Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1938) to direct the President to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and for other purposes.

Madam Chair, this bill is simple, but the ramifications may be significant. Let me set the record straight: I want to get off OPEC oil. Receiving as much as 700,000 barrels of oil from our northern neighbor, Canada, makes us more energy secure, more energy independent.

The application for this pipeline, an efficient way to move oil from one part to another part, the most efficient and safest, was filed almost 3 years ago. We are just a month shy of its 3-year anniversary; whereas, it is usually around 18 months to 24 months to have something like this approved.

Now, this bill sets a hard date of November 1, 2011, for the President to make a determination of national interest on this pipeline. Let me repeat: All we're asking is that the President make his decision by November 1. Enough time has passed.

Now, what we would see if this project moves forward: It will be a $13 billion construction project, privately funded; it will create at least 20,000 direct high-paying labor construction jobs; it will generate $6.5 billion in new personal income for U.S. workers and their families; it will spur more than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy; it will stimulate more than $585 million in new State and local taxes; it will deliver $5.2 billion in property taxes during the estimated operating life span of this pipeline.

Now, we have heard from two speakers already about the environmental impacts. I come from Nebraska. I want to make sure that this pipeline is safe as it passes through an environmentally sensitive area called the Sand Hills and over the Ogallala Aquifer. There have been draft environmental impact statements. There have been supplements, and it has been shown that it can be done safely. This is the single-most studied pipeline in the history of the United States.

I believe it's in our national security interest. It's about the jobs, economy, and energy security.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I urge rejection of this gutting amendment. What this would do is basically say you can't build any pipelines in this general area.

I would like the gentleman from Vermont to know that there are many pipelines already running through this area, oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines; and also the other part that I would like to make regarding this amendment, this almost 2 feet high stack of materials is the draft environmental study, the supplemental environmental study, PHMSA's report. I can assure the gentleman that there is no other pipeline that has been studied to the point that this one has. It is as close to the best built pipeline as demanded by the agencies that have oversight. It has gone through a very thorough, thorough examination.

The owners of this pipeline, TransCanada, have already agreed to not only increasing the thickness of the pipeline, itself, but additional pump stations to be able to detect when there's a leak. The pipeline reform bill will be reported out of committees later; and they would have to adhere to all of those rules, including something that we're discussing that all leaks have to be able to be onsite repaired within 1 hour.

There's no way to design a perfect pipeline, but there are ways to make sure that if there is an issue, there's a rapid response, and that has been built in. Those are additional agreements. I'm vastly positive that, A, any leaks that would occur are going to be minimal and not hazardous to the Ogallala aquifer or to the Sand Hills.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, in closing, I want to allay the fears here. To sit there and say that this hasn't been studied, we have the environmental impact study; we have the supplemental. This has been studied. All the agencies are involved, including PHMSA. I'm sure they will make their recommendations based on sound science.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to join my friend in standing up for the truth and accuracy; so what I will do is read the Supplemental Environmental Impact Study.

Page 7: ``The WORLD and DOE Energy Technologies Perspective model analyses results show no significant change in total U.S. refining activity, total crude and product import volumes and costs, in global refinery CO2 and total life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions whether Keystone XL is built or not.''

It's the exact verbiage from the actual Department of Energy using the EPA's modeling conclusions. So we're just using the Department of Energy study's own language that it's not increasing. So what this amendment does is takes out the exact language from an independent study by the Department of Energy and supplants it with an inaccurate statement.

Now, I think where my friend is going, and the EPA has recently written a letter saying, the standard they would like to see is not heavy crude versus heavy crude. Because what this study is saying is this oil is still going to be refined, whether it's in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, or Chicago. If it's not being refined there, it will be refined in China; therefore, it has the same impact globally, the same life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions.

Well, the EPA wrote a letter and said, Well, we're changing that standard. We would like you to just compare it to Texas sweet crude. And they just pulled that out of a hat here just a few months ago. So that's what he's saying, but it's not part of what the study says. So there is no reason to remove this.

This is accurate. It's exactly from the Department of Energy's study based on EPA's own modeling.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, once again, in the entire record that's been submitted from the Department of Energy to EPA, the studies that have been done conclude that, in global refineries, CO2 and total life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, whether the Keystone XL is built or not, there is no additional CO2, no significant CO2. That is the exact language in here. To strike that would strike the truth that is set forth in the studies and supplant it with something that doesn't exist in all of the models and studies that have been provided.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the crux of this amendment is that the gentlelady from California is asking for another study. That seems to be kind of the new tactic of how to delay or kill a bill; let's do a study instead of implementing something.

