, it's not found unconstitutional and that's the end of the proceeding. . they need a little work on their constitution, i think. it hasn't received a stamp of approval there. there are still aggrieved landowners in nebraska who object to the route and who are going to have their private property taken by a foreign corporations. other than that it's a great idea w that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank youers -- thank you, mr. speaker. before i yield to the gentleman from new york. first of all, i'm from pennsylvania, palkstauny is several miles several out of my district. i'm somewhat knowledgeable on groundhog day and i want to point out in the movie "groundhog day" bill murray learned of his mistakes the day before and improved his situation each day. hopefully today your references to your learning from yesterday and how we can move forward, i
think the nebraska situation improves the whole situation for all of us, and i certainly don't question the wisdom of the supreme court of the nebraska supreme court, with that i yield to mr. hanna. mr. hanna: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this bill. pipelines as vice chair of the pipeline subcommittee, pipelines are the safest sing wail to transport liquids, safer than rail, safer than trucks. the state department says keystone would have a minimal impact on the environment. president obama and his administration have confirmed that keystone will create thousands of construction jobs. these are men and women's livelihoods respectfully i'd remind the administration, but by their nature all construction jobs are temporary. and it is insulting to marginalize the value of these jobs or the people who hope -- might hold them. keystone is supported by many unions, including mine, 545, the
operating engineers, where i have been for almost 35 years. prime minister steven harper of canada and i agree, said that the keystone is in both our nation's interests, and that quote, the logic here is overwhelming. keystone will help stop sending billions and billions of dollars overseas to our enemies many of whom went harmless. mr. speaker, it's time to start building this keystone pipeline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i'd reserve for the moment. i'm straightening out -- could you tell me how much time remains of the 15 i had? the speaker pro tempore: each side has nine minutes remaining. mr. defazio: with that i yield four minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, the ranking member of the natural resources committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for four minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you mr. defazio. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to what can only be
described as an earmark for a canadian corporation. it speaks volumes about the republican agenda as this new congress convenes that the first order of business in the house and senate is to rubber stamp the keystone x.l. pipeline. we have not dealt with unemployment benefits that the american people need that's lapsed for more than a year. millions of americans are suffering from a low minimum wage and income disparate, but we are not helping them. -- disparity, but we are not helping them. women in this country earn seven cents to every dollar for their male counterparts. we are not dealing with that. trying to end that disparity. instead, they are forcing keystone through without the proper approval process. building a pipeline clear across the united states so that transcanada can sell its dirty tar sands oil to the highest bidder, namely china, is not in the american people's best interests. we take risk to our lands, the american people face threats to their health, and transcanada gets to reap the rewards. that's not a winning formula for
our country or the economy. in fact, it's a sham. yet the keystone x.l. pipeline continues to be sold to the american people. on blatantly false pretenses. we are told by proponents this is a panacea for job creation. yet not a single independent analysis supports these claims. the burden of proof is on the g.o.p. they pull fantastic claims out of thin air and yet refuse to back them up. instead we are told to take those assertions at face value. here's what we actually know. these are the facts that actually can be substaniated. the state department found in a supplemental environmental impact study of keystone pipeline it will generate less than 2,000 jobs a year for two years. and only during the period of construction. once the pipeline is built, these jobs will have disappeared leaving a mere 35 permanent jobs that will result from this project. 35. to put that in context under
president obama 353,000 jobs were generated in november, and a total of 2.9 million in 2014. there's also the claim -- please, gas prices have been dropping for more than 100 straight days and are at the lowest level in more than 5 1/2 years. they won't go any lower by allowing oil to be piped across our country just to be sold abroad. in contrast to these fantasy impact on gas prices, the potential impacts on our environment are very real. not only will burning these tar sads add to global climate change, but a failure or explosion will have disastrous impacts on our environment. that's because tar sands importers are exempt from paying into the oil spill liability trust fund. american taxpayers will have to bear the cost of any cleanup of any spills. the public needs to know these
facts and that is why allowing one hour and not a single solitary amendment today robs the american people of a full debate and discussion. on top of all that, this bill is being pushed through despite the fact that it violates not one but two treaties for the american indian nations. what does it say about the respect for the rule of law? if republicans truly want to generate jobs for the american people, they should fully fund the highway trust fund and support the grow america act to invest in the crumbling infrastructure all across this country. not helping canadians build a superhighway for their dirty tar sands oil. we should be supporting 2,000 jobs per year for two years but millions of jobs for american families across every congressional district. my colleagues, we have a chance to take an important stand today in this congress on behalf of taxpayers, the environment, native american communities, and the rule of law.
by supporting president obama's veto and rejecting this toxic give away to a corporate -- foreign corporate oil interest. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. before i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from minnesota, i just want to say there have been 15 hearings on the keystone pipeline. this is the 10th time we have debated it on the floor. this quite possibly could be the most debated piece of legislation in the history of congress. i don't know that for sure but i do know it's been out there for 2,303 days and 60% of the american people support it, while 20% don't. i think the american people are fully aware what's going on here. they understand it and they do support it. with that i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 30 second. >> thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the keystone pipeline which will safely move 300
million barrels annually, strengthen our economy, continue to decrease our dependence on middle east oil, and support thousands of jobs. this body has shown tremendous leadership on this issue and last year passed bipartisan legislation to approve keystone for the ninth time. mr. emmer: today with strong support from unions businesses, and the american people we must pass it again. i'm grateful for representative cramer, chairman shuthser, chairman upton, and leadership for their work on this vital legislation. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. defazio: the gentleman just referenced safely transport. of course that's a hypothetical. let me give a real example. in 2010 a canadian company, embridge, had a pipeline burst in marshal michigan. one million gallons of tar sands
oil. here's the thing. think about tar sands oil, it doesn't flow. it goes right to the bottom. they are still dredging canadian tar sands oil out of the bottom of the kalamazoo river four years later. so far claims of $53 million have been made which will have to be paid by american taxpayers against the oil spill liability trust fund and not by embridge, the canadian corporation, which is what we are setting up here. an even greater transshment by a foreign corporation exempt from paying into the oil spill liability trust fund, creating even bigger potential for spills with this oil which has unique characteristics which are much more difficult to clean up if it comes in contact with water. god forbid get into the aquifer
in one of the states being transsecond sected. the chairman dnch reference the 14 let's say 14 hearings, he three were in the rules committee. those weren't hearings. that's sort of a little star chamber where you take things before you bring them to the floor of the house. you don't discuss substance there. one was in the senate. and that would leave there were 10 in the house but not a tsengle one of those hearings was in the principal committee of jurisdiction, which would be the transportation committee. and of course the bill that was marked up by the transportation committee in the first session of the last congress has -- was very different than the bill that is being advocated for today, which has not been marked up. we heard a lot about regular order, read the bill and all that stuff. it's fine sew say we voted on this a lot of times before. 61 new members of the house. gas prices are down by almost 50%. a lot of things have changed. i would even wonder about the viability of this project. i did just recently learn the
koch brothers have a significant investment in tar sands in canada. but that probably has nothing to do with an attempt to expedite this project. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: before i yield a minute to the gentleman from north dakota i would just like to remind the distinguished ranking member on the transportation and arguably the most knowledgeable man in congress when it comes to transportation issues, many years of service plus an intellect that's very sharp, i would never presume to tell him i want to remind him the safest way to move product, move oil is by pipeline. with that i yield one minute to mr. cramer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding. i just heard a word that is almost hard to believe. we have been accused of expediting this process. ladies and gentlemen this is day 2,303 of this process.
