[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 113 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5504-H5507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1938, NORTH AMERICAN-MADE ENERGY
SECURITY ACT
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 370
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1938) to direct the President to expedite the
consideration and approval of the construction and operation
of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour, with 30 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, 20 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and 10
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy
and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
All points of order against the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WEBSTER. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)--who has a nice
colorful Florida tie on today--pending which I yield myself such time
as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this rule and the
underlying bill. House Resolution 370 provides for a structured rule
for consideration of House Bill 1938, the North American-Made Energy
Security Act.
The rule makes 11 of the 13 amendments submitted to the Rules
Committee in order for robust debate here on the floor of the House of
Representatives. All 11 amendments made in order are Democrat
amendments, and this legislation passed out of Energy and Commerce with
bipartisan support, gathering ``yes'' votes from six Democrats on the
committee, including the former chairman, Mr. Dingell.
This bill has moved through the committee process with bipartisan
support because it does not require anything in the extraordinary to
do. Distilled in its simplest form, it directs the President to make a
decision. It does not prescribe his decision one way or another; it
just simply asks him to act, say ``yes'' or say ``no.''
After nearly 3 years of review, study, and comment, the President
would have to decide whether or not to issue a Presidential permit
permitting the Keystone XL pipeline.
This bill does not allow any corners to be cut, any environmental
considerations to be glossed over. In fact, not only has it required an
Environmental Impact Statement to be executed, but several supplemental
statements have been performed as well.
Furthermore, upon receipt of the final Environmental Impact
Statement, but not later than November 1, the President still has an
additional 30 days to weigh the evidence and make up his mind. After
nearly 3 years, he does not have to approve the project nor disapprove
the project; he simply has to make a decision.
And what exactly is at stake? What hinges upon the approval or
disapproval of this monumental infrastructure project? American job
creation, overdue economic growth, and increased national energy
security.
TransCanada believes that the approval of the construction of the
Keystone XL pipeline will create about 20,000 shovel-ready construction
and manufacturing jobs, adding about $6.5 billion in personal income
for those workers. It injects more than $20 billion in private sector
investment in the U.S. economy.
It generates more than $585 million in new taxes for States and
communities along the pipeline route. It pays more than $5.2 billion in
property taxes during the life of the pipeline; undeniably strengthens
America's energy security by enabling expanded importation of 830,000
barrels of oil a day from our U.S. neighbor and ally instead of
importing it from other unfriendly sources.
In fact, according to the United States Department of State, if the
pipeline is not approved, ``the U.S. would not receive a reliable and
cost-efficient source of crude oil from Canada and would remain
dependent upon unstable foreign oil supplies from the Middle East,
Africa, Mexico, and South America.''
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation. Relevant committees of jurisdiction have worked
to provide us with a bipartisan bill which, at its core, is quite
simple. It simply directs the administration to make a decision on
America's energy and security and job creation.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my friend for yielding and
compliment him on his sunshine tie, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule for H.R.
1938 and feel that, much like the majority's previous legislation
attempts to increase offshore drilling, this backwards-looking dirty
energy bill will not lower the price of gasoline for the average
American today, tomorrow, or in the future.
It manages, this bill does, to completely ignore the pressing needs
to develop clean, sustainable energy. In fact, only the large oil
companies will
[[Page H5505]]
benefit from this bill. In its very application for the Keystone XL
pipeline expansion, TransCanada indicated that it believes this
expansion will actually raise oil and gasoline prices.
The pipeline expansion connects Canadian oil to the Gulf of Mexico,
making it possible to ship tar sands oil out onto the world market for
the first time.
{time} 1240
The pipeline will allow TransCanada to bypass the Midwest, reducing
what the company called, and I quote, price discounting in the Midwest
due to what it considers an, I quote, oversupply. The oil will run past
Montana, right through Texas, ignore Nebraska completely, and wave
good-bye to the United States while it rides right out of the country.