I want to talk about the safety of the pipeline with the chemical bitumen, which helps the crude actually flow through the pipeline better. This chemical isn't new to the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Agency. In fact, heavy crude has been sent through pipelines with this chemical since the 1920s, including out of California. So they have the expertise to deal with this already. They are working on their assessment of the Keystone pipeline to assist the State Department and Department of Energy in their recommendation, so there is really no need for this type of a study.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I too have great confidence in PHMSA to be able to determine whether or not the chemical creates any issues. Bitumen has been around for 91 years with heavy crude, and so I just don't think there is a need for additional delays or studies.

Ms. Quarterman has already said she is undertaking the study, and that will be included in her recommendation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

THE CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.

Two points here: I think, number one, the gentlelady's amendment really helps define what the real issue here is. It isn't with, necessarily, the pipeline or its placement of the pipeline or a chemical that's in it. It's actually about whether we're going to continue to use oil. As we use more oil, it gets heavier.

As I mentioned earlier with the amendment by the gentleman from Illinois, the EPA is doing this switch where you don't compare a heavy crude or sour to the same, like what's been brought in by Venezuela. Now you have to compare it to a different type of sweeter crude or easier to refine crude.

The reality here--and that's the point that's made in the study itself, and the part that the gentlelady reads from, it is actually noting that we're using a heavier crude. So I just want to point out that that's kind of an unfair comparison. We have got to do heavy to heavy to determine if there's going to be an increase in greenhouse gasses.

There's no rushing or expediting. This has been sitting around for 3 years. So it's really time to get up and do something.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I still am in opposition because it doesn't really accurately reflect the statements within the EIS, the Environmental Impact Studies.

I yield back the balance of my time.

There is no doubt that the facts are that, on the Keystone but not the Keystone XL, there have been 12 leaks, 12 leaks of as little as 5 gallons to 400 barrels from a recent one. Those were determined to be caused, not by the safety of the pipeline but by valves that were mal-manufactured, where there was a manufacturing problem, but within a 12-hour period, they were up and running again. Those have all been replaced. That's the type of response that we expect under our pipeline laws.

I think the issues here are better placed in our discussions of pipeline safety, on which both the Transportation Committee and Energy and Commerce Committee will begin working soon, so I just don't see the need for this type of an amendment, or fact-finding, to be put into this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, the purpose of this pipeline is so that American citizens will have a reliable source of fuel made in America. That's the whole point of this. And there are companies that are expanding their refineries right now to be able to accept this crude.

Now, it's been stated that if we don't use it, then this is not going to be used because it's landlocked, but nothing could be further from the truth. It's only 800 miles from the point that the oil sands will be used to the Vancouver coast where it could be put on and would be put on tankers to be shipped to China.

Now, Enbridge is already in the promoting process for a pipeline that will link the Athabasca fields in northern Alberta to a terminal in Kitimat, British Colombia. It's 525,000 barrels per day. So the statement that it will be landlocked and never used is just simply flat wrong. That is not what the Canadians will do.

To say that it's going to be sent to our refineries in Oklahoma, Chicago, Texas, and Louisiana so it could be then refined and put on a tanker then to go south through the Panama Canal and through just makes no sense because we have the most stringent regulations in refining and on cleaning, or a clean process that adds a great deal more to the cost of refining, so it just makes no economic sense to do that. It would be much cheaper just to put a pipeline to the west coast of Canada, put it on tankers. It would be much cheaper to do that.

At this point I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this onerous and job- killing amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to state that this is an infrastructure bill. This is a $13 billion project, $13 billion spent in the United States, employing United States workers.

On the surface, my friend from Illinois' amendment seems fairly innocuous, just delaying this decision by 61 days. The point that I would like to make is that we've just had it with the delays. This isn't rushing or expediting. This is only weeks away from the 3-year anniversary of the filing of the application when, in comparison to other transcontinental pipelines, the average is 18 to 24 months. So it's time that we act.

The date of November 1 was actually calculated by the time it would take the State Department, after they requested another round of town hall meetings, to have sufficient time to accomplish those. So there's just no reason to bump it back from this date, from November 1, 61 days to January 1.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I appreciate the thoughts of the gentlelady from Hawaii. Coming from Nebraska, where it's the Sand Hills and the sensitive area and the Ogallala aquifer, I want to make sure that the people in my State have the peace of mind and the confidence that the worst-case scenarios have already been modeled out and written into their plans. In fact, that's the whole premise of PHMSA. And so the analysis of a worst-case scenario spill is already part of the application. It's part of the environmental impact statement and the supplemental environmental impact statement.