it is time now. it's time because it's good for jobs creation. it's time because it's good for the environment. it is the safest, not just the safest way, but most environmentally sound way to move oil sands in the pipeline. it is good for national security. it is good for economic security. it is good because 62.8% labor force participation is the lowest since 1978. it dreats jobs. and -- it creates jobs. for these reasons not only does the majority of the united states house and majority of the united states senate support it, it's for these reasons that the vast majority of the people of the people of united states support it including the people of nebraska. for those reasons i urge a yes vote on h.r. 3. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: at this moment i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i recognize the gentleman from texas for 45
seconds. mr. poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the permitting for the keystone pipeline has taken longer than it took for the united states to win world war ii. isn't that lovely. the pipeline will bring oil to my home state of texas. and pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. the keystone will deliver as much oil as we get from saudi arabia. the united states should work more with our neighbors our normal neighbors canada and mexico, to develop our natural resources and compete with opec. this is a national security and energy security issue. we can make the middle east, its politics and its oil, and its turmoil irrelevant. it's time to pick a horse and ride it. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: can i inquire again as to the time remaining on both
sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. defazio: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: respond to the transport, yes, pipelines are generally safer. but the consequences look at the case in michigan. when a pipeline goes are generally much greater, much greater volumes. even in the horrific train accidents we have had, the volumes were relatively small that were spilled, even though the consequences, particularly in the one in canada, were very very damaging. . minimally added to the bill, requiring them to pay into the oil spill liability trust fund, that would make this slightly less objectionable. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i recognize -- i yield to the gentleman from california for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. chairman. i rise in support of h.r. 3
the keystone x.l. pipeline. this bill is based on the cassidy keystone bill which passed the house last congress on a bipartisan vote of 252 to 161. mr. denham: as chairman shuster noted, this pipeline will create jobs enhance our energy independence and strengthen our national security. this is a bill that makes numerous project benefits a reality. according to the department of energy, the pipeline will transport over 00,000 barrel per day of oil -- 800,000 barrels per day of oil from canada to the gulf coast which will help reduce reliance on hostile nations. some have argued that the oil will just be exported. but the administration's own environmental analysis denies that that will ever occur. it will also create good paying jobs, now, while promoting the growth of our energy economy for the future -- future. this is the most studied pipeline in our history, in the history of our nation. week of never studied a
pipeline like -- we've never studied a pipeline like. this this project will be safe -- like this. this project will be safe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for another 15 seconds. mr. denham: america currently has 2.6 million miles of pipeline, providing an extremely safe way to transport energy products. the keystone pipeline will be the safest ever built with 95 special mitigation measures, including nearly 60 recommended by the department of transportation. it's time to approve this project. we can't afford any more delays. the american public deserves these jobs and we deserve to be energy independent. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i would yield the gentleman from new jersey a minute and a half. mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. pascrell: thank you, ranking member, thank you mr. speaker. we know that building the keystone pipeline will create some jobs, we can even help lower consumers' prices.
but many of these jobs are temporary. which is true of most cases anyway. the price of oil has already fallen below $50 a barrel for the first time since 2009. what we really -- we really got some good news about jobs today again. we added 252,000 jobs, the unemployment rate is the lowest since 2008, i think may or june of that month, of that year. while we're going in the right direction, we need some serious creation of jobs and at least the handout to the administration, not a handout, but a reachout to the administration that, hey, you're doing a pretty good job on this, on oil prices on gasoline prices. just a little bit of encouragement. we are all on the same ship, come on. you boost our energy security and having consumers money at the pump, but the debate over keystone has become a symbolic issue. come on. let's admit it. it is clear that this fight is vastly greater than the
economic, environmental or energy impact, it's the end of the world if you listen to the extremes of both sides. i could support the construction of this pipeline but do not believe congress should circumvent the administrative view. mr. speaker, let me just recommend something perhaps through you to the chair. that i believe that the reason why we have this problem is the federal energy regulatory commission has nothing to say about oil lines. they doen gas lines but not oil lines -- they do on gas lines but not oil lines. i think we would save time if we used the same situation. i'm going to vote no on this but i believe there are good things that need to be done and can be worked out. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: it's now my privilege to yield to a nebraskan, to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i thank the chairman and thank you for the time. as you always know, a major portion of the keystone x.l. pipeline will run through nebraska's third district.
nebraskans overwhelmingly support this project, to improve access to north american energy and decrease the strain on our overwhelmed infrastructure system. and as we all know now the nebraska supreme court has upheld the process as established by the elected nebraska officials. i urge my colleagues to support approval of this project and i urge the president to sign off on the pipeline as a needed step to encourage private investment in infrastructure. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon. that is correct. 30 seconds. mr. defazio: ok. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. shuster: may i inquire how much time i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has four minutes remaining. mr. shuster: it's now my privilege to yield to the gentlelady from virginia, mrs. comstock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. comstock: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of
h.r. 3 the keystone x.l. pipeline. this bill is about good paying jobs and energy security. republicans and many democrats agree on this, as well as the unique coalition of unions like the teamsters, tea party as well as the chamber of commerce. listen to what the president of the union said, quote, to the tens of thousands of men and women in the construction industry, this isn't just a pipeline, it's their mortgages, college tuitions, car payments and food on the table. and for our country, this isn't just a pipeline, it's a life line to families security, energy security and national security. mr. speaker, i encourage my colleagues to vote for the passage of this critical bipartisan bill. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from new york mr. reid. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. reed: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong
support of this legislation, to authorize the building of the keystone x.l. pipeline. it's time. enough is enough. we agree, thousands of jobs will be created by this pipeline. this will improve consumer prices. this will bring stability to oil markets around the world. this will contribute to protecting us here on american soil rather than relying on energy sources from hostile nations of the world. it doesn't cure all the problems, but it's a step in the right direction. our constituents sent us here, mr. speaker, to solve problems. this is part of the solution. i rise in support of the keystone pipelined an -- pipeline and ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reaffirm the bipartisan message of the last congress and approve this legislation today and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i now yield one
minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. bucshon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. bucshon: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the keystone x.l. pipeline, the most studied pipeline in american history. after six years and 22,000 pages of review, the president's own state department tells us that construction of this pipeline will support over 42,000 jobs and do nothing to harm the environment. and pipelines have been shown to be the safest way to transport oil. keystone is bipartisan widespread support, democrats, republicans, industry leaders and labor. unfortunately the president issued a veto threat, putting the wishes of environmental activists ahead of creating jobs for the american people. mr. speake l'say yes to much-needed jobs and approve the keystone pipeline without any further delays. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. shuster: may i inquire as to how much time i have left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 1 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from oregon has 30 seconds. mr. shuster: i'm ready to close
if the gentleman will close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: we're exporting more than 60% of the oil that we produce every day, either as refined or even as crude product. in this case, canadian oil exempt from attacks, will flow through the united states to a refinery, will be processed and exported overseas. somehow that's going to lower prices further at the pump, somehow that's going to lead to american energy security. those arguments -- you have to blow the dust off those. they're a little dated. we've raised a number of concerns here today. minimally, minimally the republicans should require this canadian corporation to pay the same tax that most u.s. corporations pay when they transport products through pipelines and not put american taxpayers at risk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. the final hurdle has been removed. nebraska's supreme court has
said that the keystone x.l. pipeline can move forward. that should be enough for my democratic colleagues. but there's more. it's safe, it's the safest way to transport this oil, this natural resource. it's studied, the most studied pipeline. it's going to be safe, environmentally sound. it will protect the environment. it creates jobs. and don't listen to me, listen to the five unions that represent three million workers. three million union workers say the keystone pipeline should be built. it provides energy security for us, it's good for our economy, it helps our allies, it strengthens our you a lies and it weakens our enemies -- our allies and it weakens our enemies. it's it's fair to our best friends in the world, the canadians, who allowed us to build a pipeline from alaska to the lower 48. we have to return the favor to our best friend, our best ally, and say yes, you can build a safe pipeline, you can build a pipeline that will help all of north america, that will help all of our allies around the world, and weaken our enemies.
with that i urge a yes vote on h.r. 3 and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, the energy and commerce committee has shared jurisdiction over this issue with t.n.i. and we have a number of members that would like to speak on the issue as well. and at this time i would like
to recognize for two minutes the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. upton: thank you mr. speaker. if you like cheap oil most americans would say yes. and a number of us have strongly pursued a north american energy independent plan for years. and our friend canada is a big part of that. in august of 2009 president obama signed off on a new pipeline called the alberta clipper. guess what? it brings 400,000 barrels of oil a day from western canada to the united states. we have been waiting for the approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline for years, over six in fact. i remember well when president obama promised to do whatever it takes to create american jobs. that was followed by a so-called year of action, yet here we are six years later, nothing's happened. by the administration's own
estimates, tens of thousands of jobs will be supported by this landmark project. bringing oil from canada to the u.s. displaces imports from venezuela and the middle east. isn't that a good thing? i also note that former secretary of state hillary clinton signaled that she was inclined to support the project. and that was way back in 2010. in fact, in the summer of 2011 the white house issued its first veto threat against congressional action on the keystone x.l., claiming that legislation was unnecessary because their process was working. and a decision would be reached by the end of that year. since then we've upgraded new oil and gas pipeline standards and keystone will exceed those. as it should. we used to be a nation of big ideas and big dreams. we imagined building the hoover dam and the golden state bridge and accomplished both in far less time than it has taken the president to muster the courage to simply say yes or no. we can do better.
