Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2013

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Last week, the House of Representatives repealed the Affordable Care Act for the 37th time.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.

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).

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), whose amendment under this rule was also shut out from even a debate here on the floor of the House.

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).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to one of our leaders on energy policy, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he has any remaining speakers.

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.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 315 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 315 provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation passed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The first, H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013 introduced by my friend on the committee, Mr. McKinley from West Virginia, passed out of committee with a strong bipartisan vote with 54 bipartisan cosponsors. The second piece of legislation, H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013, was introduced by my friend Mr. Cassidy from Louisiana.

The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of general debate on each of the bills included in the rule. A total of nine amendments were made in order between the two bills, six on the Democratic side and three on the Republican side. Further, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit, allowing for yet another opportunity to amend each piece of legislation before it's final vote.

H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013, is a product of hours of work over the course of the past few years that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) has put in to perfect this legislation. Indeed, the legislation includes numerous provisions offered by Democrats and even reflects input by President Obama's own Environmental Protection Agency.

This legislation was prompted by a move in June of 2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal combustion residuals. In this rule, the Environmental Protection Agency set out three proposals for coal residuals, commonly referred to as coal ash. Coal residuals are often recycled in an environmentally sound fashion and repurposed for use in roads, parks, golf courses, and any other number of safe manners. Unfortunately, many in the industry viewed these proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations as placing barriers to the continued use or recycling of coal ash.

In response to these concerns, Mr. McKinley's bill would provide for minimum Federal standards but allow States to craft a permitting program that could be tailored to the needs in each individual State. The bill makes clear that it does not provide the Environmental Protection Agency with new rulemaking authority. Further, it requires the Environmental Protection Agency to defer to the States with respect to the regulation of coal ash. This would allow Sates to protect human health and the environment by adapting an existing solid waste regulatory program for coal ash. To ensure adequate safety measures for human health, the bill requires installation of groundwater monitoring at all structures that receive coal ash.

The second bill included in today's rule has been carefully designed to protect consumers from a runaway Environmental Protection Agency which, in my experience as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, constantly uses some pretty strange figures and some funny math in depicting the so-called benefits of its rules and rarely fully admits to the full cost of the rules it promulgates.

Since the beginning of President Obama's, Lisa Jackson's, and Gina McCarthy's tenure with the Federal Government, the Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated regulations imposing billions of dollars in costs on our critical power infrastructure. Famously, the Environmental Protection Agency has been so out of control that the President himself was required to intervene and pull the ozone rule in August of 2011, knowing that the cost to the country far outweighed the benefits that the Environmental Protection Agency was claiming.

In response to this out-of-control agency, Dr. Cassidy has carefully crafted H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, which would add another measure of protection for consumers legitimately frightened of whether or not they will be able to afford their air-conditioning this summer or their heating this fall, or even to turn on their lights at nighttime.

The bill is straightforward. It requires that, before promulgating a final rule that would impose an aggregate cost of $1 billion on the American people, the Environmental Protection Agency must consult with the Secretary of Energy, a Cabinet member who will be working for the very same President as the Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency. The Energy Secretary must then determine that the rule before him would not cause significant adverse effects to the economy or to electric reliability, as is his job. That's what his mission statement is as the top energy official for our country.

For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has dictated our energy policy rather than simply our environmental policy. Former Energy Secretary Steven Chu seemed to have no problem passively delegating his job to Lisa Jackson. I suppose he was too busy losing America's money to solar companies. The era of the Environmental Protection Agency dictating energy policy must end, and this bill is a solid step toward that goal.

Mr. Speaker, American consumers are struggling. They watch the cost of food as it rises right before their eyes. They watch the gas prices. Where are they going? Nowhere but up. They watch their electricity bills. They are also going up. There is no relief in sight on the horizon under this President and this administration.

House Republicans have not abandoned their promises to protect consumers from an out-of-control bureaucracy imposing cost after cost on the American people. Today's legislation is yet another few arrows in the quiver to stop the Federal Government from taking more money out of Americans' pockets.

As I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the two underlying bills, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for a couple of brief responses.

First off, I don't know whether the gentleman misheard or only caught me

in midsentence. I was responding to the minority leader's statement about this September is the 4-year anniversary of the crash in the economy, and the preceding 20 months, from September of 2008, in the Congress, all of the levers of power were handled by the Democrats.

Now, on this issue of fighting Washington, good strategy, bad strategy, I can't address that. But I do know what's going on out in this country--people are frightened of Washington. They're not fighting Washington; they are scared. Why are they scared? What are they seeing with the NSA? What do they see with the TSA when they go to the airport? What are they seeing with the IRS? Nobody likes the IRS to start with, but now people are concerned that their First Amendment rights are going to be trampled by an out-of-control Federal agency. And I have to tell you what, Mr. Speaker, it all devolves back to the administration. Yeah, the Congress has its own problems, but the administration is actually what is driving the frightening of America, not the fighting of America.

I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds for response, pending which I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia.

In the brief 7 months that I have spent on the Rules Committee in this Congress, there's only one time where the administration has not issued a veto threat to legislation we were considering under the Rules Committee. This is H.R. 2218, Mr. McKinley's bill. They voiced problems, but they did not issue a veto threat. That is a red letter day in this institution.

Every other piece of legislation that's come to the floor has done so under a threat of a veto by the administration.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know, in order for this economy to flourish, energy has to be available and energy has to be affordable. Unfortunately, the situation we've seen in recent years is anything but that.

The Department of Energy was created back in the 1970s in response to the Arab oil embargo. The Department of Energy was created to deal with the situation of scarcity.

Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has not evolved since that time. And where do we find ourselves today? We find ourselves right on the threshold, right on the horizon of America being an energy exporter, again, for the first time in a couple of decades. That's a huge change.