Furthermore, it's demonstrated its response plan in the event of the worst-case discharge, that the pumps will be stopped in 9 minutes and the valves will shut in 3 minutes. So the worst-case scenarios are actually part of the record so that the entities that have to make the recommendation to the President already have that determination. Then they'll use those facts and figures and models to determine what to recommend to the President. Then the President can make that recommendation.

So I believe that this amendment is really superfluous and unnecessary.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to give a degree of confidence that this scenario's already been set forth. This is the environmental study, pages 3-99: maximum spill volumes. It's already been modeled out. It's already been determined.

And just to provide further confidence, even the EPA, that wrote a letter a few months ago, did not say anything about the maximum spills and whether the responses were appropriate or not. Most of theirs was on greenhouse gases. So this issue is pretty well settled. The facts are there for those who will make the recommendations. I request defeat of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you.

Let me assure the gentleman from Georgia that part of the environmental impact study based on the EPA modeling inherently includes the impact of health around the communities. So I am confident that the Department of Energy and the Department of State will have the necessary health impact data to make the proper recommendation to the President, and the President will then be able to rely on those or review the data himself before issuing it. But to require an additional study on top of the ones that have already been done appears to me to just simply be an act of trying to slow the process down.

Let me remind the Chairman that we are on the third-year anniversary of this particular application, whereas ordinarily these types of transborder pipeline applications are resolved within 18 to 24 months. The owner, TransCanada--TransCanada is a Canadian company--they've agreed to all of the recommendations that have come forth from all of the draft environmental impact studies and supplemental, so I really do not want additional studies layered on additional studies layered on additional studies to slow this down.

This is a $13 billion construction project, not funded by the government, that will employ at least 20,000 union contractors and 100,000 to 200,000 employees to help build the refineries and to work the refineries in the United States. This is the jobs bill. This is getting people back to work. This is an infrastructure bill. Let's get this decision done. The data's available. It can be done by November 1. I urge the defeat of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I hold up the United States Department of State report here. A cooperating agency in the development of the report is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. The actual study was done by the Department of Energy using the EPA standards and modeling, so I think that may be where the confusion is entering here. I didn't state that the EPA did the study. I've always said that the Department of Energy, using EPA's modeling and standards, did it, but the EPA was a partner in this and had made their recommendations on it. Again, what we're requesting is a redundant study being done, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to inform the Chair and the gentlelady from Texas that we think that her amendment reflects the thoughts of the American people, and we agree with it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I strongly oppose this amendment. This is a poison pill, especially the way that this amendment is worded.

Now, the reality here is when this infrastructure of the pipeline is completed to U.S. refineries that are expanding to be able to accept this additional crude from Canada, we will have a reliable supply of at least 700,000 barrels per day--not relying on the Middle East as the gentlelady from Texas just spoke about, wherein the Arab Spring provided great uncertainty of which speculators took advantage.

But the reality here for the U.S. markets is that we won't have to deal with that uncertainty if we continue to take steps like the Keystone XL pipeline. Once again, a reliable resource of 700,000 to 1.3 million barrels per day will only deflate prices at the pump.

That's what the American citizens want. They want stability and reduced prices at the pump. It is a bogus argument to say that this pipeline is going to lead to an increase at the pump. It just doesn't make sense.

Now, what I believe is a strained conclusion of a comment made by a TransCanada employee that they can actually charge more, well, the reality is heavy crude is heavily discounted when compared to a sweet or lighter crude that is easier and less costly to refine. So there is a discount in there. But if you have a pipeline that easily transports and eliminates a lot of the costs of transporting and you have reliability, that does slightly increase the value to those buyers of that crude in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and other parts of the Midwest.

So the reality is this heavy crude still will not rise to the price of a sweet crude. The reality is the reliability of this oil coming to U.S. refineries will lower the price at the pumps, and that's what we should be doing, besides all of the jobs that will be created from this pipeline: 20,000 direct jobs created from this pipeline, energy security, an additional 100,000 to 200,000 jobs created on top of the construction.

So we need to move. We need the decision made. The data is here. They have enough time for additional comments to be able to make the decision by November 1.

I urge defeat of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

American workers and American consumers will be better off. They will reap the advantages of a reliable source of energy, eliminating, or at least greatly reducing, the uncertainties that cause the gas price spikes at the pump. Let's defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad I'm able to rise and speak about legislation that involves one of our closest allies, Canada, and because this is a relationship with Canada, and because it is an international issue, I'm assured that in the process, we will have significant oversight that includes the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Attorney General who will have to comment on this application before the conclusion and the final decision. That is good news.

