Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 2015, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote number 193, On Passage of Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes. Should I have been present I would have voted No.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, 45 days from today, temporary funding for the surface transportation trust fund expires. Despite the fact that we have 140,000 bridges that need repair or replacement, 40 percent of the road surface needs substantial investment, and a $70 billion backlog in our mass transit systems for a state of good repair, the support drops to zero in 45 days. We need an unimaginable amount of money to fund that for the next 5 years. We need $120 billion. Where could we find $120 billion? Well, tomorrow the Republicans are going to repeal the remains of the estate tax. That is that two one- hundredths of 1 percent of estates that are worth more than $10 million, under the Republican plan, will pay no taxes when they leave that money to their kids--no taxes. It costs $270 billion to give that tax relief to two one-hundredths of 1 percent of the families in this country. How about we spend that money rebuilding the Nation's infrastructure, put hundreds of thousands of people to work, benefit all of America with better roads, with safe bridges, with transit systems that don't kill people because of their state of bad repair? Even the wealthy might benefit from that, although they don't use the system because they fly above it in their helicopters and they don't notice from the backseat of their limousines.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, March 25, 2015, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote #140. Had I been present I would have voted No.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, let's depart from a little bit of the acrimony, the acronyms, the magic asterisks, and the end runs. Let's be concrete. So let's talk about infrastructure investment and what the Republican budget would do. We are running a deficit this year. We fall off a cliff the end of May, and if we don't put up $10 billion, many States will cancel projects this summer. That is not the subject of this budget. This budget is for next year. So what are they doing for the long term? They are going to reform the highway trust fund. Oh, thank you very much. I appreciate that. They are going to limit expenditures out of the fund to future income. We have been supplementing it from general funds because the income is not adequate, but they are going to say: No. No more general funds. You live on the income. What does that mean? Well, it means, in this budget put forward by these people, there would be a 99 percent cut in State funding. Yes. No, I'm not exaggerating, 99 percent. Because basically the money is paying for past obligations, past projects for the States. When the States finish a project, they get reimbursed. While they are building it, they don't. So under their budget in fiscal year 2016, your State Department of Transportation will get 99 percent less Federal funds. That kind of has a pretty big impact in some States here. If you are in a bright yellow State, you are over 70 percent, depending on the Federal funds; if you are in a green State, 50 to 69; and a light green, 30 to 49. I would note on the Republican side that the chairman of the committee, Georgia, they would get $1.1 billion less. Now, I guess Georgia doesn't need the money. The roads, the congestion around Atlanta is not a problem. The Speaker's State would get $1.2 billion less under this budget; California, $3.2 billion less, the majority leader; and Louisiana, the whip, $619 million less. These are facts. That is the actual impact of their proposed budget. It digs a hole so deep we will never get out of it. What happens after the first year of their reform of the trust fund? Well, actually, unless we pass a long-term bill with new funding, which they are quite resistant to thus far, it would mean 30 percent less funding than today for all States and a 60 percent cut in surface transportation. We already have a system with 147,000 bridges that need repair or total replacement. Forty percent of the surface on the National Highway System is in such bad condition it has to be dug up--not just resurfaced, no, major work--and a $75 billion backlog in transit systems. Our legacy systems in our major cities are so obsolete, they are killing people. Right here in the Nation's Capital, people are dying unnecessarily because they can't afford to bring in modern cars without the Federal partnership. We held a hearing just last week in the committee, and we heard from the Governor of North Carolina--red State, red Governor--the mayor of Salt Lake, and the transportation director from Wyoming. They all say the Federal partnership is absolutely critical, and you are going to reduce it to 1 percent.