the election, mr. president is over. there's been broad bipartisan support for this project from the very first day. the president has been hiding behind the nebraska court case to block the critical jobs project called keystone x.l., and with that road block cleared, the white house is now out of excuses. vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield to mr. green for unanimous consent request. mr. green: mr. speaker i ask unanimous consent to place the statement in the record in support of h.r. 3. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself five minutes at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: today mr. speaker, we're voting once again to grant special treatment, and i stress special treatment, to transcanada's keystone x.l. tar stands -- tar sands pipeline.
it's the 10th time since republicans took control of the house. american families face many pressing problems and they want to us use this new congress to work together to solve them. unfortunately we'll begin this new year with a bill crafted solely to help the canadian tar sands industry. the administration issued a statement in opposition to this legislation and indicated that the president will veto the bill. i heard my republican colleagues talk about the action or inaction, whatever it was, by the nebraska supreme court today. but i was stress that the -- i would stress that the white house press office still says in a statement that regardless of the nebraska ruling today the house bill still conflicts with long standing executive branch procedures regarding the authority of the president and prevents the thorough consideration of complex issues that could bear on u.s. national interests and if presented to the president, he will veto the bill. so the bill will still be vetoed by the president, which is another indication why we're wasting our time today. . mr. speaker, oil prices are at
their lowest level in five years. gas prices are now below $2 a gallon. necessaryic oil production is skyrocketing -- domestic oil production is skyrocketing. tar sands is the most carbon intensive of all fossil fuels. it will create a dependence on crude, reducing the carbon reductions we have been working hard to accomplish. according to some experts, building the keystone x.l. pipeline will triple production of the tar sands. that's totally inconsistent with any future scenario for avoiding catastrophic climate change. we don't need this oil, mr. speaker. approving and constructing this pipeline won't lower gas prices for americans. in some areas it may even raise prices. this pipeline is a terrible deal. for the united states. we get all the risk while the oil companies will reap all the rewards. i was at the rules committee the other night and all i kept hearing was how wonderful canada is. how we have to help canadian companies. this is all about canada. frankly, don't know why we are
so worried about a canadian corporation. it wasn't even clear during the rules committee based on the conversations and debate we had with the republican side, that this pipeline will ever be built. here we are rushing, rushing to basically say to the president, we don't care what you or the state department or the department of interior say about what's in the national interest. we are going to go ahead and do this because of some canadian interest. mr. speaker, this is a new year and a new congress. we have new members who will vote on this bill without the benefit of any hearings or markups or floor amendments without the benefit of lenching how our changing energy picture alters the need for this pipeline and without considering whether our time might be better spent on efforts to promote other cleaner energy sources. we need sound energy policy in these challenging times. as the ranking member of the committee on energy and commerce, i'm anxious to begin working with all of my colleagues on pragmatic energy policy. but we need a balanced energy policy, one that takes into
account current circumstances. one that takes into account our need to combat climate change. and one that works with the president rather than against the president to actually deliver legislation that the president can sign rather than veto. this legislation doesn't meet any of these criteria, so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time, i would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. olson, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. olson: i thank my chairman and friend. madam speaker mr. speaker, i speak today as a former naval aviator. who flew alongside canadian armed forces as we won the cold war. we have no greater ally than our
neighbor to the north, canada. we were attacked on september 11 and went to war in afghanistan. they went with us. the to date nearly 200 of the precious sons have come home in coffins. that is a true ally. katrina new orleans, in august of 2005, within three days our neighbor to the north authorized three military vessels, coast guard vessel, numerous planes, 25 military divers, and tons of tents, blankets, beds, water medical supplies. that is a true ally.
yet this strong alliance is being weakened dramatically as president obama has chosen to listen to a small group of wealthy radicals who want no drop of oil coming from our neighbor to the north, canada. in november i met with officials from canada, officials from all over, from nova scioscia -- scotia. they were dismayed because we are telling them we don't want your oil. don't help us. send that to china. mr. whitfield: yield 30 more seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 second. mr. olson: thank you. it's a bad world, mr. president. terrorists in paris isis, terrorists here in our country
from north korea. we need strong allies. pick up two things mr. president. today the phone, dial mr. harper and say i'm going to approve this pipeline. pass it in the senate. pick up that pen, sign this bill into law. let's have a strong alliance with canada forever. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair would like to remind all members to direct their comments to the chair. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield now three minutes to the ranking member of the energy and power subcommittee, mr. rush. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. rush: i want to thank the rsm. mr. speaker, i strongly oppose this bill and i strongly disagree with this abhorrent process that the majority side has undertaken in order to hastily bring h.r. 3 to the
floor after only one hour of debate and denying the minority the ability to offer that one single solitary amendment. truth be told, mr. speaker it is unclear how this legislation will actually be a benefit to the american people. a 2014 report by the state department concluded that the keystone pipeline will create 35 permanent full-time domestic jobs. which is roughly the same amount of jobs that would be created by
opening a new corner fast food burger joint, although with more risk to the american environment. and furthermore, mr. speaker this bill is unnecessary because there is already an independent process that is taking place at this very moment. and h.r. 3 short circuits this process. and furthermore mr. speaker, let it be fully understood by all members of this house the president has indicated that he would veto this bill. this bill is dead on arrival if it ever reaches the president's desk. the state department has already
released its final supplemental environmental impact statement, and has been under review to determine whether the pipeline is of national interest. mr. speaker, more than 2.5 million americans have contributed comments on how this foolhardy project will impact the national interest and their voices the voices of 2.5 million americans, deserve to be heard. i said it before, mr. speaker, and i say it again. this bill is about seizing power away from the american people. can i have 30 seconds? mr. pallone: yield at that time another 30 seconds. mr. rush: by seizing power away
from its duly elected president. it will prevent the thorough formal consideration of complex issues that will have serious security, safety, environmental, and other ramifications. mr. speaker, i urge the members of this body to vote no. mr. speaker the keystone pipeline is a republican pipe dream. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker as we stand on the floor debating a bill to approve the keystone pipeline, we all need to admit, we shouldn't be doing this.
we should not have to be here today. 2,303 days after the application for keystone first submitted to the state department. we shouldn't be debating it. we should be building it. for years, approval has been stuck in the senate. well, now the senate is open. the senate has changed. it's moved through committee. mr. speaker, for the longest time the president hid behind the lengthy and delayed review process saying he wanted to wait to make a decision. he said he was waiting because an environmental and legal consideration. but keystone won't harm the environment. it will help protect it. the people know that. mr. speaker the president knows that. mr. speaker, the president
before we even started the debate today has submitted a threat of a veto. i take these serious, says the majority leader, so i wanted to read it. mr. speaker, it says one of the rationales why the president wants to veto is because this bill also authorizes the project despite uncertainty due to ongoing litigation in nebraska. well hallelujah. we got good news for the president, mr. speaker. the nebraska supreme court solved that problem for him today. so we should move forward just as we have done before in a bipartisan basis. why? because 42,000 jobs, those are american jobs. created here. an economy continuing to move forward. and rest assured, the oil in
canada will be produced. the question before us today will that oil move down through america refined in america refineries built by american women and men, or will it go to a whole other continent? we take up many issues here on this floor. but we have to look to the future. and we have to build for a future and a strong future. i want north america to be energy independent. we all know the strength of that. i want an environmentally sound way to do it. today does it. i listened to the president's concerns, mr. speaker, we have had 2,303 days. we have studied it mr. speaker. our department vs. studied. they came back and said environmentally we are safe. there was a legal concern. the supreme court dealt with that.