I also think it's important, as we discuss what the potential of this relationship is and the opportunity for oil coming from a friendly neighbor, to be reminded that many of us have said over and over again that we must cease to rely upon foreign oil.

In fact, in a Senate hearing when Egypt was beginning to, in essence, explode, Members said, watch Egypt, and we must lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Obviously Egypt is not one of our major sources of energy, but they were beginning to see the ripple effect in the Mideast of what has been called the Arab Spring. For many of us, we realize that it is a long, long winter as our friends in the Mideast seek peace. So this is an important statement about our commitment to creating jobs, but also it is an important statement on relieving or ceasing the dependence of the United States on foreign oil.

Let me just take one State's economy and realize what would happen with this particular effort. There would be a $2.3 billion investment in the Texas economy, creating more than 50,000 jobs in the Houston area, providing $48 million in State and local taxes, increase the gross State product by $1.9 billion.

But I don't choose to be selfish in my amendment, and my amendment is a sense of Congress that says that it is the sense of Congress that the United States must decrease its dependence on oil from countries that are hostile to the interests of the United States and that Canada has been a strong trading partner, and increasing access to their energy resources will help create jobs in the United States. If I were to add to that, I would say continue the strong relationship between the United States and Canada.

In addition, I think it is important to note that the President of the United States has indicated that we should decrease our reliance on foreign oil.

In this instance, I believe that we are making an effort toward that. Do I believe that we should, in essence, cross our environmental Ts? Absolutely. So I would ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time I have remaining.

I thank the gentleman very much for his agreement.

Let me give a famous quote: ``Can we all get along?'' I mentioned the different agencies that will have oversight. I have listened to a number of concerns about safety, security, and health. I frankly believe we can do it all. We can increase jobs here up to 300,000 and we can pay attention to the issues of environmental safety and security.

I think it will be important for TransCanada to be able to address the question of spills, important for there to be discussions about protecting against toxic chemicals, important to disarm farmers--when I say disarm them, about fears about the pipeline in their area.

I've worked on pipelines. I know there is a lot of work that goes into construction, a lot of overall State laws that regulate the building. And so putting forward more safety procedures and standards, being concerned about the public health, and making sure that we address the concerns of all Americans is an important step.

But I think we have a bottom line here: the importance of lessening our dependence on foreign oil, and as well to be able to ensure that jobs are created here in America. That's what we are sent to Congress to do: to create these jobs, to stand alongside our neighbors and make sure they have a safe environment while they work, and produce an economy that is known only to America, the greatest economy in the world.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I thank the Chair for this opportunity to explain my amendment #6 to H.R. 1938 ``North American Made Energy Security Act,'' expressing the sense of Congress that it is imperative that we decrease our dependency on oil from nations hostile to our national interest. Canada has long been a strong trading partner, and increased access to their energy resources will create jobs in the United States.

I represent the 18th Congressional District in Houston, TX, our Nation's energy capital. I understand the vital role that the oil and gas industry plays in our economy and will continue to play in the future. Our nation needs a concrete and viable strategy for gaining independence from foreign oil and gas sources. These strategies need balance on the one hand this pipeline will create jobs and on the other we must weigh the costs associated. Upon careful and deliberate considerations of our energy needs, our need for jobs, and our need to protect our national security will result in finding a comprehensive energy strategy that works.

Houston is the fourth most populous city in the United States, and is home to nearly 3,500 energy companies and related firms. There is no denying the importance the energy industry has in creating jobs in Houston and across our Nation. I understand the need to put the hard- working people of the Gulf region back to work, and I believe it can be done in compromise with The Department of Interior. We have all heard the famous phrase ``can't we all just get along.'' I believe that we can get along.

I have consistently brought attention to our dependence on oil coming from nations in the Middle East who are in turmoil and have shifting views of the United States. I offer this amendment to call attention to the national security implications of our continued dependency on foreign oil imports. I also, offer this amendment to draw attention to the need to create jobs here in the United States.

The United States imports 49% of all the oil we use. In 2010, 16% of oil imports came from OPEC countries in Africa and South America, with another 9% coming from OPEC nations in the Persian Gulf. Relying on oil imports from hostile regions greatly weakens our energy security.

A variety of events have caused increases in the price of oil over the last decade. In 2003, strikes shut down oil production in Venezuela, increasing oil prices of other OPEC nations. A 2004 terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia caused a sudden increase in oil prices, as did militant attacks in Nigeria in 2003, 2007 and 2008.