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, last week in an unprecedented new transparency, the Obama administration sent up Special Trade Ambassador Froman and Secretary Lew to talk about his proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now, you might remember that until now, if a Member of Congress wished to see this secret agreement, they would have to go to a special secure room, were not allowed to take notes, and couldn't talk about it. At the same time, it is shared in realtime with 500 multinational corporations who don't have to go to a secure room and are involved in the negotiations. But they came forward and they gave us some facts, figures, and statistics. Unfortunately, the statistics were not accurate. Special Trade Representative Froman said that we are running a trade surplus with our free trade agreement countries. Wrong. False. Actually, in 2013 we had $180 billion goods deficit; and, yeah, we had a $75 billion services deficit. The aggregate means $105 billion deficit. Now, they kind of turned a little trick here. They pretend that something made entirely in China, shipped to Los Angeles, and then shipped over the border to Mexico is a U.S. export. Well, yeah, it created one trucking job and maybe one longshoreman job, but the manufacturing jobs are all in China. This is a new trick, and it still doesn't get them to balance, but they like to pretend. Then we were treated to some half-truths. I said: ``Well, isn't this substantially based on the Korea Free Trade Agreement.'' ``Yes, it is.'' ``Is that a success?'' ``Oh, yes, it is. Well, look. In fact, look here. Isn't this incredible? $100.5 billion of exports from the U.S. to Korea.'' Oh, well, wait a minute. That is half the truth. Here is the other half. Actually, $14.7 billion in goods from Korea to here. So we ran a massive and growing trade deficit since we entered into this agreement. I have tried to get specific with them. I said: ``How about autos? We were going to open up the auto market.'' And they have something to tout. Our auto exports are up 140 percent. Wow. That sounds pretty darn good. And Koreans' are only up by 50 percent. Wow. That means we are winning. Well, no, because U.S. auto exports went from 14,000 to 34,000; Korean auto exports went from 827,000 to 1.3 million. That means we ran a deficit of 461,402 more autos created in Korea and exported here since we entered into this trade agreement. Yet that is what they are modeling this new agreement on. They are saying the tremendous success of NAFTA and Korea is what we want to duplicate in this Trans-Pacific Partnership which will include such honest actors as Vietnam, where they can use prison and child labor, and a number of other countries. Japan has engaged in currency manipulation distortion for decades to advantage their goods against ours, and then when asked about currency manipulation, they say: ``Absolutely not. We can't have that discussion here. It would be to our disadvantage.'' No. It would be to the disadvantage of some multinational corporations who take advantage of currency manipulation, like China and Japan, to make their goods cheaper, to put people out of work here and capture more manufacturing over there. Oh, yes, there is one big winner in currency manipulation who is worried about any restrictions on currency and capital flows. That would be Wall Street. Mr. Speaker, the two big winners for the U.S. in these agreements are the pharmaceutical industry--oh, what a wonderful, good friend to Americans. How many people does that employ here other than sales reps? It is almost all manufactured overseas now--and Wall Street. That is the way all these trade agreements have worked: a few very selected winners in the U.S.; the big losers are U.S. workers and U.S. manufacturing. The question I have been asking since I opposed NAFTA more than 20 years ago is: How can you be a great nation if you don't make things anymore?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on March 16, 2015 I was unable to be present and missed the following votes: On rollcall vote No. 113, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 647, the Access to Life-Saving Trauma Care for All Americans Act, I would have voted ``aye''; On rollcall vote No. 114, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 648, the Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act, I would have voted ``aye''; On rollcall vote No. 115, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 876, the Notice of Observation Treatment and Implication for Care Eligibility Act, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the chairman, Chairman Shuster, from Pennsylvania; subcommittee chairman Mr. Denham; and the ranking member serving on our side, Mike Capuano, for a bill that is an okay bill. This is in the tradition, the greatest tradition, of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which we have differences, as the chairman pointed out, over the future of rail and the funding levels that are needed, but there is consensus that this is important to the country, and we can continue that debate as we continue to improve the operations of Amtrak. An awful lot of the focus is on the Northeast corridor. That is essentially the ``cash cow.'' In the Northeast corridor now in the rail-air market, 78 percent of the D.C.-New York travelers are now using the train. That is a success story. There is a lot of focus on that, but Amtrak is bigger than that. We are a large nation. I remember after 9/11, when I had a Federal official here from my region, head of the Bonneville Power Administration, and he needed to get back for some important meetings in the West, he took the train. There was no plane option. Maintaining a national network, I believe, is essential. We need to keep that perspective in mind as we look at Amtrak as a whole, not just a corridor in one of the most populated parts of the country. In the West, we have two long-distance trains: the Coast Starlight from Seattle through Portland, Eugene, down to Los Angeles; and the Empire Builder, which starts in Seattle and Portland, converges in Spokane--kind of a unique route--and continues on to Chicago. We also have a State-supported route in Oregon, which is an international route. It goes from Eugene, Oregon, to Vancouver, British