today we can join together just as we have done before in a bipartisan manner pass this bill, a new change in the senate with an open process, pass it there. and go to the desk and be signed so 42,000 americans can get back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield now to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: thank you. mr. speaker, at the heart of this issue are two questions. first is climate change real? is it a threat to our economy, to jobs, to our environment, and to our security? speaking for vermont, climate change is real. in the past five years, vermont had 10 federal disaster declarations from severe whether, including tropical storm irene that did nearly $1 billion worth of damage. our farmers, and maple sugar
producers are all trying to contend with the changing climate. also we know that not oil is the same. this is not sweet texas crude. tar sands produce about 20% to 40% more carbon emissions than that texas oil. and extracting it is going to produce about 27 million metric tons of carbon emissions. in the second question is this should congress now or should congress ever pass a major piece of legislation without any committee hearings, particularly when that legislation is only about oil going through our country not to our country? and this legislation includes a special provision that exempts a foreign corporation from contributing to environmental cleanup pfund while our domestic corporations are required to pay into. . these are grood jobs about. 2,000 jobs. but if this congress would do its job, we would pass the surface transportation bill
that would create 200,000 jobs and put those three million men and women in our labor unions to work on good things that are going to rebuild this country. mr. speaker, this is the wrong bill it's passed in the wrong way, and at exactly the wrong time. i urge a no vote and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the vice chairman of the energy and commerce committee the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman from kentucky for his tenacious work on this issue. this is the 10th time this has come to the floor and he's been diligent and has continued to push it and we thank him for those efforts. i have to tell you listening to this debate, it just goes to show you why the american people are so tired of what they consider to be the political games that are played
here in washington. they said they wanted us to come and get some things done. this is getting some things done. and it's appropriate that we take up this bill today. and here is why. do you realize 8 % of all -- 88% of all americans support energy independence? 88%. 65% of all americans think that building the keystone pipeline is what this country should do. now, i have to tell you, i listened to the president and to the excuses that come out of the administration and i think with the supreme court decision in nebraska today the president is out of excuses. he's out of excuses. he's run the gamut on it. no more excuses. it is time that we pass it, the
senate pass it and that this legislation go to the president's desk. one of my colleagues said that being here on the floor today is a waste of time. i really disagree with that, mr. chairman. the president vetoing this legislation is a waste not only of the american people's time but of the resources and the taxpayer money that come into the coffers for this government to function. create 20,000 new jobs, increase our energy supply, move us to energy independence, pass the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, can i inquire how much time is available on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has six minutes. the gentleman from kentucky has 7 1/2 minutes. mr. pallone: i yield now two minutes to the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. this bill is a jobs bill. the american people need jobs. the labor unions who founded and built the middle class of this nation need jobs. but ladies and gentlemen, nobody needs jobs like young black men. i see this as an opportunity here today. the highest unemployment rate is with black young men. black young men people the -- between the ages of 19 and 35. the unemployment rate is 38%. 38%. mr. scott: and in some communities it's 50%. that's why i come before you today, i support the bill, but i want you all to help me
support an amendment, you all know the amendment process is going on over in the sat andveinheene nar mcconnsa hs open to amendments. here's the amendment. the amendment would just put language in this bill that would put the apprenticeship programs, what they affectionately call earn as you learn, on the job training, no federal money, and target those and guide and direct and encourage in this language that our labor union partners bring in these young african-american men to learn these trade building skills. each of the labor unions are are are ready, they have the apprenticeship programs. they have them there. we need this desperately, ladies and gentlemen. do you know that sitting in the prisons right now are one million black men. every week thousands of our
black men are going into prison. the number one reason, they don't have jobs. this is a jobs bill. yeah, it's got maybe some people say 4,000, some people say 2,000. but there will be other jobs that they can learn these skills from when we rebuild our infrastructure. you all have seen the sign. black lives matter. but black lives with jobs. help me get this amendment in on the senate side and let's pass this bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 26, an act to extend the termination date of the terrorism insurance risk insurance program established under the terrorism risk insurance act of 2002, and for other purposes.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. bost: i thank the gentleman for yielding and mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of house resolution 26 and the construction of keystone x.l. pipeline. part of the existing pipeline system actually supplies the wood river refinery in the 12th congressional district in illinois. in anticipation of the construction of this pipeline, the owners have spent $4 billion upgrading the facility and created about 2,400 jobs over a four-year period. construction of the keystone x.l. x.l. and extension would deliver similar benefits to other regions of the country.
creating over 4,2,000 jobs. in construction -- 4,2,000 jobs, in construction -- 4200 jobs in construction industries. it is for this reason that a diverse coalition of businesses and labor unions in the construction and building trades industries have come out in support of house resolution 26. and i encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, how does this one project, the keystone x.l. pipeline, get so much attention? we currently have a sprawling 185,000-mile network of oil pipelines in the united states and a regulatory process to ensure that they are operating safely. so why are we spending so much time trying to exempt a canadian company from the
environmental reviews that every other company in america has to abide by? and the big question, mr. speaker who will pay for any future oil spills? not keystone. this bill exempts keystone from contributing the same eight cents per barrel that every other oil company is required to pay into the oil spill trust fund. tell me mr. speaker why is this? if the authors are so certain that this pipeline does not carry any environmental risk won't they allow the review process to run its course? i stand with my colleagues, i want those jobs, i want them around the country. we can do this. we can do better. i urge a no vote on this dangerous precedent mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from illinois a member of the energy and commerce committee,
mr. shimkus, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you mr. speaker. also i want to say congratulations again to my friend, congressman pallone, for assuming the ranking position. we look forward to working with you. today is a great day. this pipeline should have been approved six years ago. like so many other transnational pipelines in our history. a pipeline is the safest way to move bulk liquid product than any other means. it will be from an ally, a trusted ally. more crude oil on the world market lowers prices for everybody. it's more money in the individual citizens' pockets, it's a very great day. let's just debunk this myth, this oil is going to go to refineries in my district, mike bost's district, ohio indiana, and in the gulf coast. so we're going to get the
double effort because we're going to be able to refine this put it on u.s. market, lower energy prices for all our citizens. it's a great day. thank you, chairman for bringing it to the floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker i want to make sure we still have three minutes on our side. the speaker pro tempore: that is correct. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes then to the gentlewoman from new york mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition. we've been promised thousands of jobs. but the u.s. state department estimates that this will create only 35 permanent jobs. yes, there will be construction jobs, but they're not permanent. they're for a year. maybe two years. but let's be clear about what we are getting with keystone. a dirty and dangerous pipeline, running through the heart of our country, which will help canadian, canadian oil companies export, export their
oil to the -- and it happens to be the filthiest possible energy form. i would like to say that if we put the same time and energy into a transportation bill as we have to this canadian pet project, we could upgrade our crumbling roads and bridges, expand our mass transit system provide a huge boost to the american economy and create jobs in almost every single congressional district in this country. thousands and thousands of permanent jobs in our good country. we don't need another pipeline dividing our country, polluting our water pushing us closer and closer to the climate tipping point. a transportation overawl will actually create jobs that americans can live off of. keystone will not. unless what they're considering with these jobs are just the 35 permanent jobs, and maybe they're considering that there
will be jobs to create the leaks and the pollution and treat the pollution associated and illnesses that may be associated with the pollution. so i urge a no vote. we should invest in american companies. we should invest in american pipelines. we should invest in american jobs that are here in america for americans and are permanent. again, the state department estimates that there will be only 35 permanent jobs. so what are we getting? no jobs and pollution from the dirtiest oil source and energy source that is on the earth at this point. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker would you explain again the amount of time on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 5 1/2 minutes. and the gentleman from new jersey has one minute. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from mississippi for one
minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for one minute. mr. harper: thank you mr. chairman. here we are again. working to pass a bill to approve the construction of the northern port of the keystone x.l. pipeline. again, with the facts on our side. again with bipartisan support in both houses of corn. and again under threat of a veto. but with the new republican majority in the senate, the president just might get to make good on his veto threat this time. we should force him to make that decision. i urge my colleagues to support this job-creating, north american energy-producing, bipartisan labor union and chamber of commerce-supported shovel-ready project. the american people ask for h.r. 3, we waited long enough. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker i would reserve until my colleague from kentucky's ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from north carolina mr. rouzer for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. rouse rouse mr. speaker i've heard -- mr. rouzer: mr. speaker i've heard one more than one person say common sense isn't common sense anymore. isn't that right. today we have a unique opportunity to pass commonsense legislation that will help the american people and strengthen america. i'm proud to co-sponsor h.r. 3 the keystone x.l. pipeline act. it's projected that this pipeline will create more than 40,000 good paying jobs and it will create far more jobs indirectly by increasing our energy supply. at a time when our families are struggling to make ends meet, it's irresponsible for the president to walk away from doing what's right for america. . this is an opportunity to strengthen our position in the world, eliminate a key revenue source for our enemies and strengthen our economy by
lowering fuel prices even more. i urge my colleagues in both chambers and the president to support the keystone pipeline act. this is an opportunity to show the american people that there's still a glimmer of hope for good old common sense. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i yield to the distinguished gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute. mr. russell: thank you mr. speaker and mr. chairman. as a combat veteran, we should never have to fight for something that we can so readily produce here. why should we put competitors in leverage over our economy and give them dollars to use against us? we hear a lot of talk from progressives on the environment, mr. speaker. imagine a life without petroleum no cell phones no asphalt for roads, no synthetic
clothing, no plastics. on what the progressives suppose we run our magnificent nation and lifestyle? perhaps their answer is rainbow stew. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield it's back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i think we have the right to close if the gentleman from new jersey would like to proceed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield myself the time reserves, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, the keystone x.l. pipeline moves us in exactly the wrong direction, enabling the production of the dirtiest crude oil on the planet and increasing our carbon pollution for decades to come. and we need to avoid catastrophic climate change. the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just hit 400 parts per million for the first time in human history. although this administration is making great progress, we're far from achieving our pollution reduction goals and
the need to act is more urgent than ever. i would urge my colleagues to vote no. the president is going to veto this legislation. it's just a political exercise at this point, and, again, it bothers me that i hear so much from the other side about trying to help this canadian company. we should be concerned about the united states, and we should be concerned about the world and the environment that results from climate change and the continued production of greenhouse gases. my concern and the concern of the president is that this is simply not legislation that has been proven to be so far in the national interest. and the president is just asking for more time to make that determination. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfie: d how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: 2 1/2 minutes. well, i do want to recognize mr. cramer of north dakota for 30 seconds and then -- would that be -- is that ok?