With the current political unrest brought by the Arab Spring, our oil supply is constantly threatened by hostile nations, and circumstances beyond our control. Oil is an integral part of the U.S. economy. 40% of the nation's total energy requirements are met by oil, including 94% of the energy used in transportation, and 41% of the energy used by the industrial sector.

Increases in the price of oil affect average American consumers as well as industry. Last week, the average price of gas in Houston ranged from $3.57 to $3.85, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's weekly retail gasoline index.

Increasing the amount of oil imported from Canada is beneficial to both our energy security and economy. Canada provides a far more stable source of oil than many of the OPEC countries, and importing Canadian oil often yields investment in U.S. infrastructure.

Additionally, Canada has been a longtime ally of the United States, and an important trading partner. In fact, the U.S. and Canada represent the world's largest two-way trading

relationship, and for every U.S. dollar spent on Canadian products, including oil, 90 cents is returned to the U.S. economy.

In addition to providing a stable and reliable energy source, the Keystone pipeline XL, which we are considering in H.R. 1938, will generate $20 billion of private sector investment in the U.S. economy, as well as $585 million in new taxes for states and communities along the pipeline route.

The American oil and gas industry are inextricably linked to our economy, and we must take steps to ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the energy sector. According to an independent review of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and its potential economic impact, during the construction period the pipeline will stimulate $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy, spur the creation of 118,000 jobs and generate more than $585 million in state and local taxes for the states along the pipeline route. When Keystone XL is operational, the states along the pipeline route are expected to receive an additional $5.2 billion in property taxes during the operating life of the pipeline, according to the analysis.

However, there are some aspects of the legislation that require further review. I am particularly concerned about the implications of Congress legislating to force a decision of executive authority, as well as the environmental risks that may be associated with the pipeline.

As a Representative of Houston, the nation's energy capital, I certainly understand the importance of the energy industry with regard to our economy. The energy sector creates jobs, and increased energy production is good for the economy, but I do have reservations about the precedent set by this legislation. Ordinarily, we do not require a permit for constructing oil pipelines. However, any pipeline that connects the United States and another country is subject to executive permission, conveyed through a Presidential permit. Historically, any pipeline crossing international borders has required executive permission by way of a Presidential permit. Executive Order 13337 designates the Secretary of State as able to receive applications for Presidential permits. TransCanada submitted its permit applications to the Department of State in September of 2008. Environmental impact review has been underway since January of 2009, and has included public comment periods with extensions for additional input from impacted communities. The State Department is afforded primary jurisdiction over the proposal for the pipeline and expects to make a decision by the end of the year. Forcing the State Department and President Obama to render a decision before completing a thorough review is in no one's interest. Currently several agencies have worked together to determine the feasibility of this pipeline.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be released by the EPA in August, at which time, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, and Homeland Security, along with the Attorney General, and EPA Administrator will be asked for their views.

It is imperative that we achieve energy independence; we cannot continue to rely on foreign sources of oil from regions of the world which are unstable, and in some cases, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no issue more integral to our economic and national security than energy independence.

We must encourage the development of innovative new technologies that create jobs; we must focus on reducing carbon emissions, protecting consumers, and increasing production of clean and renewable energy sources to truly modernize our infrastructure.

Yet, oil and gas companies provide jobs and serve a valuable need, and must be instrumental in devising a pragmatic strategy for achieving energy independence. We need new solutions, but they must strike a balance that will support continued growth in the oil and gas industry.

However, we must also carefully examine any project that impacts the environment to prevent lasting harmful effects to the nation and the planet. Before a decision is rendered on the current Keystone pipeline XL project, it is essential the proposal be thoroughly reviewed, and all environmental impact be evaluated.

We can work together to find a solution to our energy concerns upon which we can all agree. We can take the time to educate farmers who have valid concerns. We can brief environmental groups and seek their input from the planning stages to the implementation of the Process. We must not forget that the Canadian people also have an interest in protecting their environment. Certain parts of Canada are known for their pristine landscapes and nature conservatories. We must be prepared to advance and listen to the environmental concerns raised in the United States and Canada. We must protect both our citizens and the citizens of Canada.

The pipeline considered in this legislation transports tar sands oil, a high polluting fuel that produces high rates of carbon emissions. We must consider the potential for leaks and explosions that will release harmful toxins into the environment.

I am confident that both parties can find ways to work with the energy industry, the Administration, and other stakeholders to forge a compromise that will protect the environment without an adverse impact on the industry or consumers.

