Northern Route Approval Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Northern Route Approval Act, which would deem the Keystone XL pipeline approved.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just measured almost 400 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide, well beyond the 350 parts per million many scientists warn is the level we must not cross to avoid severe climate impacts. Any rational person who doesn't want more Hurricane Sandys or more Oklahoma hurricanes would recognize that we must focus on developing renewable energy sources and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and yet this bill mandates the approval of a pipeline that will allow Canada to deliver 830,000 barrels per day of tar sands oil to gulf coast refineries.

Tar sands oil is difficult to extract, and the process is destructive and toxic. Producing tar sands oil results in at least 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil. For those concerned about climate change, the Keystone pipeline is a nonstarter. We cannot allow such a gigantic and irreversible step backward in the fight against global warming.

H.R. 3 goes well beyond the merits of the pipeline itself. This bill sets a dangerous precedent, undercutting our environmental laws and short-circuiting the review process. It deems the pipeline approved by Congressional mandate. It locks in the administrative record as of a date certain, eliminates the requirement for a Presidential permit normally required for cross-border pipelines, and it mandates the issuance of permits, not just for construction of the pipeline, but for operation and maintenance as well, or, in other words, in perpetuity. It deems all the environmental and safety laws satisfied regardless of the facts.

It also manages to undermine a citizen's fair access to judicial review. The bill appears to grant the right of judicial review by giving the D.C. Circuit jurisdiction to hear any challenge to the adequacy of the environmental impact statement. But the bill also states that the EIS ``shall be considered to satisfy all requirements'' of the National Environmental Policy Act. So, the court is told, you have jurisdiction, but here is what you are going to find; never mind your own judgment.

The bill also states as a matter of law that section 404 of the Clean Water Act, section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Endangered Species Act are all satisfied. So the fix is in before you ever get to court. I'm not sure what would be left for a court to review.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source