Columbia. Ridership last year was almost up to 1 million on that route, as Interstate 5 becomes more and more problematic and congested, particularly over the line in Washington State. These are essential assets to give people an alternative. I would also say that we need to be planning for a better future. Last year, Oregon did get about a $20 million grant through the Intercity Passenger Rail grant program to finish planning and preliminary engineering work for the possibility of a higher-speed route--not high speed. Unfortunately, that is not in the cards in the near future. We have a wonderful train set, an Acela train set, which can travel a lot faster than it can now because of the current routing and congestion. We are planning on doing that, working cooperatively with the freight railroads and also looking at some alternative routes for at least part of that train. I would also point out that this bill, the railroads themselves, the freight railroads, which the chairman mentioned, are investing a phenomenal amount of money in upgrading their track, their systems, and their power; but there are still a lot of projects that are undone and don't have potential revenue sources, particularly for the short lines. I am really pleased that this bill streamlines the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, RRIF. It sounds like something my dog would say. In any case, this is sort of a very infinitely bureaucratic and lengthy process. The bill requires that the loans be done within 45 days of getting a complete application, and it also contains strong Buy America provisions. It will be all American steel, iron, and manufactured goods. I think that is an improvement on two levels, and that is a needed change. Finally, as the chairman said, there are some of us on this side of the aisle who believe we should be making more investment so that Amtrak can have a program to acquire more power, so it can make improvements on some of the very aged and decrepit parts of the Neck here and in other places where they have critical infrastructure needs around the country. That was not to be in this bill, but this bill does leave us that option in the future. I strongly--and I believe most on this side of the aisle will strongly--support this legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, let's just back up for a minute. What the gentleman would do, he says, well, they could keep operating the Northeast corridor. Well, that is good, because three-quarters of the people going from Washington, D.C., to New York are choosing rail over air, and I don't know where we would fit that many more airplanes in the already congested skies. But that is actually, unfortunately, not true because of the other routes, particularly across-country and Western routes, the obligations under their contracts to their existing employees who would lose their jobs, other obligations they would have for abandoned lines and stations, and all that would total billions of dollars. So even if they theoretically--and you would have to do further changes in the law rather than just taking away the money--could operate the Northeast corridor, they couldn't because of these other obligations. Any money would have to go there, and they would be immediately bankrupt because it would exceed their revenues. So that is one, perhaps, unintended effect of the gentleman's amendment, because he does seem very sympathetic to the fact that three-quarters of the people going between Washington, D.C., and New York are choosing rail over air, and it is a growing percentage. He doesn't seem to be cognizant of the fact that ridership is up 14 percent--that is actually 4 million people in 1 year--that revenue is up, and the operating losses have been cut in half. They are down 48 percent. Mr. Chairman, there is no passenger rail system that operates like Amtrak across a continent as large as ours without assistance from the government. Now, if you want to disconnect the country--as I recounted earlier, on 9/11, I had a Federal official who had to get back for meetings in the Northwest. He took the train. We have an aging society. I tell you, when I don't have to get on an airplane every week and I can take a little more time to get somewhere--and I think a lot of other people, as they are aging, would like to avoid the hassles of air travel. I believe ridership will continue to grow. In the Northwest we are in a cooperative arrangement--and I pointed that out earlier--with Amtrak, where they operate our train, an Acela train which was purchased, and the ridership is up to about 1 million people a year. And it is growing quickly to avoid the already overly congested I-5 between Eugene and Seattle and avoid the hour and a half you are going to spend somewhere 60, 70 miles south of Seattle sitting in your car. So he would deprive Americans of all this for ideology-- not for good reasons, but for ideology. We should be going the other way. We should be investing more and building out a robust, 21st century rail system like every other industrial country in the world. Why do we have to be Third World?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on February 24, 2015 I was unable to be present and missed the following votes: On Roll Call vote 84, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, As Amended, H.R. 212, the Drinking Water Protection Act, I would have voted Yes. On Roll Call Vote 85, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and pass H.R. 734, the FCC Consolidated Reporting Act of 2015, I would have voted Yes.