Rome was not built in a day; however, it was built on the backs of hard workers. At a time when our citizens seeking employment, many are struggling to live from one check to the next, it is imperative to review opportunities presented to us that will create a significant amount of jobs. We must utilize the technology and the resources we have at hand to advance our understanding of how to effectively process and use energy. We must acknowledge that we need energy. Our need for energy requires a comprehensive energy plan that will create jobs and decrease our dependence on countries that are hostile to our interests and indeed to our national security.

The oil resources currently available in Alberta, Canada are second to those available in Saudi Arabia. No one can argue that against the preference of getting oil from a stable country rather than from countries that are constantly in turmoil.

Canada has been our longest and strongest trading partner. Our countries share a common boarder and a common language. The sky will not fall if we build a pipeline. There is no doubt that we have all learned from the damage that can result by accidents caused by poor oversight.

I have thought about both the pros and the cons. I have carefully studied this issue. I believe that we must use the technology of today to advance the technology of the future. A lot has been made today of the recent pipeline explosion--has anyone asked why it occurred? How to prevent it from happening again?

Today, we are faced with looking at ways to decrease our dependence on oil from nations that are hostile to our interests. I support firmly advancing, if not this pipeline, then access to the oil resources in Canada. We must look at the thousands of jobs that can be created. There is .3 billion in revenue that can be generated. In the greater Houston area which has suffered so much job loss this will add thousands of jobs.

The arguments made have been balanced ones; however, when placed in context, when balanced against the need for working parents to have jobs that will feed their children during a time of economic crisis, then we must consider all options. I have long been and will continue to be a champion of the environment. Groups who have championed the environment are the very watchdogs we need to ensure its safety. At this time, our relationship with Canada merits careful and deliberative consideration.

We must consider all of the aspects of this legislation, and I offer this amendment to express the Sense of Congress that, despite how we will individually vote on H.R. 1938, we are committed to reducing our dependency on foreign oil from hostile regions, or those that oppose the interests of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and make very clear to the American people that we are dedicated to finding stable energy sources, reducing fuel costs, and creating jobs.

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.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

I thank my friend for yielding and compliment him on his sunshine tie, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 1938 and feel that, much like the majority's previous legislation attempts to increase offshore drilling, this backwards-looking dirty energy bill will not lower the price of gasoline for the average American today, tomorrow, or in the future.

It manages, this bill does, to completely ignore the pressing needs to develop clean, sustainable energy. In fact, only the large oil companies will

benefit from this bill. In its very application for the Keystone XL pipeline expansion, TransCanada indicated that it believes this expansion will actually raise oil and gasoline prices.

The pipeline expansion connects Canadian oil to the Gulf of Mexico, making it possible to ship tar sands oil out onto the world market for the first time.

The pipeline will allow TransCanada to bypass the Midwest, reducing what the company called, and I quote, price discounting in the Midwest due to what it considers an, I quote, oversupply. The oil will run past Montana, right through Texas, ignore Nebraska completely, and wave good-bye to the United States while it rides right out of the country.

Providing Canadian oil companies access to this new market is the only reason to want to expand the pipeline. TransCanada's application actually indicates that it expects the price of crude oil to increase by $6.55 per barrel in the Midwest and $3 everywhere else after the expansion is completed.

Ultimately, the expansion would lead to a windfall for Canadian oil companies of between $2 billion and $3.9 billion by the year 2013, while increasing the cost of gasoline for hardworking Americans between 10 and 20 cents per gallon. The people of the United States will bear all the risks of an onshore oil spill and reap absolutely none of the benefits.

Let there be no mistake about this: the risk of an oil spill from these tar sand pipelines is very real. The oil is so much more corrosive than traditional crude oil that even Canada has yet to approve a dedicated pipeline conveying it to its coasts. The oil eats away at the pipelines, compromising them and leading to frequent spills. For example, the very pipeline for which the majority bill hastens expansion suffered 12 spills in its very first year. The first spill in June 2010 occurred only 1 month after the pipeline went into operation. Just this last May, the Keystone spewed 21,000 gallons of oil in North Dakota.

Already, Mr. Speaker, Americans are paying the price for a project which delivers to them absolutely no benefit. A similar pipeline recently discharged 840,000 gallons of oil into Michigan's Kalamazoo River, causing one of the largest oil spills ever in the Midwest. On July 1, a pipeline broke and spewed approximately 42,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River. Between 1990 and 2005, there were over 4,700 related oil spills. The Keystone pipeline expansion would expand the risk of a BP-sized oil spill from the Gulf of Mexico to front yards across the heart of this country.

