[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 16, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5632-S5634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. Donnelly, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. 
        Manchin):
  S. 2823. A bill to require approval for the construction, connection, 
operation, or maintenance of oil or natural gas pipelines or electric 
transmission facilities at the national boundary of the United States 
for the import or export of oil, natural gas, or electricity to or from 
Canada or Mexico, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to present the North American 
Energy Infrastructure Act. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that 
I think is very important to helping our country build the 
infrastructure we need to truly become energy independent or energy 
self-sufficient--energy secure, if you will.
  This is bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that has already 
passed the House. It was sponsored in the House by Representative Fred 
Upton, who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was 
cosponsored on the Democratic side by Gene Green, a Congressman from 
Texas. I have bipartisan sponsors for this legislation in the Senate as 
well--on the Republican side, Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the 
ranking member on the energy committee; and then I have two other 
members of the energy committee who are Democrats cosponsoring this 
legislation as well, Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana and Senator Joe 
Manchin from West Virginia. Certainly Senator Manchin is recognized as 
one of the leaders in the Senate on important energy issues. I am very 
appreciative of having him join me on this legislation as well. I am 
introducing this legislation now.
  This is the sixth anniversary of the application by TransCanada for a 
permit to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. They applied for approval 
of a pipeline project--the Keystone XL Pipeline project--6 years ago as 
of Friday of this week. Can you imagine that? Americans fought and won 
World War II in less time than this application has been pending before 
the President of the United States, yet still no decision from this 
administration after 6 years.
  This is vital infrastructure we need to truly make this country 
energy secure. Working with Canada, we can truly produce more energy 
than we consume and make our country energy secure, but we cannot do it 
without the necessary infrastructure--the roads, the pipelines, the 
rail, the transmission lines--the energy infrastructure we need to get 
energy from where it is produced, places such as my State of North 
Dakota, which is now the second largest producer of oil in this 
country, second only to Texas. We produce more than 1 million barrels a 
day of oil, but we have to get it to market. It is getting loaded and 
overloaded on rail. We have tremendous congestion on rail. Our farmers 
cannot get their ag products to market anymore because we

[[Page S5633]]