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. cramecrame thank you mr. speaker, and i -- mr. cramer: thank you mr. speaker. first, i'd like to place in the record, if possible a letter i received from caterpillar. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cramer: i want to address the climate change issue because i think it's an important issue to a lot of people. the argument the other side makes is based on the false idea that oil sands won't be developed without the united states. it is. moving anything by rail is 1.9 times more the emissions for co-2 than moving it by pipeline. moving it by truck creates 2.8 times the co-2 emissions as moving it by pipeline. moving it by barge to china is priceless. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitfield: in conclusion, i'd like to point out a couple of things. first of all, this was a significant issue in the last election. just a couple months ago.
this is a piece of legislation about the american people and not a canadian oil company. 72% of the american people in polls say they support this legislation. this is about jobs for people in america who need jobs. this is about increasing the energy infrastructure of our country. this also is a project that would not include one dime from the federal government. it's going to be a cost of approximately $7 billion of private funds that will create a lot of jobs, make us less dependent on foreign oil. the application for keystone pipeline was filed in september of 2008. there are 2.6 million miles of pipelines in america, most of those pipelines do not have to be approved by the president of the united states.
but in this particular pipeline, since it crosses into the country of canada -- from canada to the u.s., the president must approve it. and he has said that one reason he's not going to approve it is because of litigation in nebraska, which ended today in favor of the governor of nebraska who supports this pipeline. the second reason for the president to oppose it is co-2 emissions. and yet the secretary of state office under hillary clinton and mr. kerry in their final supplemental environmental impact statement, has said on three occasions it will have minimum impact on the environment. so today we want to pass this legislation once again, for the american people. the u.s. senate said they will pass it and we would ask the president to join us and
>> we recently talked about the future of the keystone pipeline with the reporter on capitol hill. host: lauren gardner covers energy issues for "cq roll call" and she joins us on capitol hill. you tweeted about the nebraska decision, landowner plaintiff in #keystone xl case, it's time for the president put an end to this damned thing. how does that change the dynamic of the president's decision? the nebraska supreme court says they can move forward. assuming the senate passes it, what is next with the white house? guest: with the nebraska decision coming out today, that just means it takes away one of the reasons why the white house has said it is not making a decision yet on the pipeline because there was no legal route through nebraska. so now that that state law has been upheld the state department can now ask federal agencies across government to submit their
comments on the national interest determination to them. so, it will still be at least a couple of weeks for agencies to do so but we are expecting that process to get back underway now. host: lauren gardner, staying with us for a bit. north carolina, james, thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: i was watching the proceedings on your show. i find it hilarious that republicans are talking about how they are in agreement with certain unions. everyone knows they are not for the union. when all this is over, will they still be in support of the unions? >> i'm sorry. the labor argument has been a big argument for business groups for why they should go forward. labor unions tend to have a lot of support for democrats. that is something they should take into account considering where their position
should be on this issue. host: here is rick in oregon. what do you think? caller: i support the pipeline. they should put an amendment in there to contribute to the disaster fund such as it is with the $.08 per barrel. i made my living off of working for the alaska pipeline. it amazes me how these people can spout out there's only 35 possible jobs that are long term. there are thousands of people working from the 1970s up in alaska. there are people who have retired just on that one project. seems they do not have any actual ideas of how many people it would take to run a pipe life that long. it is not like you put oil in one end and out the other. there are pump stations. i work in the service
industry. there are good long-term jobs there. it is safer to put oil in a pipeline then to get it from across the sea from nations who do not care for our western lifestyle. guest: your comments get to another major argument that has come up here, especially by supporters. they say the oil will get to market anyway. it will just find another pipeline or it will move on a train or barge down a river. that is an issue that supporters have definitely seized upon in this debate. host: in west virginia, richard on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i just want to add my two cents to what your former independent caller had stated.
he had the experience on the alaskan pipeline. i am in favor of the pipeline with the provisions that they pay for the disaster fund. a small tax based on the number of units you move through the pipeline. put that towards the deficit. that ought to soften the ideas of the objectors. that is all online. host: on the disaster fund there was talk of out that at the end of the debate. what is involved in that? guest: the oil spill liability trust fund is a fund that helps pay for spill cleanups. in the way the law is written, oil
spills don't fall under that definition of crude oil. that is an issue democrats especially have seized upon in this debate for a long time. they think that oil producers should pay into it. now, if this was to come up in the senate debate, you also run into the issue of tax legislation not originating in the house as it is required to do. we'll see how that plays out. host: we go to new york, brooklyn. democrat line. caller: thank you. the senator put a map of the oil distribution of the united states. now we're going to be adding this xl pipeline for the oil distribution. i'm sure that the oil distribution the goes to the refineries down south
actually refines different kinds of crude oil. the xl pipeline seems to be the only pipeline i'm hearing that is going to refine that kind of oil. it is 20 times more emissions, and terms -- in terms of admissions. if we do not do this pipeline, if canada refines this oil, is it that other countries do not have the same refining capabilities that the united states has? i know transportation is an important issue. who is refining it other than the united states? the versus other countries? the whole picture globally adding carbon emissions to the world amount we have right now. that is where the complexity is
for me compared to the distribution. host: thank you. the response? guest: it depends on the region in terms of what type of oil they are most equipped to refine. in the southern united states, many refineries are best equipped to handle a heavy and viscous crude. also heavy crudes that are found in countries like venezuela. that is where a lot of the oil has come from. supplies from those countries have gone down in recent years. that is one of the arguments keystone supporters have made. they say that is why keystone is so important it brings a greater supply to the southern gulf coast refineries that have the capacity to deal with that oil. host: a tweet from senator maria cantwell. "unusual that u.s. senate has been asked to vote on a bill sitting a pipeline through u.s. simply because
canadian company wants us to do so." how much different will it be? how much different could it be? guest: the senate debate will be different. they will be considering amendments. that senator mcconnell has promised an amendment process. we could expect to see supporters try to garner up support for amendments that are seen as having a lot of bipartisan backing. anything from energy efficiency to maybe even liquefied natural gas exports. democrats bring forward ideas for trying to get republicans on the record on how they think human activity impacts climate. >> in that interview, lauren gardner spoke about decision yesterday in the nebraska supreme court reversed a lower court decision on the keystone xl pipeline. a group of land owners were
challenging the authority the governor had in approving the pipeline's route in state law. they ruled the lower court was correct but he did not have standing. they require a supermajority of five justices to strike down any legislation as unconstitutional. the white house had previously said that the ongoing lawsuit was one of the factors in preventing president obama for making a decision on the pipeline project. up next, the oral argument for that case before the nebraska supreme court. it'd place in september and runs 30 minutes. [indiscernible]
>> all rise. here ye, hear ye, hear, ye. the honorable supreme court of the state of nebraska is open for the transaction of business. ye shall be heard. god save the state of nebraska. >> thank you. you may be seated. good morning to everyone. our first case this morning is thompson vs. heinemann. justice wright has recused. judge friedman -- reedman has joined the court. good morning to you. >> good morning. i am the deputy attorney general. i am here today on the half of the appellants. i would like to reserve three minutes of my time for rebuttal. we are asking this court to
reverse the district court for two reasons. first, they lacked standing. and it is not to invest them of exclusive jurisdiction. the standing issues on this case are brief and we stand on those arguments. we will turn now to the merits of our case. >> well, just a minute. on your standing, didn't we in cunningham carve out an exception to the standing rule if it concerns a matter of great concern? would you agree that this concerns a matter of great concern? >> yes. >> and that was a standing -- that case did not have a legal expenditure involved, correct? >> that is correct. >> so why would cunningham versus exxon control that?