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize University of Oregon (UO) Professor David Frank. In his 32 year career at the UO, Professor Frank has taught, mentored, and inspired generations of students. He has shaped the study of speech and debate as the dean of the Robert D. Clark Honors Program at the UO and as the longtime director of the UO Forensics Program. For his exemplary work and for his leadership, the UO college debate tournament has been renamed the David Frank Tournament of Scholars. Professor Frank is renowned for his wit, rhetorical flair, and passion for the principles of debate. He is the recipient of five teaching awards, including three university wide recognitions and a career achievement award in forensics. He has overseen the UO Forensics Program since 1981, which won three national championships and international recognition, with a team competing in the semifinal round at the 2006 World Universities Championship in Dublin, Ireland. As a University of Oregon graduate, it is my pleasure to highlight the outstanding accomplishments of Professor Frank. I am also proud to note that Oregon forensics dates to the founding of the university in 1876. One of the very first intercollegiate debates in America occurred in 1891 between Oregon and Willamette University. The style of debate now known as policy cross-examination was developed at the University of Oregon in the 1930s. The UO hosts the first David Frank Tournament of Scholars later this month, an honor Professor Frank so richly merits.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, for anyone watching this debate for the 11th time who isn't familiar with the substantive reasons to oppose this legislation, I would refer them to my earlier remarks numerous times on the floor of the House because, in the interest of time, I am not going to repeat them. I am going to say that I am pleased that this is actually a big step forward for the other side of the aisle in the House because there are two critical changes that the Senate made which go to a raging debate on the Republican side of the aisle here in the House, and that is whether or not climate change is real or a hoax. By voting for this bill today, you are going to endorse language saying that climate change is real and not a hoax. I think that is tremendous progress for the Republican side of the aisle, who I expect will be supporting this bill to accept the reality of climate change. I am thrilled that that is in there, and their votes will be reflected in the Record as endorsing that language. Secondly, Madam Speaker, one of the other substantive issues we have raised numerous times is that this foreign corporation will not-- because of a bizarre ruling by the Internal Revenue Service--will not be paying into the trust fund which goes to mitigate pipeline spills, breaks, and cleanups: the oil spill liability trust fund. We have offered that as a motion to recommit numerous times here on the floor, thinking it would be a reasonable thing to level the playing field between U.S. producers shipping oil and a Canadian company shipping oil which is going to be exported from the United States perhaps after it is refined. Again, this will be a shift on the Republican side of the aisle because you will be voting for language that says, ``Congress should approve a bill to ensure that all forms of bitumen or synthetic crude oil derived from bitumen are subject to the per-barrel excise tax associated with the oil spill liability trust fund,'' which would be I think the first time the Republican side has endorsed any sort--well, no, there was a tax increase for inland waterways users buried in that bill in December--but this will be only the second time that Republicans here have voted to increase a tax. I am really thrilled to see that and the fact that we will be righting that inequity, and essentially, the Republicans will be endorsing something that we have offered numerous times on the floor. The third thing--which really isn't an improvement--is some Senators stuck in language saying that when this foreign corporation takes American citizens' private property against their will, they have to follow the Constitution. Well, unfortunately, because of the Kelo decision--which we did try a number of years ago to clarify and overturn--the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has ruled that you can yield the right, for economic development purposes, to a private entity to take peoples' private property. We are going one step--or you are going one step further here by actually giving that authority to a foreign corporation. As far as I know, this is the first time in the history of the United States of America that a foreign corporation will have the right to take private property from an American citizen against their will. That isn't an improvement, just saying ``follow the Constitution,'' because of the ruling by the Supreme Court. But the other two are great. Climate change exists. You are endorsing that implicitly by voting for this bill. We should increase taxes and impose taxes on this tar sands oil. Again, I think this is a big breakthrough for the other side. I still won't be voting for the bill. I stand on the previous concerns I have raised. Those are all still extant, but these things will be worthy of noticing. With that, Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) be allowed to control the balance of my time in addition to the time controlled by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this week, Americans making more than one million dollars a year will get a tax break. Not because Congress approved one, but because