have so much congestion on the rail. Yet here we have an application 
that has been held for 6 years by the President of the United States 
without a decision. That is after last year when he came to the 
Republican caucus and told us point blank that he would have a decision 
before the end of 2013. No decision. Here we are in 2014, the sixth 
anniversary.
  Well, look, we cannot continue to have that problem.
  We have to find a way to build this infrastructure. Even though we 
are working on Keystone on a separate track--and I believe we will have 
the votes next year to pass it. We will have the 60 votes in the Senate 
we need to pass it. We are at 57 right now. We are very close. I think 
by next year we will have those 60 votes to pass Keystone, and we will 
work to do that and attach it to legislation the President will not 
veto. So we will continue to work on Keystone on that track, but at the 
same time we have to avoid this problem in the future with oil 
pipelines, with gas pipelines, and with transmission lines.
  We have to be able to build that infrastructure not only in this 
country, but we have to be able to cross the border with Canada. Canada 
is a huge producer of energy. So working together, we have this 
incredible opportunity if we can build the infrastructure to do it. It 
is not just for fossil fuels. It is not just for oil. It is not just 
for gas. It is for renewables as well. Canada produces an incredible 
amount of hydro, which, of course, is electricity. We need transmission 
lines to bring that renewable hydro across the border.
  So this is about all forms of energy, and this is about working with 
our closest friend and ally to truly address that energy issue. It is a 
job-creation issue. It is a national security issue.
  What does this legislation do, the North American Energy 
Infrastructure Act? What it does is it expedites, streamlines the 
approval process for cross-border construction of oil pipelines, gas 
pipelines, and electric transmission lines.
  How does it work? First, oil pipelines. Right now, a Presidential 
national interest determination is needed for approval or authority to 
build an oil pipeline across the Canadian border. Of course, that is 
the problem we see with Keystone. That has been held up now for 6 
years. So this changes that process for future projects. As I said, it 
has already passed the House overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly. I think it 
had pretty much all of the Republican votes and I think more than 50 
votes on the Democratic side. They had very strong bipartisan support 
in the House.
  What it does is it changes that approval process for crossing the 
border with an oil pipeline, moving it to the State Department. So the 
State Department will make that determination approving a cross-border 
transfer. It will still be subject to the NEPA process. You will still 
have to do an environmental impact statement. But the focus of that 
EIS--environmental impact statement--or the NEPA process, will be on 
the border section, not on the entire length of the project throughout 
all the States that pipeline may cross. It will focus on the border 
section. And the State Department has to come up with reasonable rules 
to determine what that distance is that constitutes crossing the border 
with Canada.
  Then the rest of the NEPA process will continue just as it does today 
for any other project that does not come across the border. Right now 
States have their jurisdiction in some cases and the Federal Government 
has its jurisdiction in some cases, depending on whether it is private 
land or it is public land or Federal land. Maybe it is a body of water. 
Whatever. So the NEPA process continues as before, driven by the States 
or the Federal Government depending on what particular part of the 
country or the type of land or the body of water you are crossing.
  I think that is why it garnered such strong bipartisan support. We 
continue that process and those protections, but we do not allow the 
determination on the cross-border process or the cross-border piece to 
be held up by all of the NEPA process and all of the sitings that may 
be covered in all the respective States that pipeline crosses. Those 
processes are already in place. Do not use crossing the border as an 
excuse to tie up all these other processes and basically usurp the 
authority of the States that are affected by that project.
  I think it is a very reasonable process, and it is one that I think 
we should be able to come together on in a bipartisan way to say: It is 
open. It is fair. That is why we have bipartisan support in the 
sponsorship--Senator Donnelly, Senator Manchin, Senator Murkowski, 
myself, all people who work on energy--because we have struck that 
balance. It is about creating a good business climate that will 
encourage that investment to create the infrastructure we need to move 
the energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed in the 
safest way possible--in the safest way possible--in the most economic 
way possible.
  That is what it is about, the best environmental stewardship. Isn't 
that what we all want? Obviously it is. But if we don't do this, where 
are we? Well, right now we are waiting 6 years for a determination on 
the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  Here is another example I will give, the Bakken North pipeline, a 
pipeline that goes from North Dakota to Cushing, and they have been 
waiting for 1\1/2\ years on an ownership name change from the 
Department of State, 1\1/2\ years to change the name. Really? Does that 
make sense to anybody? If it takes that long for something that simple, 
what do we do when we actually need to build this infrastructure that 
is so important to the energy future of our country?
  What about gas pipelines? Gas pipelines will be covered by FERC, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. What we say is: Look, they will 
go through the NEPA process too. Just as we describe with the 
Department of State on an oil pipeline, they will take that cross-
border piece and do the same thing, do a NEPA process so you have an 
environmental impact statement and cover all the bases. But then 30 
days after, they have to make a decision. They can't just sit on it, 
and the rest of the NEPA process continues as we described on an oil 
pipeline. Again, very simple, very straightforward, and it comports 
with the free trade agreements we have with Canada and with Mexico.
  On the third piece, electric transmission lines, that process will be 
overseen by the Department of Energy. We simply streamline the process. 
Right now there are two permits required, one that is driven by the 
administration, one that is congressionally driven. We combine those 
and make it one process; again, cover all the bases, as I have 
described, with an oil pipeline or a gas pipeline, but we make it one 
process instead of a duplicative process.
  When we look at what is going on in the world today, we see why this 
legislation is so important. Look at ISIL. Look at ISIL in the Middle 
East and what is happening there. We are right now confronting how we 
need to address this very significant challenge, how we need to work 
with allies in the region to take out ISIL. Do we really want to 
continue to be dependent on oil from the Middle East? I think we could 
ask every single American that question and the answer would be a 
resounding no. There is no way we want to have to get oil from the 
Middle East. But we still are today. Yet we can produce more oil and 
gas in this country, particularly with Canada, than we can consume.
  Why would we continue to want to be dependent on the Middle East or 
Venezuela or any other place that is antagonistic or hostile toward our 
interests? We don't. This is a national security issue. It is an energy 
issue. It is a job creation issue. It is an economic growth issue. And 
it is for darned sure a national security issue. Which is why every 
time we ask the public about it, more than two-thirds say: Yes, build 
that infrastructure. Build that Keystone Pipeline. Let's work with 
Canada, our closest friend and ally in the world, to get our energy.
  Look what is going on in Europe. Look what is going on with Russia 
and Ukraine. Look at the situation a country such as Ukraine or the 
European Union is in because of Russian aggression. Where do they get 
their energy? Where does Ukraine get its energy? Where does the 
European Union get their energy? They get a third or more--from? 
Russia. Russia, the same

[[Page S5634]]

country that is invading Ukraine, the same country occupying Crimea and 
the eastern part of Ukraine.
  Then when we try to get the European Union to join with us to push 
back, what do they say? Geez, I don't know. We can't, because Russia is 
going to cut off the gas and it is fall and it is getting colder.
  Does that make sense to anybody? Is that the situation we want to be 
in? I think it is pretty compelling. Do we want to be in a situation 
where we have to try to get oil out of the Middle East with ISIL over 
there operating the way they are? I don't think so.
  These issues are all interrelated, and they are not short-term 
issues. We can't start building that infrastructure today and have it 
done tomorrow. These are billion-dollar investments. They don't cost 
the government a single penny, but they are billion-dollar investments 
that private enterprise is willing to make and put people to work, 
provide that energy more safely, more securely, with better 
environmental stewardship, and address our national security 
challenges. That type of energy plan is a long-term plan for this 
country, and it is one we need to start now.
  For six years we have been waiting for a decision from the President 
on a multibillion dollar pipeline project that will not only bring oil 
from Canada to the United States but will move 100,000 barrels a day of 
oil from my home State to refineries in this country, that by the State 
Department's own admission will create more than 40,000 jobs, that will 
create hundreds of millions in tax revenue, that will help us create 
energy security for our country, that will allow us to work with our 
closest friend and ally, Canada, rather than telling them: No, we are 
not going to work with you. Send that oil to China. It is something the 
American people overwhelmingly want by about 70 percent in most of the 
polls that I guess is being held up by special interest groups.
  This is about how we run this country. This is about who we work for. 
This is about having a long-term plan to build the kind of energy 
future for America that I believe the American people very much want.
  Let's go to work and pass this bipartisan legislation.
                                 ______