Providing for Congressional Disapproval of a Rule Submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here to actually address some of the recent developments on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Before going into that, I would like to take a minute, though, and mention the Congressional Review Act that is before us now and how important it is that we pass it.

I want to commend Senator Ernst for her diligence on this very important matter. The waters of the United States is a regulation issued by the EPA that goes far beyond their statutory authority, far beyond the statutory authority that Congress has given them under a legal theory referred to as ``significant nexus.'' It is something I have worked on for a long time. In fact, I have included a bill that would defund the regulation as part of the EPA appropriations bill in our appropriations, both at the subcommittee and the full committee level.

So I certainly hope and feel that the good Senator from Iowa will be successful in this CRA effort, as far as getting it through Congress. I think it will go through in strong fashion in both the Senate and the House, thanks to her good work and, of course, the underlying importance of the issue.

Of course, our challenge will be with the administration. I hope the administration will look at the strong support here in Congress and listen to the people of this great country, the farmers and ranchers across our country, and the small business people across the country who know so well that WOTUS is a serious problem for them. I hope the President will consider them and not veto the legislation, but I am concerned that he will veto it.

And if he does, then we will continue to work through the appropriations process to defund this legislation.

Again, even if we are not able to deauthorize it through the CRA process, we will work to defund it. Of course, the disadvantage with defunding is that only goes for a year, but obviously that would take us through most of the balance of the Obama administration and hopefully get us to a fresh start.

I think the key point, though, is that we rescind this onerous regulation. That can be through deauthorizing it, it can be through defunding it, and, in fact, it can be through litigation. I think in excess of 30 States have joined in litigation across the country pushing back on this onerous regulation. In fact, the Federal district court in North Dakota stayed the regulation. That stay was upheld, that injunction was upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, OH. So right now there is a national stay on this regulation, which I think just goes to show that we are on the right track here because we are coming at it from so many angles with so many people who are saying: Look, this is common sense. This is a big-time overreach by EPA. It adversely affects farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and property rights. In fact, in this great country, it adversely affects property rights. So through deauthorization, defunding, and the legal process, we will work to rescind it.

Again, I wish to echo the strong comments of my esteemed colleague from the great State of Colorado and also acknowledge and commend the good Senator from the State of Iowa on her efforts to lead the charge.

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

Mr. President, I wish to speak, as I said, for up to 10 minutes as in morning business on the subject of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Yesterday, after 7 years--7 years starting in September of 2008--the TransCanada company asked the U.S. State Department to pause or suspend its application to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. The company asked for that pause because it is working through an application process for route approval by the Public Service Commission in Nebraska. The Governor and the legislature in Nebraska actually approved the route for the pipeline in Nebraska, but after many lawsuits in the State of Nebraska and demonstrations, often led by movie stars and other celebrities, the company has chosen what I would call a belt-and-suspenders approach. Essentially, they have decided that in spite of the fact that they have received approval from the Governor, the legislature, and that that decision has been upheld by the Nebraska Supreme Court, they are going back and they are going through the process with the Nebraska Public Service Commission. So that is why I say it is really a belt-and-suspenders approach. Now they are going back, and in addition to the approvals they have already received, in addition to the decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court, now they are going back through the Public Service Commission process in Nebraska as well. The thing about that is it will take about a year to do it.

So now TransCanada is asking for forbearance from the Obama administration--not because the company hasn't met all the legal and regulatory requirements. It has. It has met all of them and it spent millions of dollars doing so. But, rather, TransCanada is asking for forbearance on the project because the company is once again going through all of the requirements, all the regulations, and all the redtape to get every approval--State, local, and ultimately Federal--for the project. That is why I call it, as I said, the belt-and-suspenders approach.

Now we will see what the Obama administration does with TransCanada's request. Will they now hold off or wait on their denial decision, which the Obama administration obviously wants to make based on their environmental agenda, or will they honor TransCanada's request to pause or suspend the project, just as they have made TransCanada wait now for 7 years pending all of the administration's requirements, including the Obama administration's adamant concern that the process in Nebraska be fully completed before the administration render a decision. Remember, this administration made a big deal about waiting until the Nebraska process was fully completed before the administration would make a decision. So let's see what they do. As I have just outlined, that process would probably take another year.

So will they forbear on making a decision now after they held the process up 7 years? Will they honor the request by TransCanada to pause while the company completes this process in Nebraska or will they say no, in spite of their concern that that be fully completed? Will they go ahead and in essence reverse themselves on process and deny the project? Well, we will see. We will see what they do. But if they don't grant this pause or suspend the application pending completion of the project in Nebraska, it seems to me like a double standard. On the one hand, they hold up the project for 7 years and they say the company must go fully through the process in Nebraska. So for them now to say ``No, we are not going to provide the time to do that'' seems, in fact, very much like a double standard.

As I have talked about in this Chamber before and as I think the administration is very well aware--and I think that is part of the reason they have held up on making a decision rather than turning down the project--this is a project which is overwhelmingly supported by the American people. In poll after poll, there is 65 percent to 70 percent support by the American people. Also, it is supported by Congress. It passed overwhelmingly with more than 60 votes in this Chamber. It passed with a big bipartisan majority in the House.

Another consideration obviously now for the administration is, what about the new administration in Canada? The Trudeau administration is coming in, and the new Prime Minister in Canada supports the project. So what is the message to Canada if the administration says ``No, we are not going to honor that company's request for a stay or a pause or an extension on the project now'' and instead goes ahead and turns it down?

The administration's own Quadrennial Energy Review dedicates a whole chapter to the benefits of integrating North American energy markets. The administration states that ``energy system integration is in the long term interest of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, as it expands the size of energy markets, creates economies of scale to attract private investment, lowers capital costs, and reduces energy costs for consumers.'' That is right out of their own Quadrennial Energy Review, prepared by their own Department of Energy, which says we need to work with Canada on energy.

So what will they do? In spite of all of that, will they turn down the project now or will they treat the company fairly and give them due process?

Well, regardless of the decision the Obama administration makes, I think in the final analysis the project will be approved. It might take a year, it might take a little over a year, but I think in the final analysis this project will be approved. It should be approved because the people of this country overwhelmingly support it and recognize that it is in their interest and to their benefit. But what it really comes down to is the merits. In the final analysis, a project should be approved or disapproved on the merits, right? And the merits are these, very simple: To build the kind of energy plan that we want for this country, where we are energy secure--meaning we produce more energy than we consume--we have to build the energy infrastructure we need to move that energy safely and efficiently from where it is produced to where it is consumed. That means we need pipelines, we need transmission lines, we need rail, and we need road to move that energy as safely and cost-effectively as possible.

If you think about it, that doesn't mean just oil and gas; that means all types of energy. That means renewables too, right, to move those electrons through transmission lines. We need the energy infrastructure for the right kind of energy plan for this country--energy from sources, traditional and renewable, to move that energy as safely and as cost-effectively as possible.

So what is the message here? The message is very simple: If we want companies to step up and invest the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars it takes to build that infrastructure, then we have to have a legal and regulatory process where they know that if they go through it and they meet all the requirements, they can then get approval for the hundreds of millions that they invest to get that done and to build these projects.

That is energy infrastructure we need to build so that we don't continue to rely on OPEC or let Russia dominate the energy markets or rely on countries such as Venezuela, and ultimately, that is what the American people want. That energy security, that energy independence, if you will, working with our closest friend and ally, like Canada, and developing energy in this country, is what the American people want. That is what the American people want because it makes us strong and secure.

This is just one project, but it is about all of the projects we need to build to make this Nation energy secure. That is why ultimately this project will be approved on the merits.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source