they've already reached the maximum amount of income that is subject to the Social Security tax. That's right--those making more than one million dollars have already reached the income cap of $118,500, and we're not even six weeks into the year. This gaping loophole allows billionaire hedge fund managers and corporate CEOs to pay a lower percentage of their income into Social Security than teachers, police officers and healthcare workers. Ninety- four percent of American workers pay Social Security tax on all of their income. But the wealthiest six percent are exempt from doing the same. By closing this loophole, we can make sure that every American pays exactly the same percentage of their income into Social Security. Ending this tax racket for the wealthy also ensures that Social Security will continue paying full benefits to every single American who pays in. We have a choice: we can tell our children and grandchildren that their Social Security benefits will be cut in order to maintain a regressive tax that benefits only the richest six percent, or we can close this loophole and guarantee that if you pay into the program, you will receive the full Social Security benefits you were promised. Unfortunately, this is not the conversation that has dominated Washington, DC in recent years. Instead, some of my colleagues in Congress would prefer to manufacture a crisis in order to privatize the entire system, leaving seniors' benefits at the mercy of Wall Street power brokers. They want you to think the system cannot be fixed and that Social Security as we know it is doomed. We can prove them wrong. If every American pays their fair share into the system, we can make sure the government fulfills its obligation to America's seniors.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on January 28, 2015 I was unable to be present and missed the following votes: On Roll Call vote 49, on Agreeing to the Motion to Recommit With Instructions to H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act, I would have voted AYE. On Roll Call vote 50, on Passage of H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act, I would have voted NO.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today, January 27, 2015, I was unable to be present and missed the following votes: On Roll Call vote 46, on Agreeing to the Resolution H. Res. 48 providing for consideration for the bill H.R. 351 to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas, and for other purposes, I would have voted NO. On Roll Call vote 47, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 469, the Strengthening Child Welfare Response to Trafficking Act, I would have voted AYE. On Roll Call Vote 48, on Motion to Suspend the rules and Pass H.R. 246, to Improve Response to Victims of Child Sex Trafficking, I would have voted AYE.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. In response to the transport, yes, pipelines are generally safer, but the consequences--look at the case in Michigan--when a pipeline goes are generally much greater, much greater volumes. Even in the horrific train accidents we have had, the volumes were relatively small that were spilled, even though the consequences-- particularly in the one in Canada--were very, very damaging. Minimally, you should have added to the bill requiring them to pay into the oil spill liability trust fund. That would make that slightly less objectionable.

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

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, it is Groundhog Day come early to the floor of the House. It is cold enough I guess for Groundhog Day, but this will be the 10th time in the last 4 years that the House of Representatives has moved this bill with the assertion that somehow it leads us to energy independence, energy security, lower prices at the pump. Well, the reality is a Canadian corporation is going to build a pipeline from Canada to Texas. They are going to be exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, unlike most other projects in this country, because of a stupid ruling by the IRS--but that is nothing new--regarding tar sands. So they will be exempt from paying into that. So if this thing bursts, there is an accident, the taxpayers of the United States get the bill, not the taxpayers of Canada. They don't get the bill. The taxpayers of the United States get the bill. Now, that is one of a number of problems regarding this project. It is somewhat unprecedented, I believe. This may have happened at some other time in American history, but I do find it particularly ironic today, when we had the reading of the Constitution, that the effect of passing this bill, if it were to become law--and the President has already said he will veto it. But if this were to become law, the effect would be to give a foreign corporation the right to take private property from American citizens. I am not aware of any other time in the history of the Union where we have given a foreign corporation the right to take Americans' private property. And, yes, some people were happy to sell the rights, but many others weren't, including some in Nebraska and some in Texas. It has been quite contentious among landowners who are just having this corporation come. I would like to put in the Record a letter from TransCanada. We have blacked out the name of the recipient of the letter, but it is a true copy of a letter to a person who will have their private property taken by eminent domain by a foreign corporation, and the foreign corporation informs them that they will begin proceedings this month, I guess because