After its initial impact statement received harsh and extensive criticism, the State Department issued a supplemental draft statement. The period for public comment on that draft closed on June 6. The State Department is currently reviewing the comments it received in response to this second statement in a process expected to take several months. Nonetheless, the State Department has reasonably indicated that a decision can be expected by the end of the year. Yet this bill would require a decision within 30 days of the issuance of the final environmental impact statement and no later than November 1.

Without further justification, Republicans seem to think it necessary to short-cut the process, compromising the discussion and its analysis. There are still many questions that need to be answered regarding the pipeline, including information on greenhouse gas emissions, safety, alternative routes, and environmental justice considerations.

This year, the Republican majority has offered three offshore drilling bills that have utterly failed to preserve and protect our environment. It is clear that my friends in the majority are more concerned with keeping big oil companies happy than implementing a workable energy policy for the future. Instead of crafting policies to ensure that the growing sustainable energy industry is filled with American workers, the majority wants to enrich Canadian oil companies at a cost of America's economy and environment.

These kinds of dirty energy bills keep us mired in the muck of fossil fuels when what we need to do is focus on making our energy use more efficient. We need to develop the next generation of clean energy technology. Unfortunately, Republicans seem intent on enabling our country's oil addiction. This is not good policy today and will certainly not be good policy in the future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if I could engage the gentleman from Texas just a moment, I will yield myself 30 seconds before yielding to my colleague from Virginia.

I just am curious to know if this will cause the price of gasoline to go down, in your judgment.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Likely possibility. I'll take that pretty much as a ``no.''

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, Judge Poe, that we have to start--and we are starting--the green energy movement. I readily understand the economic impact on Port Arthur, the State of Texas, and I also am deeply concerned for the ranchers in the Midwest, specifically Montana, Nebraska, those States, North Dakota, that are bypassed. And the possibility of their oil and gas costing more is, at the least, disturbing.

But I do want to share a report that was formulated regarding tar sands and their potential by the IHS Cambridge Energy Research Association, and it's under the aegis: ``Growth in the Canadian Oil Sands.'' What it says is:

``Tar sands, which are also known as `oil sands,' are a combination of clay, sand, water, and bitumen, a heavy, black, asphalt-like hydrocarbon that cannot be extracted through a well like conventional oil. It is estimated that Canada's economically recoverable tar sands deposits in Alberta total 173 billion barrels, making Canada''--as Judge Poe pointed out--``second after Saudi Arabia in oil reserves.

``Producing fuel from tar sands has significant environmental impacts. Extracting tar sands bitumen and upgrading it to synthetic crude oil produces roughly three times greater greenhouse gas emissions than producing conventional oil on a per-unit basis. Tar sands development also destroys boreal forests and wetlands and wildlife habitat, kills migratory birds, and degrades water quality and air quality.''

That said, tar sands oil contains, on average, 11 times more sulfur, 11 times more nickel, six times more nitrogen, and five times more lead than conventional oil. These pollutants are harmful to human health, causing lung and respiratory problems such as asthma and bronchitis, and the metals found in tar sands are neurotoxic. The pollutants released by refining tar sands causes acid rain, smog, and haze, and communities living near these refineries report elevated levels of cancer.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us overrides current law for the sake of padding the pockets of oil company CEOs and fails to create significant sustainable jobs for the average American in the growing sustainable energy sector. This bill will never become law and is once again a waste of our time.

I oppose this unnecessary opportunistic legislation for many of the same reasons that I have made very clear, as have others, but I have made the vow to be the last man standing in the fight against expanding offshore drilling, and I may be among those that will continue to stand against transborder tar sands being transmitted here for purposes of going out onto the world market and not allowing for any reduction in the cost of gasoline in the United States of America.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, during both the subcommittee and full committee markups, I offered my amendment to delete a finding that I thought was particularly misleading.

Finding No. 15 states: ``Analysis using the Environmental Protection Agency models shows that the Keystone XL pipeline will result in no significant change in total United States or global greenhouse gas emissions.''

My amendment was defeated on a party-line vote after my colleagues on the other side insisted that the statement was indeed true. Well, Madam Chair, I took it upon myself to write a letter to the EPA asking the agency to weigh in on the accuracy of this finding, and this was the agency's reply:

``EPA has conducted no modeling, nor provided any models, to analyze the likely effect of the Keystone XL pipeline on U.S. or global greenhouse gas emissions. The language in the above finding is therefore incorrect.''