>> in cunningham vs. exxon there was no one to actually challenge the constitutionality of the statute. it is not only that it has to be a matter of important public purpose but there must be no other individual or entity that can challenge the constitutionality of the statute. >> did we say that in cunningham? >> i believe we did, your honor. >> if there's illegal expenditure, do you still need the both of those? >> the illegal expenditure goes to the taxpayer standing analysis. we would argue that in this case where there is a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, the statute on its face requires reimbursement for every expenditure associated with the statute's implementation, and that there is no unlawful expenditure of taxpayer funds. >> if we were to decide that there was an illegal expenditure, what does that do to your standing? >> if there was an unlawful expenditure of taxpayer funds, we would still submit that this is a case where there
are individuals better suited to bring this challenge. the taxpayer standing exception is limited, and to allow these particular appellees to go forward is to allow the limited exception. >> who is better suited to bring this lawsuit? >> for one, the pipeline carriers, who are actually subject to the regulations under lb 1161. >> why would a pipeline challenge this legislation? >> pipeline company would challenge this legislation because prior to its adoption, there was simply no restriction on their ability to engage in imminent domain. as long as it was for a public purpose they were entitled to
proceed they were entitled to proceed with the laying of the pipeline. >> isn't it more beneficial now that they have two options? to have their application granted? >> i suppose it is more beneficial, that they have two options, but there is still an argument to be made that if they wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the statute they can do so. >> when you said "every expenditure," could you explain that, please? you said that every expenditure would be reimbursed? does that encompass new money, old money, direct, or indirect? what do you mean by that? >> within the record there is an affidavit, and every cost associated with the implementation of lb 1161 in all of the cases that it was applied was reimbursed, not just over and above, but any imaginable cost.
>> does the record reflect that expenditures were made above and beyond the appropriation made by the legislature? even though that may have been reimbursed does that encompass new money, reimbursed? doesn't the record show that? >> the record shows there was an authorization of an appropriation of $2 million, and as i understand, the record reflects an additional total amount was paid, but that the applicant paid the money as they went and never exceeded that $2 million limit. >> $2 million outstanding? is that your view? >> that is what the appropriation was by the legislature. >> and you are saying that the history of this, that the pattern of this reimbursement was such that it was never more than $2 million outstanding? >> that is my understanding, yes, your honor. >> thank you. >> in the decision of chambers
doesn't that confer upon taxpayers the illegal use of public money to pass the laws? >> yes, but again, in this case we were talking about a statute where it requires reimbursement on a state so there is no unlawful expenditure. >> if that is the case, then it -- every bill could have a reimbursement clause that would allow an evasion of a standing for a taxpayer. >> well, but on this, what we are talking about is a facial challenge to the taxpayer, you are right. if there was a reimbursement provision, it would potentially foreclose a facial challenge to a taxpayer's standing. >> what about the other case? does that have anything to do with standing? >> yes, it does. as this court held in riddum as to the commission's authority,
it is to the claim of unlawful investment. >> this case is an outlier isn't it? there are only three judges that decided the case, and four judges concurred without an opinion. so really, is that a useful source for persuasive authority? >> but as to the pfc's ability to challenge it, this court has never questioned whether or not -- or has never overturned the conclusion. that that is in fact -- >> has that been cited since? >> it has been cited since in the number of taxpayers' standing, but i'm not sure -- >> it was a statutory construction interpretation, wasn't it? >> that is correct. turning now to the merits, article four, section 20, set for the powers and duties of the pfc to include the regulation of rates, service
and general control of common carriers as the legislature may provide by law. in the absence of specific legislation, the pfc has plenary authority. the constitution of the united states allows the legislature to limit the pfc's authority, and for pipeline companies, they have done so. nebraska revised statute 75.501 defines pipeline common carriers as those which operate intrastate in nebraska. plaintiffs are not challenging this statutory limit on the pfc authority. the pfc has no constitutional jurisdiction over noncommon carriers. >> that statute was passed in, what, 1963? >> that is correct. >> and it had its origin in the statute in 1917, did it not? >> as i recall, that is correct. >> and do you think that may have been passed to answer the concerns of the u.s. v. ohio
oil, which was the standard case? >> as i recall, the iteration of 75.501 still said operating in nebraska and through nebraska. it never contemplated that common carriers would go beyond that. >> maybe they were contemplating to ensure after that decision that nebraska would regulate intrastate common carriers, not to define common carriers? >> the intent was to regulate common carriers, which operate intrastate. and by operation, they defined what a common carrier was, which was those that operate intrastate in nebraska. >> in fact, are interstate
pipelines largely regulated by the federal government? >> they are, your honor. in addition, in the plain language, lb 1161 only applies to those pipelines which are subject to a federal mepa review process. and they specifically excludes infield and gathering lines, which are the typical intrastate pipelines within the state of nebraska. >> is this all about site location? >> it is all about site location and whether or not that falls within the plenary authority of the pfc. we would submit that article four, sectiton 20, applies to rates, service, and general control of those intrastate services. >> how are you using the phrase, plenary authority? >> broad reaching, not necessarily requiring specific legislation as it applies to the intrastate common carriers.
>> the source is what? >> the constitution. >> and they have distinguished from relying on the definition in chapter 75? >> correct. >> for legislation. >> correct. as to intrastate pipelines would not be subject to the common carrier definition, pfc only has the authority that the legislature would otherwise provide to them. >> you are implying that the federal government has totally occupied the field of regulation of interstate pipelines? >> no, that is not an issue that has been raised by the appellees in this case. >> why would siting not come under general control? >> when you look at the cases that involve siting, for example, with rivets having a pfc authority, it is because of the customers along that route wanted service. they wanted service to be a part of this, to send their goods down a particular railroad.
here, the appellees are not concerned with wanting service or any sort of thing along that line. they want to make sure that this pipeline does not run down this particular route. and therefore, it falls outside of the rates, service, and general control that would generally apply to the pfc. >> in your use of the word "service" -- are we to understand that you mean the delivery in intrastate. >> that is correct, your honor. >> there are a lot of people other than those that look for service. if it goes through your property, does this, does that? >> yes, of course, the pipeline affects all kinds of people. that is why the state of nebraska has determined that for a good public purpose that the pipeline be constructed within the state of nebraska and go through these routes so we can make sure that the goods they are providing are provided
-- >> can i back up here a little bit to the whole picture? what do you think the trial judge did wrong? >> i believe the trial court was concerned because the particular pipeline company had eminent domain authority, and she saw the eminent domain authority is being equated with common carriers. and while common carriers have eminent domain authority, the legislature has afforded that authority to a broader group and we would submit that it is not just common carriers. it is interstate pipelines which are not common carriers under the plane definition language under 75.501, also have that eminent domain. >> would an interstate carrier be a common carrier under the common law definition of that term? >> the common law definition, as pointed to by the district
court, is actually a prior iteration of the statute which again, if you read it closely, it says "operating in between locations within nebraska." again, the common law there even contemplates intrastate. with that, i will save my time for rebuttal. >> thank you very much. mr. domina, good morning. >> good morning, your honor. may it please the court, i am dave domina, and i'm here on behalf of the three landowners who challenge lb 1161 and contend that it violates several provisions of the nebraska constitution. one of those was discussed earlier today, article four, section 20. in addition to that, this statute, by offering two ways for a pipeline applicant to seek permission to build a pipeline in nebraska provides for a route , that is without judicial review. if the pipeline application goes
to the governor and the governor makes the decision of the kind that would otherwise be made with legal limits apply, with proof required, and with due process hearing, if the governor makes that decision instead of the pfc, there is no judicial review in this statute and for that simple and specific reason, i'm answered by the attorney general see the court's decision today as simple and straightforward. we believe that our clients -- >> excuse me. standing? >> yes, we do believe our clients do have standing. we believe we have standing for three separate reasons. the one that has not been discussed thus far is direct standing. i want to recall some dates. lb 1161 was enacted by the legislature on april 17. we filed this lawsuit on may 23 or 25. i don't recall which date right now. the record contains an exhibit 18, which is a voluminous exhibit.