Providing Canadian oil companies access to this new market is the
only reason to want to expand the pipeline. TransCanada's application
actually indicates that it expects the price of crude oil to increase
by $6.55 per barrel in the Midwest and $3 everywhere else after the
expansion is completed.
Ultimately, the expansion would lead to a windfall for Canadian oil
companies of between $2 billion and $3.9 billion by the year 2013,
while increasing the cost of gasoline for hardworking Americans between
10 and 20 cents per gallon. The people of the United States will bear
all the risks of an onshore oil spill and reap absolutely none of the
benefits.
Let there be no mistake about this: the risk of an oil spill from
these tar sand pipelines is very real. The oil is so much more
corrosive than traditional crude oil that even Canada has yet to
approve a dedicated pipeline conveying it to its coasts. The oil eats
away at the pipelines, compromising them and leading to frequent
spills. For example, the very pipeline for which the majority bill
hastens expansion suffered 12 spills in its very first year. The first
spill in June 2010 occurred only 1 month after the pipeline went into
operation. Just this last May, the Keystone spewed 21,000 gallons of
oil in North Dakota.
Already, Mr. Speaker, Americans are paying the price for a project
which delivers to them absolutely no benefit. A similar pipeline
recently discharged 840,000 gallons of oil into Michigan's Kalamazoo
River, causing one of the largest oil spills ever in the Midwest. On
July 1, a pipeline broke and spewed approximately 42,000 gallons of oil
into the Yellowstone River. Between 1990 and 2005, there were over
4,700 related oil spills. The Keystone pipeline expansion would expand
the risk of a BP-sized oil spill from the Gulf of Mexico to front yards
across the heart of this country.
After its initial impact statement received harsh and extensive
criticism, the State Department issued a supplemental draft statement.
The period for public comment on that draft closed on June 6. The State
Department is currently reviewing the comments it received in response
to this second statement in a process expected to take several months.
Nonetheless, the State Department has reasonably indicated that a
decision can be expected by the end of the year. Yet this bill would
require a decision within 30 days of the issuance of the final
environmental impact statement and no later than November 1.
Without further justification, Republicans seem to think it necessary
to short-cut the process, compromising the discussion and its analysis.
There are still many questions that need to be answered regarding the
pipeline, including information on greenhouse gas emissions, safety,
alternative routes, and environmental justice considerations.
This year, the Republican majority has offered three offshore
drilling bills that have utterly failed to preserve and protect our
environment. It is clear that my friends in the majority are more
concerned with keeping big oil companies happy than implementing a
workable energy policy for the future. Instead of crafting policies to
ensure that the growing sustainable energy industry is filled with
American workers, the majority wants to enrich Canadian oil companies
at a cost of America's economy and environment.
These kinds of dirty energy bills keep us mired in the muck of fossil
fuels when what we need to do is focus on making our energy use more
efficient. We need to develop the next generation of clean energy
technology. Unfortunately, Republicans seem intent on enabling our
country's oil addiction. This is not good policy today and will
certainly not be good policy in the future.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank my friend from Florida for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by Congressman Hastings' remarks in
opposition to the rule. This is a very fair rule. The Rules Committee
received 13 amendments from the minority. They made in order 11 of
those. One amendment was not germane and the other amendment by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) would have restricted the oil
to the United States and not allowed any of the product to be refined
and sent overseas possibly, and that's a function that the Rules
Committee felt should be a market function and not prohibited.
So 11 amendments by the minority were made in order. This is a bill
that came out of my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, on a
bipartisan vote. All the Republicans supported it and between a fourth
and a third of the Democrats supported it.
The underlying thesis of the bill is pretty straightforward. Under
current law, you're supposed to make a decision on pipeline permits
between 180 and 90 days. The Obama administration EPA has had 2 years
on their watch and 1 year under the Bush administration. EPA has had
over 3 years if you count towards this September, next month, or right
after August, and has not made a decision. The bill says make a
decision. Make a decision.