of the anticipated Republican action, to take their private property away. TransCanada, Omaha, NE, December 8, 2014 Re Keystone XL Project Update. Dear Landowner: While we continue to wait for decisions from the Nebraska Supreme Court and from the U.S. Department of State regarding our proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, I would like to provide you with an update on our project. To date, Nebraska landowners have voluntarily granted us easements representing 84 percent of the required right-of- way for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. We continue to work to acquire the remaining land rights. In Montana and South Dakota, we have acquired easements for 100 percent of the privately owned right-of-way. Between September 2008 and earlier this year, five successive sets of extensive public comments were taken and five successive independent environmental assessments were published by the State Department. Each review confirmed the safety and environmental soundness of the project. The State Department is continuing its review of our Presidential Permit application and will ultimately make a determination whether the project is in the national interest. The State Department has not announced a definitive timeline for reaching that decision. In addition, reviews have been completed separately by the States of Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota. As with the federal reviews, these state reviews included extensive public input. Each resulted in state approval of the project. In South Dakota, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission approved the project in 2010. Because construction did not begin within four years, we must certify that the pipeline continues to meet the conditions upon which the permit was issued. We have initiated the certification process and we expect a decision in 2015. The State of Nebraska enacted legislation in 2011 and in 2012 requiring state review of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline route. The Governor approved the route in January 2013, after a year-long public review process overseen by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Following a legal challenge of the new law, a lower court determined that the law was not valid and that the review should have been overseen by the Nebraska Public Service Commission. The Nebraska Attorney General appealed the lower court ruling to the Nebraska Supreme Court and the Court is expected to make a ruling later this year or early next year. Pending a decision on the appeal, the law remains in effect as does the resulting Keystone XL route. In the event that the Nebraska Supreme Court affirms the lower court ruling invalidating the new law, we would expect a second Nebraska review to be required, this time by the Nebraska Public Service Commission. If instead, the Nebraska Supreme Court reverses the lower court ruling, affirming the validity of the existing state review, we expect that other aspects of that law would remain in effect as well. One of those aspects affects the timing available to complete negotiations to acquire remaining property rights in Nebraska. If parties ultimately are not able to reach voluntary agreement on acquisition of necessary land rights for the project, we are required to commence the legal process of eminent domain to obtain those rights within two years of the January 2013 Nebraska approval. We recognize that the Supreme Court ruling may not be issued before we are required to take action in preparation for the existing January 2015 deadline. While we would prefer not to initiate the process to acquire outstanding land rights while there is uncertainty, we are bound by that deadline in order to meet our responsibility to continue to prepare to build the pipeline necessary to safely transport North American energy. Regardless of your perspective on the project, we would welcome the opportunity to address your questions and concerns and discuss property-specific details for pipeline construction. When we are able to work with landowners to achieve mutual agreement where possible, we are better able to minimize potential effects of construction on land and operations. A member of my land team will follow-up with you or your legal counsel. If you have not heard from us or if you have questions, you are welcome to contact me. If you would like to see an operating pipeline, please let us know and we'd be happy to arrange for a tour of a pump station on the operating Keystone line in Nebraska. Sincerely, Andrew Craig, Manager--Land, Keystone Projects, TransCanada Pipelines, USA.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman just referenced safely transport. Of course that is a hypothetical. And let me give a real example: In 2010, a Canadian company, Enbridge, had a pipeline burst in Marshall, Michigan, spilling 1 million gallons of tar sands oil. Now, here is the thing. All oil has viscosity and other characteristics. The thing about tar sands oil is, it doesn't float. It goes right to the bottom. They are still dredging Canadian tar sands oil out of the bottom of the Kalamazoo River 4 years later. And so far, claims of $53 million have been made, which will have to be paid by American taxpayers against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and not by Enbridge, the Canadian corporation. Which is what we are setting up here: an even greater transshipment by a foreign corporation, exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, creating even bigger potential for spills with this oil, which has unique characteristics which