On the recordJanuary 28, 2015
I am not entirely certain I like this amendment. This is the first I have heard PHMSA may not have the resources to do its job. It does seem fair to have PHMSA come tell us if they do not have adequate resources. What I most strongly oppose with this amendment is its attempt to tie the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline to an unrelated pipeline in a different State. There is no limit for the PHMSA study and certification included here, so we could be looking, in addition to the already 2,300-some-odd days this delay has been in place, at further delays. If my colleagues from Michigan are interested in a PHMSA study, I recommend they introduce their effort as a stand-alone bill so it can be considered by the committee of jurisdiction. If it is needed, we can move it through the regular order and certainly consider it in the future. I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I remind colleagues that we are on 10-minute votes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Peters amendment.
