North American-Made Energy Security Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Welch-Cohen amendment. Our simple, not a gutting, amendment--that's totally wrong--noncontroversial amendment, states an important fact that was not mentioned in the findings section. I'm disappointed that this stilted legislation fails to mention any of the risks associated with the pipeline, such as the critical fact that Keystone XL would run through the world's largest fresh water aquifer, the Ogallala, which provides 30 percent of the groundwater used for irrigation in the United States and drinking water for millions of Americans. This fact is an essential aspect of the pipeline that must be considered by the State Department and the American public before granting a determination of national interest.

Our amendment also states the results of the only independent assessment of the worst-case spills for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a report that indicates that TransCanada has greatly understated the pipeline's risks.

Perhaps the most important component of the report is the discovery that even a small undetected leak from an underground rupture of the pipeline in the Nebraska Sand Hills could pollute almost 5 billion gallons of groundwater, enough oil to pose serious health threats to anyone using this aquifer for drinking water or agricultural purposes; and a leak of this magnitude is certainly possible given that the Keystone XL's real-time leak detection system does not register spills less than, get this, 700,000 gallons a day. They'll have no knowledge of it.

What is even more disconcerting is that according to Cynthia Quarterman, the administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the U.S. pipeline safety regulations were not written to address the unique risks of piping tar sand, the worst oil one could imagine. Additionally, Administrator Quarterman noted that her agency, the government's pipeline safety experts, has not been included in the review of Keystone XL and has never studied the risks of piping tar sands.

As we consider building a dangerous tar sands pipeline through our Nation's most important aquifer, it is critical the decision be based on an accurate depiction of the pipeline's risks and not just rosy, overly optimistic descriptions of its projected benefits. This is why the Sierra League and the National Resource Defense Council are so interested, as is the American public in these findings.

I urge support for the Welch-Cohen amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As the State Department and the U.S. public consider whether the proposed Keystone XL tar stands pipeline is in the national interest, it is critical that the most accurate information be made available. That's why I have offered an amendment to this legislation that eliminates a rhetorical, baseless safely claim and replaces it with a substantiated factual statement.

TransCanada is engaged in a high-stakes public relations campaign to brand the Keystone XL pipeline as safe and their company as responsible operators. I'm sure that BP Oil said the same thing about Deepwater. But that wasn't true. Just because they say it doesn't make it true. It is one thing for a foreign oil company to employ misleading rhetoric, but it's not the place of the House of Representatives to endorse these mistruths.

It only requires a brief objective glance at the safety record to realize that TransCanada's meritorious safety claims do not withstand even the slightest scrutiny. When selling Keystone--that's not Keystone XL, which we're looking at; Keystone, another pipeline--to the U.S., TransCanada claimed the pipeline was "state-of-the-art,'' and even went as far as dubbing it the "safest pipeline ever built.'' Well, we're in trouble.

After 1 disastrous year of operation, TransCanada's rosy claims are not reflective of the reality that exists.

In less than 12 months of operation, the so-called "safest pipeline ever built'' has spilled 12 times in the United States--the dirty dozen--and 21 times in Canada. Following that 12th domestic spill, the Department of Transportation shut down pipeline operations because Keystone was deemed "a threat to life, property and the environment.''

Since Keystone is TransCanada's first wholly owned pipeline in the United States, TransCanada's safety record is off to a pretty bad start. TransCanada's misleading safety claim extends far beyond their simple rhetoric. Here are three of the most egregious claims for Keystone XL:

Number one: TransCanada claims that, if and when the Keystone XL pipeline has a leak, it will shut down the pipeline almost instantly.

Unfortunately, spills on the Keystone pipeline have demonstrated that TransCanada's theoretical response is far better than their actual response. In May, when Keystone spilled 21,000 gallons, it took TransCanada 44 minutes to shut down the pipeline after the spill. It would have taken even longer had it not been for a landowner who called in the spill, which shot a six-story-high gusher of toxic oil into the air. You'd have thought it was Texas.

Number two: TransCanada suggests there is little risk of a spill on the Keystone XL pipeline.

However, the only independent assessment of the worst case spills for Keystone XL indicates that TransCanada has greatly understated the severity and frequency of significant spills, an estimate that is more than 800 percent lower than what would likely occur.

Over the last few weeks, we have all witnessed the irreparable damage caused by the 40,000-gallon Silvertip pipeline spill in the Yellowstone River. Now try to imagine how devastating a 6.95 million-, almost a 7 million, gallon spill of more toxic oil would be on the Yellowstone River. A spill of this magnitude and devastation is possible if we approve the Keystone XL.

Number three: TransCanada claims that Keystone XL would be built of thicker steel and operate at lower than allowed pressures.

But major segments of Keystone XL would be made of thinner steel than Exxon Mobil's failed Silvertip pipeline. So while Keystone XL would operate at lower than allowed pressures, it would still operate at nearly twice the pressure of the Silvertip. Additionally, Keystone XL would be transporting tar sands, a substance which is far more corrosive and volatile than conventional oil.

Even a cursory review of TransCanada's safety claims reveals a web of exaggerations, understatements and lies that have been carefully woven together to manufacture an image of safety and responsibility.

It is critical that the American people have an accurate depiction of the dangers of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Congress must exercise more scrutiny and not take TransCanada's manufactured rhetoric at face value. We cannot afford to let TransCanada once again dupe us into permitting an even more dangerous pipeline, for as they say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' Somebody from Texas tried to say that once, but we know the statement.

I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding time.

I rise in support of the Murphy-Cohen-Welch amendment. This amendment sheds light on the oil industry's attempt to pressure the U.S. into approving Keystone XL by threatening to export tar sands to China if we do not approve the pipeline.

As Mr. Murphy has well stated, Canada has already said themselves they can't get that oil out of Canada without this pipeline, that they can't get it to China unless they build a pipeline. They want to build a pipeline through America over one of our most important aquifers--threatening our environment and our drinking water so that Canada can get some oil to possibly go to China.

Canada cannot get it to China without going through the United States, and it makes no sense. The fact is this amendment, like the previous amendments, is just simply putting the facts, the truth, into this particular paper.

There is nothing wrong with these. Nobody disputes the facts. In fact, the gentleman agreed on the previous amendment that there had been a dozen leaks of the Keystone pipeline. He mentioned that some of them were very small. The average one is a thousand barrels.

So if the Keystone pipeline, which was the safest in the world, was not safe, what's wrong with mentioning it in the findings?

And the same thing here. What they said about China is just not true. The only feasible route to export tar sand to China is the Keystone XL. And that's what they're looking to do, because it's not going to affect the United States' use of oil, oil as a commodity that the Canadians want to sell, and they're not going to give it to us any cheaper than they're going to give it to anybody else. They want to make money, but they've got opposition in their own country as well.

We need to look out for the American people and not have some situation where maybe because Canada is helping us with oil in the Middle East that we're helping them with oil through our Midwest. America's Midwest is too important to sacrifice to some misguided adventure that Canada got into with us and the Mideast all because of oil.

So I would support the Murphy-Cohen-Welch amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source