Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3, Northern Route Approval Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill.
House Resolution 228 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act. The rule makes 10 of the 25 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order, nine of which were sponsored by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and it provides for a robust debate in the House of Representatives.
The underlying bill was marked up by three committees of jurisdiction, and each committee reported the bill favorably with a bipartisan vote.
Additionally, the U.S. Senate, on March 22, 2013, voted to approve the pipeline by a vote of 62-37.
Mr. Speaker, there are four simple reasons this bill has garnered bipartisan support: it creates American jobs; it increases our energy independence; it strengthens our national security; and it will contribute to lower gas prices.
This bill leads where the President has wavered, and finally approves the northern route of the Keystone XL pipeline, which has been studied for over 1,700 days by 10 Federal agencies and several State environmental agencies.
The U.S. Department of State has issued four environmental impact statements, at a total length of 15,500 pages. These studies prove that the vast majority of the project will not result in a significant environmental impact, and mitigation efforts will be undertaken to reduce any environmental impact.
Additionally, the project includes 57 project-specific special conditions to ensure the maximum level of safety. Due to these conditions, the U.S. State Department's Environmental Impact Statement found that the pipeline will have ``a degree of safety over any other typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system.''
For 4 long years, multiple studies and well over 15,000 pages of environmental analysis, the administration claims that the XL pipeline still cannot be approved. We all hear the echo of the President chiding Congress with his slogan, ``We can't wait.''
I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if not now, when?
This bill answers that question, and the answer is today. It is clear that this pipeline will create jobs, increase national security, and contribute to lower gas prices. For this reason, H.R. 3 breaks the Presidential logjam and approves this worthwhile project.
On December 23, 2011, both the U.S. House and the Senate unanimously approved, and the President signed into law, a bill that required the President to approve the pipeline unless the President determined that the project did not serve national interests.
On January 18, 2012, the President said ``no'' to the pipeline, claiming that it did not serve national interests.
By preventing this project from moving forward, he said ``no'' to 42,100 construction and manufacturing jobs at a time when Americans need work. He said ``no'' to cheaper gas prices for goods and services which could result in reduced energy cost.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, lower energy costs lead to lower manufacturing and shipping costs which, in turn, contribute to less grocery, gas and utility bills for the average American family.
He said ``no'' to increased diversification of America's oil supply. He said ``no'' to reduced dependence on foreign oil. All these benefits this generation could pass on to future generations.
By this inaction, the President said ``yes'' to more oil from barges from the Middle East. When the pipeline is finalized, it will transfer 830,000 barrels of oil each day, which totals nearly half of our current daily imports from the Middle East.
The President said ``yes'' to our ally, Canada, taking its business elsewhere, to China, rather than the United States. The oil from the tar sands of Canada will go on the market somewhere, whether we approve the XL pipeline or not. This is our chance to ensure Americans will have the opportunity to benefit from the energy supply, not China.
The State Department acknowledged that the United States would be more secure if we relied more heavily on a non-OPEC source, such as Canada, for our energy needs.
According to the State Department, and I quote:
Non-OPEC Canadian crude oil supplies advance the energy security of the United States, given Canada's close proximity, our free trade agreements, and our close bilateral relationship with a stable democracy.
Canada is a more reliable and cost-efficient source of energy than the foreign oil that we depend on from the Middle East, Africa, and other regions of the world.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The relevant committees of jurisdiction have provided us with a bipartisan bill that will create American jobs, ensure energy independence, increase our national security, and contribute to the lower gas prices.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I just want to say that I know there is a desire to have more T's crossed and I's dotted. There are over 450,000 T's and I's in those 15,000 pages. We've done enough. It's time to build this pipeline. Keystone XL will help lower gas prices and will help protect against supply disruptions by putting downward pressure on oil prices by increasing supply to domestic markets.
In a memo from the Department of Energy regarding Keystone XL, it asserted that gasoline prices in all markets served by refiners on the east coast and gulf would decrease, including in the Midwest. Yes, it does do that. There are four things we said. One of them is the major one, which is that it creates jobs immediately; 42,100 were estimated by the Department of State in one of their four studies on this particular bill. I mean, we could go study after study after study with 10 different agencies looking over and over and over. There are no more studies to be done. It's time to make the decision. When should it be made? Now.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, the amendments that were talked about are amendments that would add to a process that we have said is very sacred. We don't want to change the process. We don't want to circumvent it.
We're not circumventing any process. Because this crosses a national boundary, there's only one thing left to do: we need the President to okay it. Every study that could be done--this started in 2008 and continued in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, and now here we are in 2013. It's out of opportunities to be studied. It's time.
This rule provides for ample and open debate and makes in order proposals from both sides of the aisle.
As I stated before, this bill represents so much more than the approval of an 875-mile long pipeline. It represents 42,100 jobs, greater energy independence, and will benefit our Nation for generations to come.
The Keystone XL pipeline will allow 830,000 barrels of oil to flow each day to domestic refineries that employ hardworking Americans. This number represents half of our current daily crude oil imports from the Middle East. This will not only diversify our energy sources, but it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil from countries that in many ways do not share or respect our freedom and democracy.
As we speak, the southern gulf coast segment of the Keystone XL pipeline is being constructed. It didn't require Presidential approval for one reason: it didn't cross a national border. It was studied by the requisite State and Federal environmental agencies, it was approved, and now it's approximately 50 percent complete.
Four years and 15,000 pages represent more than enough time and paper to study this pipeline. Any more paper and we'll need an environmental impact statement to study the effects of the environmental impact statement.
Our Nation is crying out for job creation, energy independence, and lower gas prices. Today, we have the opportunity to answer that call and to remove the few remaining barriers that stand between Americans and the relief they desperately need.
I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this rule and passage of the underlying bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source