Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3, Northern Route Approval Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the Northern Route Approval Act.
In the words of Yogi Berra, it's deja vu all over again here in the House of Representatives.
Last week, the House of Representatives repealed the Affordable Care Act for the 37th time. This week, for the eighth time in 2 1/2 years, we're voting yet again on another Keystone pipeline measure that will never become law.
The very decision to sign this law would lie with the same President upon whose desk this decision is currently awaiting approval; and, therefore, this is yet another waste of taxpayer time, taxpayer money, when we have pressing national issues we should be discussing--how to address our budget deficit, how to get our economy moving, how to renew affordable college and low-interest rates for students.
There are so many issues that my constituents are crying out for. Yet another symbolic issue that has nothing to do with whether the Keystone pipeline is approved or not is the last thing we should be spending our time here on the floor of the people's House debating.
Rather than creating a bill that's more viable, instead this bill, by far, is the worst iteration of the bill that we've seen, worst of the eight.
Even my colleagues who support construction of the 875-mile pipeline are having trouble supporting this bill because of its thinly veiled messaging that guts important laws and waives judicial review.
In short, this Northern Route Approval Act is a regulatory earmark, a specific earmark which this House of Representatives has purported to eliminate. Not only is it an earmark; it's an earmark that has a far greater dollar value than any of the earmarks that have been much maligned by Members of both parties and are no longer part of this deliberative body.
At a time where we should be advancing on renewable energy policy, on an all-of-the-above energy policy, this bill would bypass the very system that this Congress has set up under the law for consideration of a project.
This project has nothing to do with gas prices. In the analysis from the Department of State, there is absolutely no indication this would have anything to do with gas prices. This is for the global market. Let's debate it for what it is. Is it a favor to Canada if we do it? Absolutely. Does it have an environmental and health impact on Americans? Absolutely. Weigh the two. Let's look at a cost benefit.
This has nothing to do with lower gas prices. If we want to talk about lower gas prices, let's do it. Let's increase fuel efficiency standards to lower gas prices. Let's look at what we're doing nationally. Let's look at our processing
capacity. Let's look at alternative and public transportation. There's a lot of things we could be doing that actually would reduce gas prices. There is no analysis in the Department of State's thorough vetting of this that this would have any impact on price at the pump. This is 5 to 10 years from now, exporting a majority for the global market.
Instead of voting on this act, there's a number of other great bipartisan bills we could be talking about which would reduce gas prices. Let me give an example.
The Public Lands Renewable Energy Act that I helped coauthor with Representatives Gosar, Thompson, and Heck of Nevada would expand renewable energy development and create jobs while protecting our Nation's public health and environmental resources. And yes, because we expand our renewable energy development portfolio, it would apply downward pressure on gas prices.
This bill is talking about a review process that's already well underway for the Keystone XL pipeline. Congress, itself, set up the process whereby each administration--and the country has the opportunity every 4 years to elect a President. Congress set up the process where each administration has the criteria for approving projects like Keystone. If we don't like the criteria, let's talk about changing those criteria in statute. That's the proper way to do it, not just shortcut the very process that Congress set up.
Until then, we need to keep this process in place. No matter what the administration does, some Members of Congress aren't going to like the outcome; but we establish the ground rules, and the executive branch is administering the law that we created. Rather than interrupting the State Department's review process with this bill, we should allow the Department to take the necessary time to address the impacts, the concerns, the costs, and the benefits of this controversial pipeline.
Although there's many issues that need to be better understood as part of the Keystone XL process, it's critical that we address pipeline safety issues to make sure that tar sands don't spill into our communities. It's not a Republican or Democratic issue. Everybody wants to make sure that America is safe, even if we do a major favor for Canada. There are indications that this pipeline could be more susceptible to oil spills because of the higher pressure that this type of pipeline uses compared to conventional crude. In fact, in the public comment period, many Americans expressed their concern that a spill could impact their property value, their health, their safety, access to clean drinking water, and quality of life. These are the types of things the administration is rightfully weighing in determining the outcome.
While others argue the pipelines are the safest way to transport tar sands crude oil, the 150,000-gallon oil spill in Mayflower, Arkansas, 2 months ago shows an example about the inadequacy of some of our current pipeline safety regulations. I've heard arguments that the pipeline could create economic benefit. Well, communities like Mayflower certainly won't see the benefits of Keystone when their yards, homes, and businesses are buried in the thick black layer of tar sands crude oil, threatening agriculture and local economic development.
I think that we should make sure that tar sands developers adhere to pipeline safety standards that protect the health of Americans and protect our economy and protect jobs to ensure that any project that goes forward doesn't destroy jobs rather than create them.
To address pipeline safety issues, Mr. Tonko of New York has offered a commonsense amendment. He'll be here to speak about that. It would require the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether current pipeline regulations are sufficient to address the special safety concerns that are particular to transporting tar sands crude oil. Unfortunately, however, this rule, which I strongly oppose, as well as the underlying bill, does not allow for the discussion or even the debate about Mr. Tonko's amendment, which I think is a commonsense requirement.
Since this bill doesn't require the pipeline regulations which were requested by Mr. Tonko, I'm pleased that at least an amendment that I offer with Ms. Chu of California and Mr. Connolly of Virginia was made in order. This amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the true cost of a potential spill from the Keystone XL pipeline in our communities. The GAO study would look at the impact of tar sands spills on public health, the environment, and the quantity and quality of water available for agriculture to farmers and to municipalities for drinking.