There is an existing pipeline. The Keystone pipeline would connect an
existing pipeline that ends in the Midwest to the gulf coast. It would
go to Congressman Poe's district in Port Arthur and go over into
Louisiana. It would create tens of thousands of jobs in construction;
it would bring approximately a million barrels of oil per day into the
United States to provide competition for existing oil supplies; it
would be refined in U.S. refineries; and most of the product, if not
all, would probably be consumed by U.S. consumers.
This is a good bill. This is a good rule. I would ask that we support
the rule and then listen to the debate and hopefully decide to support
the underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if I could engage the gentleman
from Texas just a moment, I will yield myself 30 seconds before
yielding to my colleague from Virginia.
I just am curious to know if this will cause the price of gasoline to
go down, in your judgment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. In my judgment, providing more fuel supply for
our refineries would liken the possibility that prices would go down.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Likely possibility. I'll take that pretty
much as a ``no.''
Mr. BARTON of Texas. No, that's a ``yes.'' Take it as a ``yes.''
Competition drives prices down.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague and my friend from
Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I rise in
opposition on substantive grounds. The Rules Committee approved for our
consideration here on the floor every germane amendment but one, the
Markey-Connolly amendment, which would have required a simple
certification that the bulk of this oil to be transported by this
proposed pipeline be for and designated for domestic consumption.
{time} 1250
We hear a lot of rhetoric about the need to expand American
production and/or access to secure oil to lessen our dependence on
foreign suppliers. That,
[[Page H5506]]
indeed, is a noble goal. It's one in which I share, but not at any
price, and I don't want to be sold a pig in a poke.
The fact that the Rules Committee would not put that amendment on
this floor, going into content rather than procedure, finding it
germane but still not allowing a fair debate and its consideration on
this floor, I think gives the lie to the intent behind the extension of
this pipeline.
This oil is not for domestic consumption; this oil is for foreign
export. It has very little to do with domestic oil supply or it might
have very little to do with domestic oil supply. A simple requirement
that the preponderance of it be for domestic supply I think would have
made prudent domestic policy and I think would have allowed a fair and
interesting debate here on the floor of the House as to what the real
intention of this pipeline is.
So I say to the American public, I urge you not to be fooled by
propositions from the other side that this is going to be good for
American consumers. This is going to be good for Chinese consumers.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. I
also admire the gentleman from Florida with the exotic tie and his
comments. But I stand in support of the rule and, of course, the
underlying bill. The rule is a fair rule.
I represent southeast Texas. We still think we're the energy capital
of the world. The pipeline from Canada will go down into southeast
Texas, Port Arthur, Texas, which actually has high unemployment. The
pipeline will go to the refineries. The refineries will be able to
expand and hire refinery workers to refine that crude oil. I think
that's a good idea.
The Canadian oil sands will be able to produce 175 barrels of oil
reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia. The idea that we need to move
away from Middle Eastern oil is a good idea. Maybe we ought to support
our loyal allies that are in a stable country.
A medium-sized pipeline, just to give you some statistics, pumps
about 150,000 barrels a day. To replace that, you would have to have
750 trucks a day or a 75-car train every day.
Pipelines are the safest way to transport crude oil. Seventy-five
percent of the accidents occur with a third party causing the accident
to the pipeline. But if we don't make a decision--that's what we're
asking the President to do--make a decision. And as my friend from
Florida knows, being former judges, we made decisions. It didn't take
us 3 years to make a decision. You get the evidence; you make a ruling.
And it has taken, I think, the Federal Government way too long to make
a decision on this issue.
But failure to act--delay, delay, delay--is tantamount to a ``no,''
and eventually the Canadians will sell that crude oil that they have to
China or other buyers. So I think it's quite important that we go ahead
and make a decision, have the Federal Government rule on this issue.