but it includes within exhibit 18, ha appendix b, a route, and that route in that appendix came into existence in september after we filed our lawsuit. the affidavit evidence we offered on the standing issue establishes that our clients are landowners and taxpayers and that their land is or was on the route. the affidavits were made after exhibit 18 came into existence. >> with respect to plaintiff thompson, the allegation is merit in lancaster county? is that right? >> right. >> and at the time they commenced a lawsuit -- those were after. >> the route was fluid. as a matter of fact, at the time that we filed this facial challenge, there was no route. there had been discussions, but
no filing with the public service commission or with the governor. there was no permit because the statute authorizing it had not been enacted. >> so as the route morphed they are still good plaintiffs in your view? >> we think they are still direct plaintiffs. they are clearly good taxpayer plaintiffs. >> we are talking about the final reroute. >> exhibit 18 is the final reroute, your honor. >> do we have any addresses or legal descriptions of the property your clients own? >> you do not. we also do not have any addresses or legal descriptions of the route. if you look at exhibit 18, what it does is identify in a very rough, non-metes-and-bounds way where this pipeline would purport to go, plus or minus a mile on either side in a map drawn in exhibit 18. there are no legal descriptions in the record.
we think that the standing issue, the direct standing issue, makes us appropriate plaintiffs. the taxpayer standing issue does as well. in and of course, cunningham versus exxon, this is obviously a case of substantial public interest and has commanded the subsequent attention of a general session, a letter from the governor to the president of the united states, and action that is in record by the u.s. state department. we think that standing is not a matter that is of concern here today. >> on the issue of direct standing, didn't the district court concluded that your clients did not have direct standing? >> it did, your honor, and did so because it specifically said that our landowner plaintiffs own real estate which is or was on the pipeline route. that is why i was careful to pull out the dates and identify those this morning for the court. >> did you cross-appeal on that
determination? >> no we did not. , we did not because we took the position strictly that we have standing, since standing is jurisdictional. we think we only need one kind of standing. we did not need to cross-appeal the direct standing findings of the court. >> in regard to taxpayer standing, we have spoken about whether or not there is a better plaintiff. who has the burden to show that? >> your honor, the party that challenges standing must show that a better plaintiff that exists. that would be the state in this case. >> what is your authority for that? >> you made findings that strongly suggests that as recently as your knox county taxpayers decision, banks versus heineman, i think your project extra mile clearly discloses
that it was not the nonprofit challenge for the liquor statute that had to identify an alternate plaintiff. and the rationale was that you would put a taxpayer who seeks to sue in the position of proving a negative. if the proposition were to prove there is no one better to sue than us. instead the proposition to be proven is someone identified better to sue than you. >> the state argues that the carriers would be the proper party. >> yes, i heard that this morning. there are, of course, none identified. the state has never suggested there is another applicant for an international border crossing permit that seeks to put a pipeline through nebraska which is this specific class of statute. when it says "other carriers" it is motioning to the universe without identifying another potential plaintiff. >> can the pfc challenge the statue?
>> i don't think the public service commission is in a place of standing here. it has a route, and it is in place. its route is in a place that is not a part of this litigation. if we were to conclude that the pfc is duty bound to challenge any statute that might affect its jurisdiction, we set up interagency disputes within the state government that i don't think are consistent with your finding with your previous holdings. i do think the previous cases have suggested that they are outlines. it is much clearer that your jurisprudence has moved in the direction of making sure that when there is an expenditure issue that has challenged, a taxpayer can make that challenge, unless it is altogether clear that the taxpayer is meddling in a problem that involves someone
who is a dramatically more directly affected player. >> a better one. >> a better one, yes. >> would than to have rule written? >> no, you don't. it is a plurality opinion. it is confined to narrow facts, and for good reasons. your jurisprudence has decided a number of cases like that that in the past. you could overrule it, but i don't think it would be here properly. >> u.n. to address 7501, i think the state has relied that is the definition of a common carrier. >> yes, and if i do not get to our cross-appeal issues, and i may not, i want to be sure that i say that we think we win on all of the cross-appeal issues. >> which one is your strongest? >> which is my favorite? i don't
want to lose justice connolly, your honor, but i think my best favorite argument is that it is standardless when the gubernatorial route for approval is taken. in order to ensure there is a valid delegation of authority, assuming there can be a delegation, it is standardless in this statute. i don't think there should be a delegation. as a lawyer and part-time banker, i really like our credit of the state argument, too, but i will answer the justice's question about 75.501. it is a statute that has a history very closely related to u.s. supreme court jurisprudence. as you said a few moments ago, it does not purport to define the outer limits of the public service commissions constitutional authority. it does not purport to define the legislatures limitations on its
subsequent and enactments that involve the public service commission. it does not purport to say that a common carrier using a pipeline as the mode of transportation of cargo for the public, has to be intrastate in order to be effective. as we said in our brief on page 14, we identify five separate reasons why that argument fails. i think the best of those is that at any particular moment, or hour or week, a pipeline can be either an intrastate or interstate carrier. it can switch back and forth, just like a trucking company can do. >> in fact, the regulation of this pipeline is largely federal, is it not? >> only in so far as safety is concerned, your honor. there are no federal siting regulations. >> does the public service commission have any authority to
control the rate, for example, the way our gas would move through this pipeline? >> if it had intrastate commerce, it does. if it is interstate commerce, i don't think it does. >> so largely, this is about site location. >> i think it is entirely a site location case, your honor. and i think the aspect of major oil pipeline law leaves those issues to the states. the states are charged with evaluating their resources, the needs of their people, and all of those things that the public service commission is directed to consider in order to make a quasijudicial finding that is subject to judicial review. here, the governor doesn't have to do any of those things. i think that is another reason why, frankly, section
75.501 should not be seen as an anyway confining the reach of article four, section 20. >> what is the governor expected to do under lb 1161? >> your honor, under lb 1161, i think what the governor is expected to do are these. number one, provided office of -- provide an office to receive an application. number two, dispatch the department of environmental quality to conduct some non-oats oaths driven, nonjudicial procedure whereby evidence is gathered. number three received, but not in a silly consider that report. four, make a decision about that report and permit with no standards other than as to read the report. that is it. the gubernatorial avenue here is clearly designed to preclude any citizen input in a
judicial setting and in any judicial review. >> how do those tasks relate to the bestowing of eminent domain? >> well, you asked about the governor is expected to do, i think i answered correctly. the governor is permitted to identify a for-profit applicant and be restricted in the power of eminent domain. that power is also improperly delegated to the governor. standardless delegation. >> because the domain flows from approval. it is layered. >> it absolutely does. it is not a categorical brand, like the legislature and counties. this is the legislature to a specific applicant, maybe one of 5, 10, 15 applicants for similar
authority. >> does your argument with respect to 75.501 consistent with our decision in the city of bayer case? >> i think the city of bayer case is inconsistent with my argument to some extent. the city of bayer case is however, specifically a strictly intrastate case. and at issue is -- and the narrow issue is whether the applicant in that case engaged in any actual commerce that was of any interstate character. and the finding of the court was that there was no interstate activity participated in by that owner of the pipeline. so, the question we have here was not really reached by bayard. if carefully read, it is not authority for proposition contrary to our contentions. your honors, we respectfully request that you affirm the judgment of the district court find that article four, section 20 was offended and that our
clients have standing, and affirm the judgment of the district court even if you don't , find article four, section 20 was violated for any of those reasons we specified in our cross-appeal. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. do we have time for rebuttal? >> one minute and 42. >> one minute and 42 seconds. >> thank you. you all seem to like bayard, is that right? >> we do seem to. >>it stands for the standpoint of -- actually come in the holding of bayard, they were talking about the pipeline that wasn't interstate pipeline that relied on the domain authority of interstate pipelines. at the time, those were separate statutory authorities for engaging in eminent domain. i would like to
point out that first, this is a facial challenge and the plaintiffs must show that there is no unlawful application of this law which exists. during counsel's argument, it was pointed out that no applicants of a pipeline carrier with an international border permit pending. this shows exactly the one application that involves an interstate pipeline, which would not be a common carrier under the plain definition of 75.501. >> would it be a common carrier under the common law definition? >> it would not, because the common law definition as i mentioned earlier, is one that says they operate in nebraska and through, but not outside of nebraska. turning briefly to the due process clause, the governor in approval of a route does not deprive these applicant of life, liberty, or property without just compensation. if it occurs, it occurs during an imminent domain proceeding, where