It's inevitable that the Keystone pipeline will have spills and leaks. That much we know. These spills and leaks are not only costly to clean up--and we need to know and understand those costs--but they also take a toll on our communities. Accidents happen. Understanding the cost of spills is also important because the Keystone pipeline is slated to cross over the Ogallala Aquifer. The Ogallala Aquifer lies beneath 8 States, including my home State of Colorado, and supplies drinking water to about 2 million Americans and supplies 30 percent of the irrigation water for our Nation's farmers.
TransCanada stated that it will provide alternative water supplies to affected communities if an oil spill impacts surface or groundwater. But TransCanada's promise to provide alternative water supplies in case of an oil spill is not enough insurance for millions of Americans who rely on the Ogallala Aquifer for drinking water and for farming. We simply need more information about the potential impact and the range of impact that an oil spill would have on the Ogallala Aquifer.
Mr. Speaker, even if my colleagues support the President if he chooses to move forward with the Keystone XL pipeline, there are many reasons not to vote for H.R. 3. Rather than ensuring that we have the proper protections in place for our environment and our citizens, the Northern Route Approval Act mandates approval of the pipeline while waiving nearly all other Federal permitting requirements.
It doesn't even allow a discussion of amendments like Mr. Tonko's that were brought forward in good faith that at least deserve 10 minutes on the floor of the House when, by the way, we're debating a bill that's never going to become law, won't be brought up in the Senate, and goes to the very same President for signature who's considering this project. So the least we can do is spend 10 minutes debating Mr. Tonko's meaningful amendment if we're spending time debating everything else that isn't going to become law.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule, support a more open and transparent process here on the floor of the House, and then move forward with legislation that deals with critical national priorities that all of our constituents are calling upon this Congress to act upon.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, of course quantity affects price--Economics 101. The disconnect here and the failure in the argument from the other side is this quantity is a rounding error in the global supply and the global demand. This has no impact on price. We're not talking about anything that actually moves the bar of reducing gas prices for consumers.
With that, it's my honor to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman cited studies that apparently addressed his concerns about environmental impact. I would draw his attention to the fact that there were three draft studies--one that was actually finalized. All of them were on the old routing. The project itself has been revised. There have been zero studies, environmental studies for health and water, with regard to the new routing of the pipeline.
With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. I would like to inform the gentleman that I have possibly one who, if he comes, I would like to yield to. Other than that, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Look, it has been talked about as to the impact on gas prices in the Midwest. There is no TAPS on this pipeline in the Midwest. It goes from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico to China and everywhere else. There can't even be TAPS on it in the Midwest because we're talking about unprocessed tar sands crude, which needs to be processed. It's a drop in the bucket in the global supply and has no impact on gas prices.
There are dozens of meaningful policies that we can talk about to reduce gas prices. Let's get to it rather than taking this important decision out of the context of the administration and out of the context of the process that Congress, itself, set up to co-op that very process for purely political purposes.
The Northern Route Approval Act exempts TransCanada from multiple loss, including treaty acts that we've passed, the Clean Water Act, and many others that my colleague Mr. Nolan pointed out that American companies are subjected to. Yes, it's giving foreign companies preferential treatment over American companies.
Even though we don't know the cost of potential Keystone tar sands spills, we do know that American taxpayers will likely be stuck paying the bill for cleaning up and for the economic costs of these spills. Tar sands developers are exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Let me repeat that. Tar sands developers are exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. That's a fund that normally collects an 8-cent per barrel excise tax on domestically produced crude oil to pay for spill prevention and mitigation efforts.
So they are exempt. They're not paying in. Like any oil that's pulled out of the ground in Texas or across our country, they're paying in because we know that oil spills happen; we know they have real economic and health costs; we know they affect agriculture and water--but oh, no, this project is exempt. Since tar sands are not considered conventional oil, TransCanada is not required to pay into the trust fund for the oil it transports, while the data indicates that the tar sands crude can actually have a worse economic and environmental impact when spilled than conventional oil. We can't subject more communities like Mayflower to oil spills and then burden the U.S. taxpayers at a time of record deficits with paying for the cleanup.
Approving the Keystone XL pipeline through this bill would simply benefit foreign oil companies at the expense of the health and safety of the American people. There is a process in place to protect the health and safety of the American people, the economic welfare of the American people, jobs. This bill circumvents that process that Congress set up. If we want to change the process, let's have a debate about the process for approval and the statutory framework and work with the administration to come up with a better way to do it. Let's not go around our own process just because we may or may not like what we may or may not think is the outcome.
I urge the majority to stop wasting the American people's time with bills that are going nowhere and to turn towards addressing so many challenges we can agree on--reducing the deficit, improving the economy, improving the efficiency of the delivery of health care. Let's talk about reducing gas prices, the bipartisan bill that I've introduced with Mr. Gosar and Mr. Heck and others.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2070, Representative Tim Bishop's bill to protect consumers from price gouging at the pump.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record along with the extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
This rule doesn't even allow for 10 minutes of debate or 5 minutes of debate or 1 minute of debate on the very commonsense amendments that have been brought forward by my colleagues like Mr. Peters of Michigan and Mr. Tonko of New York.
Don't we have 1 minute to debate these important amendments? What are we doing that's so important? We didn't even go into session until noon today. Why didn't we go into session at 11:59 a.m. and have 1 minute for debate on these amendments? What are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? We have the time to get it right. Let's do it.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source