There are 500,000 miles of pipelines into the United States; about
half of those run through Texas. I'm told that a third of all those
pipelines run through my congressional district. We have a lot of
pipelines. And I think it's important that we continue to try to take
care of ourselves, use a safe product from Canada, make sure that all
the environmental requirements are imposed in making this pipeline that
creates jobs in America--build a pipeline, create jobs in southeast
Texas for Americans and the refinery business--because we still rely on
crude oil.
And last I would say, I agree, we need to eventually have green
energy, but we don't have that now. So if we cut off all of this, what
will we use?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WEBSTER. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. POE of Texas. So I urge support of the rule. I urge adoption of
this legislation so that we can move forward with construction,
American jobs, and deal fairly on the issue of energy reliance upon
ourselves and getting that from our allies instead of Third World
dictators like Chavez and the Middle East.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, Judge
Poe, that we have to start--and we are starting--the green energy
movement. I readily understand the economic impact on Port Arthur, the
State of Texas, and I also am deeply concerned for the ranchers in the
Midwest, specifically Montana, Nebraska, those States, North Dakota,
that are bypassed. And the possibility of their oil and gas costing
more is, at the least, disturbing.
But I do want to share a report that was formulated regarding tar
sands and their potential by the IHS Cambridge Energy Research
Association, and it's under the aegis: ``Growth in the Canadian Oil
Sands.'' What it says is:
``Tar sands, which are also known as `oil sands,' are a combination
of clay, sand, water, and bitumen, a heavy, black, asphalt-like
hydrocarbon that cannot be extracted through a well like conventional
oil. It is estimated that Canada's economically recoverable tar sands
deposits in Alberta total 173 billion barrels, making Canada''--as
Judge Poe pointed out--``second after Saudi Arabia in oil reserves.
``Producing fuel from tar sands has significant environmental
impacts. Extracting tar sands bitumen and upgrading it to synthetic
crude oil produces roughly three times greater greenhouse gas emissions
than producing conventional oil on a per-unit basis. Tar sands
development also destroys boreal forests and wetlands and wildlife
habitat, kills migratory birds, and degrades water quality and air
quality.''
That said, tar sands oil contains, on average, 11 times more sulfur,
11 times more nickel, six times more nitrogen, and five times more lead
than conventional oil. These pollutants are harmful to human health,
causing lung and respiratory problems such as asthma and bronchitis,
and the metals found in tar sands are neurotoxic. The pollutants
released by refining tar sands causes acid rain, smog, and haze, and
communities living near these refineries report elevated levels of
cancer.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us overrides current law for the sake of
padding the pockets of oil company CEOs and fails to create significant
sustainable jobs for the average American in the growing sustainable
energy sector. This bill will never become law and is once again a
waste of our time.
I oppose this unnecessary opportunistic legislation for many of the
same reasons that I have made very clear, as have others, but I have
made the vow to be the last man standing in the fight against expanding
offshore drilling, and I may be among those that will continue to stand
against transborder tar sands being transmitted here for purposes of
going out onto the world market and not allowing for any reduction in
the cost of gasoline in the United States of America.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for ample and open
debate, allowing our colleagues from across the aisle to offer their
legislative proposals to this bill.
Furthermore, the underlying bill addresses two critical concerns, if
you listen to speeches made in this Chamber every day, of every Member
of this House: unemployment and dependence on OPEC oil.
As I have stated, 20,000 shovel-ready jobs can be created with the
approval of this infrastructure project. Approval of the Keystone XL
pipeline will also serve to increase oil imports from our friend and
neighbor in the north, Canada, while driving down our dependence on oil
from countries that, quite frankly, do not share our ideas about
democracy and freedom.
Most important, this bill does not force the President to approve
this job-creating infrastructure project. It simply asks him, requires
him to make up his mind after coordinating with all of the appropriate
stakeholders.
I ask my colleagues to join me today in voting in favor of this rule
and passage of the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page H5507]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________