landowners will have their day in court and be entitled to challenge whether or not it was for public use and whether or not they received just compensation. i would ask the court to please reverse the ruling of the district court and uphold lb 1161 as constitutional. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> on tomorrow's "newsmakers" maryland's top democrat on the budget committee will talk about the agenda. he will talk about tax policy and efforts by the gop to changing repeal the health care law. you can watch the interview live tomorrow at 10 a.m. here on c-span. >> this sunday on" q&a," we speak about " birth of a nation"
and the efforts of willie monroe ttotter to prevent its release. >> it is the heart of the protest, it is where the blacks are appalled of the trail of free slaves. it shows what happens when you give former slaves the right to vote, the right to be elected the right to govern. they are seen in the lives they sure were the first and primary order of business is to pass a bill allowing for interracial marriage. black men, in the movie, are interested in having white women. ♪
♪ >> on the controversial story behind " birth of a nation." sunday night on q&a. >> supreme court will hear oral argument on the case about whether judicial candidates can solicit campaign contributions. it is an hour. >> good morning, everyone. the timetable this morning is pretty tight. we want to be able to give a lot of time for questions. and so we're going to begin our presentation to you this morning. my name is andrew coen. i'm a fellow at the brennan center and a journalist
with "cbs news" and the marshal project. and i'm delighted to be here in sunny, warm washington. to be part of this interesting presentation. in a moment, i'm going to introduce this distinguished panel, each of whom knows a great deal more about this important supreme court case than i do. a couple of points. this is a case about money and judges and the first amendment. and in my 18 years as a legal analyst, it strikes me that's a combination that always draws quite a bit of interest, not just here in washington, but around the country. so when the supreme court takes up the case in a few weeks, it'll be interesting for a lot of different reasons. the case also strikes me as significant because of the perceptions people have of it. if you are a fan of citizens united and mchutchen, you look at this case and you say, these clouds are parting and the sun is about to
shine on this new area of campaigns, judicial campaigns, and that's a great thing. if you are not a fan of citizens united and mchutchen, those decisions you look at this case and say, uh-oh, the clouds are forming, it's getting darker and there's going to be a storm. and i think that's a good way to sort of perceive the way that people on both sides of this debate on both sides of the divide feel about this case. is it going to extend those priorities and precedents? is it going to restrict them? and what are the justices going to say? how different are they going to perceive the judicial election from the regular election? the final, just note i want to make before we begin is, you know, it struck me as i was reading this, you know, we're taught, we've been taught, our parents grandparents were taught beggars can't be choosers. to me, this is a case where the choosers are the beggars. and
the people who choose who lives and dies, who chooses who goes to prison, who doesn't, who wins a case, doesn't win a case are begging for money. and i think that's also a useful way to look at this. and to figure out how serious this supreme court is about money of speech and the first amendment in a different context. those are my brief opening remarks about this fascinating case. and i'm going to begin to introduce our speakers. the idea is they're all going to speak. matt's going to give some specifics of the case. then folks are going to speak. then they're going to attack each other with a great deal of vitriol. and you guys will be able to ask questions of them, when the dust settles. to my far left, we have scott gratac, a policy council and research analyst, one of the
co-hosts of this along with the brennan center. scott is relatively new to justice at stake, but brings with him credentials that are pretty impressive. and over and over again, he has shown he's involved in these sorts of organizations and this notion of the intersection of civil rights and law. so, he's going to offer his perspective. to my left, and i've wanted for decades to say this, to my left is ed whelan. just sounds weird. many of you know ed. ed is a fantastic columnist. he was part of the justice department a decade ago. he has served on capitol hill as general counsel to the committee on the judiciary. he was a clerk to a ninth circuit judge, harvard, harvard law school, most of you in this
room, i suspect are familiar with ed's writings and with his views. he's also the president of the ethics and public policy center. and i'm very much looking forward to hearing his perspective on this. to my right is tracy george who is a professor of law and political science. she's probably also delighted at the weather here in washington, although it probably can't be much warmer there right? >> right. >> right. >> so, she is a professor who brings a broad range of expertise to this topic. federal courts, illegal education. she's written numerous articles about the federal judiciary and the courts. and teaches a course that i would probably want to take if i were at school there life of the law. which is, seems pretty interesting and probably isn't as boring as most law courses could be. and then to my far right is matt menendez who is counsel at the brennan center, one of my colleagues.
he's part of the democracy program there. he basically works on the concept of fair and impartial courts. he was formally a partner at gibson dunn, and crutcher. do they still call it that? okay. the names of these big firms change often. and i've been out of it for a while. he worked in washington as an aide to senator john d. rockefeller. and obviously knows a great deal about this topic. and in fact, he is going to be the person who is going to initially take us through some of the details of this florida case, give us a little bit of context and perspective before we begin with our remarks. in the interest of brevity, i'm going to turn it over now to matt and let him dazzle you with his detail. >> thanks, andrew. and to be fair i was an associate at the firm. they never gave me shares. so i will try and keep this relatively brief, and then we
can use the question time to get into areas which may interest people more. as a general background, there are 39 states that use elections to fill at least some of their judgeships. and as we know, elections cost money, and judges like any other candidates need to raise money. of the 39 states that elect judges, 30 of them have some sort of prohibition on personal solicitation that limit the ways in which judges can themselves ask people to contribute to their campaigns. of those 30, 22 states have relatively broad prohibition, such as the one at issue in william julie in florida, which prohibits all forms of personal solicitation such as the solicitation that the petitioner in this case sent out. it was a mass mailer saying , i'm running for judge, please contribute to my campaign. in this case, it did not actually result in any contributions. so, from the perspective of coming at this issue, this is maybe not the ideal case to test the core
of the issue of whether a judge walking up to a lawyer or litigant who has business before them right before their case starts outside of the courtroom and says, hey, i noticed you haven't contributed money to my campaign yet raises concerns. so i think we believe this is a little more towards the outer edge of where the -- this comes from a judicial code of conduct, which we call the cannons, the primary means by which the judiciary regulates itself. one of the questions that i get asked a lot is why did the supreme court take this case? and i think the main reason is that there has been a pretty stark circuit split of federal courts that have considered this this, four courts of appeal have struck down some sort of -- some version of this cannon is unconstitutional, two federal courts of appeal have upheld it as constitutional. and all four states supreme courts that have considered it have found it
constitutional. and i do think it is interesting to note that the state courts which are more familiar with judicial elections as opposed to the federal courts, which are the lifetime appointment under article 3 seem to be more sympathetic to efforts to minimize the appearance of impropriety that can arise from judges directly asking for money. it's an interesting case, as well. the first time the court has considered regulations of judicial campaign conduct since 2002 when they decided the republican party of minnesota versus white. and that 5-4 decision by justice scalia struck down a code of conduct that prohibited judges from discussing disputed or controversial issues that were likely to come before them once they sat on the bench. a wide range of topics they were not permitted to talk about. in the majority opinion, justice scalia
emphasized it. if you are going to have elections for judges his view was you could not deprive the voters of the most salient information they would want to know in order to select the best candidate. and my question here is the limit on speech is very narrow. the only thing that a judge can't say is please, give me money. they can talk about their credentials they can talk about their judicial philosophy. the only regulation on speech is that the ask has to come through a candidate committee. so one of the main things that we will be looking to see is how the court conceives of asking for money as being close to the core or near the outer fringes of what the first amendment values that we look to protect are. a couple developments since white that are notable that we have seen a massive increase in the spending and judicial elections and scott
will talk more about the money spent and how the public views that. the other development of note was the supreme court decided a few years ago, and in that case it was established that spending in judicial elections can raise serious due process concerns to the point where it is constitutionally impermissible for a judge to hear a case involving somebody who has contributed to their campaign. one other thing i would like to note is that restrictions on the speech of judges and lawyers, it's not judges and lawyers, it's not really a rare thing. there are all kinds of things that judges and lawyers aren't permitted to discuss. you can't have ex parte communications between judges and lawyers. you can't reveal the contents of sealed hearings. there are a lot of limits on judicial conduct in terms of the boards they can sit on and fund raising for nonprofits and other things like that. and that's just to say that this