are much more difficult to clean up if it comes in contact with water and, God forbid, it gets into the aquifer in one of the States that are being transected. The chairman did reference the 15 hearings. We have a difference in counting. But let's say 15 hearings. Three were in the Rules Committee. Those aren't hearings. That is sort of a little star chamber where you take things before you bring them to the floor of the House. You don't discuss substance there. One was in the Senate. There were 10 in the House, but not a single one of those hearings was in the principal committee of jurisdiction, which would be the Transportation Committee. And of course the bill that was marked up by the Transportation Committee in the first session of the last Congress was very different than the bill that is being advocated for today, which has not been marked up. And we heard a lot about regular order, read the bill, and all that stuff. It is fine to say, gee, we have voted on this a lot of times before. With 61 new Members of the House, gas prices are down by almost 50 percent, a lot of things have changed. I would even wonder about the viability of this project. I did just recently learn that the Koch brothers, though, have a significant investment in tar sands in Canada. But that probably has nothing to do with an attempt to expedite this project. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are exporting more than 60 percent of the oil that we produce every day either as refined or even as crude product. In this case, Canadian oil, exempt from a tax, will flow through the United States to a refinery. It will be processed and exported overseas. Somehow, that is going to lower prices further at the pump. Somehow, that is going to lead to American energy security. You have to blow the dust off those arguments. They are a little dated, so we have raised a number of concerns here today. Minimally--minimally--the Republicans should require this Canadian corporation to pay the same tax that most U.S. corporations pay when they transport products through pipelines and not put American taxpayers at risk. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Now, that is a bit ironic, again, on the day we read the Constitution and also of the party of individual rights for property owners. So that is also of concern. Yes, there will be construction jobs, and I am the first to admit we need more jobs in America. In fact, I voted against the President's so- called stimulus bill because it didn't invest enough in building infrastructure in this country. Instead, it did a whole bunch of stupid tax cuts because of Larry Summers, a highly acclaimed hack economist, and we didn't put a lot of people back to work. Seven percent went to infrastructure, that created jobs; 42 percent went to tax cuts, didn't create jobs. But that is another agenda the Republicans are pursuing is tax cuts to create jobs, but we won't get into that here today. So, yes, that will happen, but there are a lot of other investments we should, could, and I believe the chairman supports making that will create significant construction and infrastructure jobs. Now, were this just in isolation and it didn't involve the total destruction of the boreal forests of Canada, if I were Canadian I would be pretty upset about that; and perhaps the dirtiest, most environmentally problematic way of extracting fossil fuels from the ground to get these oil sands, the construction jobs might carry the day, but sometimes you have to draw a line. In this case, we also hear it is going to lead somehow to energy security. Well, that is interesting because the crude, tar sand oil, or whatever you want to call it, is going to come down to Texas without paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund--creating a potential problem for the future taxpayers of the United States--go to a refinery in an export zone in Texas, and, yes, it will be refined and then it will be exported. We are exporting millions of gallons of fuel every day, so to somehow say this is going to lead to lower prices at the pump in America--maybe it is lower prices at the pump in China or I don't know where else, Japan or someplace, but it isn't going to be here because the product is ultimately going to be exported. So it is also not going to do anything for our energy security, and at the moment we have kind of a surfeit because of fracking and other things of fuels, and prices are down considerably. So those are just a few of the problems. And by passing this bill, the House of Representatives will attempt to preempt the executive authority of the President in this matter because this pipeline crosses an international border. The President has authority, and the State Department has been considering it. And even with the Supreme Court of Nebraska refusing to make a judgment, they didn't uphold the law of the Nebraska legislature. In fact, four out of seven judges--normally a majority in most places-- said it was unconstitutional, but Nebraska has a peculiarity that if the other three judges take a walk--which they did--then even though a majority found it unconstitutional, it is not found unconstitutional, and that is the end of the proceeding. So that is the big news out of Nebraska. They need a little work on their constitution, I think. So it hasn't received a stamp of approval there. There are still aggrieved landowners in Nebraska who object to the route and who are going to have their private property taken by a foreign corporation. So other than that, it is a great idea. And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.