The official EPA statement went on to say:

``As detailed in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL project issued by the Department of State, the Department of Energy directed a contractor to conduct modeling on potential impacts of the project. EPA provided some data to be used in that effort, but EPA models were not used and EPA did not model any projected emissions effects of the project.''

Madam Chairman, there are some who believe that the majority does not care about facts or truth or science or climate change if these facts and otherwise get in the way of industry moving forward unfettered. Well, by voting for my amendment, we have an opportunity to set the record straight and prove to the American people that when a statement is demonstrably shown to be false, then Members of Congress from both sides, Democrat or Republican, will put their partisan differences aside and stand on the side of truth. Know ye the truth and the truth shall set you free.

So I urge all my colleagues to support my corrective amendment in order to correct this misleading statement contained in the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Madam Chair, this is simply an argument over whether or not this House will allow demonstrably false information in this bill to move forward even though we have documentation from the very agency in question stating that the information is false. This is the letter. This is the letter. It's a letter dated June 22, and it says:

``EPA has conducted no modeling, nor provided any models, to analyze the likely effect of the Keystone XL pipeline on U.S. or global greenhouse gas emissions. The language in the above finding is therefore incorrect.''

How clear can it be that the EPA states beyond a shadow of a doubt that this particular passage in this bill is false, is misleading? And if, in fact, we vote to enact this wrong piece of legislation, not only is it wrongheaded, it's wrong in its effort. If we vote to pass this legislation, then we are perpetuating a falsehood.

Madam Chair, this Congress stands for a greater and higher standard than to vote for something that we know is false. We know it's not accurate. The other side knows it's not accurate. But if industry wants it, if it's accurate or not, industry, according to them, must have it. And I say industry must not have it. We should have to stand for the truth in this Congress, and the truth is that the EPA did not conduct any model.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of Mr. Murphy's amendment, and this amendment replaces misleading findings about the Keystone XL pipeline's critical faster implementation.

The only problem that I see was the majority's argument in that Canada has really--and I agree with Mr. Cohen--that Canada has no way to send oil to China now and no realistic prospect of ever sending oil to China. They won't do anything any time soon.

So I think that this is a commonsense amendment, and I certainly stand in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, today's debate on fast-tracking the Keystone XL pipeline by 2 months reminds me of a saying that adequately sums up the fight before this Congress: Good sense minus common sense equals nonsense.

With the current crisis our Nation faces on lifting the debt ceiling and other priorities for the American people, including the economy and jobs, it is incomprehensible that we are here debating a bill that is totally and absolutely unnecessary, completely futile, and is not even worth not one millisecond of Congress' time.

Mr. Chairman, as written, this bill will force the administration to issue the Presidential permit for the pipeline within 30 days of the environmental impact statement and no later than November 1, 2011, regardless of whether or not the review process has been completed.

This arbitrary, willy-nilly time line would reduce the allocated time that the Federal agencies will have to determine the national interest in deciding this proposal by almost two-thirds of the time that they need, while also reducing or eliminating the 30-day public comment period.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering would allow for 120 days after the final environmental impact or no later than January 1, 2012, for the President to issue a final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.

I believe that public input is a vital and necessary part of the permitting process, and I also believe that it is important for the various departments to weigh in with their national interest determinations, which this bill would severely curtail, if not completely eliminate. In fact, in conversations that my office has held with the State Department and the EPA, we were informed that it would be close to impossible for the responsible agencies to complete their due diligence and reply by the arbitrary timeline of November 1, as this bill would mandate. Additionally, just yesterday, the State Department publicly stated that this bill was ``unnecessary'' since the agency already plans to reach a final decision on the Keystone XL by the end of the year, after first holding a series of public hearings in the very six States that would be affected by the enactment of this bill. Mr. Chairman, whether you support the Keystone XL pipeline or not, it is extremely important that all of the relevant information and consequent impacts be considered so that an informed decision can be made.

So I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment, which would allow for the appropriate time period for the public and the different agencies to weigh in, while also mandating that a decision is made within a timely manner.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I really want my friend from Illinois to know that I don't have to travel to Joliet, Illinois, or any other part of Illinois; I don't even have to come down to his district in Peoria to see unemployment, to see the joblessness. I am not standing here fighting against jobs. I am fighting for jobs. But I think at the same time that we fight for jobs, we have to also fight so that the American people have input in terms of making decisions such as this. Mr. Chairman, I also believe that at the end of the day, we want to ensure that this pipeline benefits America and not China.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.