[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 14, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E72-E73]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, January 9, 2015

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the Keystone XL 
Pipeline Project and the legislation before us, H.R. 3.
  Mr. Speaker, the Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a 
Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil 
sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a 
market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries.
  The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of 
oil per day. One of the most appealing aspects of the project is the 
positive economic impact it is expected to have on the economy.
  Let me just take one state's economy and realize what would happen 
with this particular effort. There would be a $2.3 billion investment 
in the Texas economy, creating more than 50,000 jobs in the Houston 
area, providing $48 million in state and local tax revenues, and 
increasing the gross domestic product of the state by $1.9 billion.
  I favor the job creation potential of the Keystone XL Pipeline 
project, and voted accordingly less than a month and a half ago, on 
November 14, which was H.R. 5682. Yet the legislation contains several 
provisions that are of great concern to me which I feel inclined to 
address.
  First, because the pipeline would cross an international border, 
construction requires a presidential permit and would be subject to 
applicable state laws and permitting requirements.
  To issue a presidential permit, the State Department, after 
consulting with other federal agencies and providing opportunities for 
public comment, must determine that the project would serve the 
national interest.
  Because the Keystone XL project would constitute a major federal 
action with a potentially significant environmental impact, it is also 
subject to environmental impact statement requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
  The bill, however, declares that a presidential permit is not 
required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from 
the Canadian border through Nebraska even

[[Page E73]]

though the project crosses an international border. This is 
unprecedented.
  Second, H.R. 3 deems that environmental impact statements issued to 
date would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the 
NEPA and the Endangered Species Act.
  As a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a 
problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact.
  Third, the bill vests exclusive jurisdiction regarding legal disputes 
over the pipeline or the constitutionality of this bill would be 
granted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and 
requires claims regarding the pipeline to be brought within 60 days of 
the action that gives rise to the claim.
  It is unduly burdensome to require aggrieved parties to bear the 
considerable expense and hardship of traveling from their homes in 
North or South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas to 
Washington, DC to vindicate their legal rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I also believe the bill before could have been improved 
had amendments been made in order.
  For example, two proposed amendments, one from a Democrats and one 
Republican, making oil sands petroleum eligible to pay an excise tax 
into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and another splitting revenue 
generated by the pipeline's construction between DOE's energy 
efficiency and renewable energy research and deficit reduction, were 
not made-in-order.
  Had the bill been subject to amendment and the amendments offered in 
the Rules Committee been made in order and approved, the bill before us 
would be improved markedly.
  And Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of this body, you are well-aware that 
when amendments are made-in-order, the rank-and-file can at least feel 
that they had a say in the process but when a Closed Rule is put 
forth--it does not stoke optimism about the legislative process for the 
114th Congress.

                          ____________________