[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.

                          ____________________