Has the Department of Energy changed and kept pace with the reality that is going on in development of energy in State lands, private lands, and, yes, some Federal lands? Have they kept pace with the development within the industry? I submit they have not. I submit that they have been an impediment.

Yes, I'd be happy to work on improving where the Department of Energy could be, in fact, a facilitator rather than an obstruction for developing energy for our economy. Because we know without available and affordable energy, the promise that the economy can create the number of jobs that it needs to create--not just to replace those jobs that have been lost, but all of those people who are getting to the age where they expect a job to be there for them--and without that energy production, it's not going happen.

Now, I do want to talk about the other bill that's before us today, Dr. Cassidy's bill, H.R. 1582. Let's think about this for a minute. The Congress works its will on a bill. It becomes law. That law then goes to the regulatory agency. They work their will on the bill. And we all know the story. A thousand-page bill here on the floor of the House can generate 10,000 pages of regulation in the Federal Register.

I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but it's hard to discipline myself to wake up every morning and read what was written in the Federal Register the day before. The American people who are out there creating and producing certainly don't have time to do that.

But when these rules are then visited upon the people, what happens then? Well, they just simply have to accept the effect of those rules. Congress did that a couple of years ago. They are not playing in that arena any longer.

Here's what Dr. Cassidy says. He says that before promulgating a final rule that would impose an aggregate cost of $1 billion on the American people, the Administrator of the EPA has to consult with the Secretary of Energy. This seems like a logical and straightforward maneuver. In fact, we will talk about the REINS Act in the weeks to come. And they have to come back to Congress and get us to either say ``yes'' or ``no'' on that regulation that is going to have such a profound effect on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I've been in business before. I've made investments before. I know very well if someone comes to investors with a cash call and says you're going to have to pony up a lot more money here, the very least that the investor expects at that point is a pro forma, a profit and loss sheet, or some reasonable expectation that there can be a return on investment.

You say, Wait a minute, nobody's coming to the American people with a cash call. Well, it's called April 15. And it is a cash call. And we owe them that scrutiny. The Congress owes them that scrutiny; the Department of Energy owes them that scrutiny. I would assert we owe them an up-or-down vote on those regulations that are going to have such a profound effect on the economy.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two critical bills ensuring that the American people are not further penalized by out-of-control policies coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency. Consumers need relief, it is clear.

For that reason, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the previous question, an ``aye'' vote on the rule, and an ``aye'' vote on the two underlying bills.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 315 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

2070) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and

other fuels, and for other purposes. The first reading of the

bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 2070.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

I oppose the rule and the underlying legislation.

I submitted two amendments to the committee; I regret that neither was made in order. One--rejected by the Republican majority--would have protected private property owners along the pipeline route from being bullied by TransCanada into giving up their land. The other amendment would have required the Secretary of Transportation to provide assurance that current pipeline safety regulations are sufficient to prevent spills of diluted bitumen. I have represented communities that have been impacted by pipeline explosions. I know the price they pay.

Much of this pipeline is going to cross private lands, not public lands. Protection of private property rights is something we hear a lot about whenever government makes a decision to protect unique and valuable public resources. But apparently, if a foreign company wants to build a pipeline to transport oil for export, private property rights can be sacrificed.

What is the rush? There is existing pipeline capacity to deliver this oil. The tar sands are not going to disappear. Our citizens should receive a fair chance to defend their property in State courts. This legislation deprives them of that opportunity.

Ms. Julia Trigg Crawford testified last month before the Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice in favor of limiting the power of eminent domain and in strong opposition to granting an exemption to TransCanada. I will include her testimony with my statement. She is only one of a number of landowners who were bullied by TransCanada, and she is now seeking a remedy in State court.

Ms. Crawford and all other property owners who have gone to the courts should have the opportunity to make their cases. If TransCanada wants access to our land, they should follow our laws--laws put in place to safeguard our resources and our rights.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and this ill-conceived and unnecessary legislation.

Testimony submitted to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on

the Constitution and Civil Justice Hearing on the Private Property

Rights Protection Act

April 18, 2013.

My name is Julia Trigg Crawford. I am the third-generation

manager of the farm my grandfather bought in 1948. As a

landowner along TransCanada's conveniently uncoupled Keystone

Gulf Coast Project, I absolutely support measures to limit

eminent domain. But I strongly oppose an exemption for

TransCanada, its Keystone XL, and any other foreign or

domestic for-profit entity that cannot provide proof that

their projects are for public benefit.

I believe, as do countless others following my family's

legal case, that TransCanada has abused the power of eminent

domain in taking our land. When another pipeline asked to

come across our place, we said we did not want them here and

asked they would find a different route through a willing

neighbor. That pipeline company did just that--and eminent

domain was never mentioned.

When they came knocking in 2008 we told TransCanada the

same thing: we don't want a pipeline here, and asked them to

find another route. They said no, then exploited a flawed

permitting process in Texas, and used eminent domain to take

the easement they wanted across our land.

There are a host of reasons why we don't want a pipeline

across our property. First, we don't believe a foreign

corporation should have more of a right to our land than we

do. Secondly, we need to protect its Caddo Indian heritage,

specifically the 145 artifacts TransCanada's archeologists

recently found within the proposed pipeline easement. How

curious that TransCanada and the Texas Historical Commission

concur that my entire 30-acre pasture qualifies for National

Registry of Historic Places recognition, EXCEPT for the one

sliver of land TransCanada must have on our place to connect

the two sections of pipeline they've already build adjacent

to our land

We don't want them horizontally drilling under the Bois

d'Arc Creek where we have State-given water rights. We

irrigate 400 acres of cropland from this creek, and the

pipeline would be just a couple hundred yards upstream from

our pumps. Any leak from that pipeline would contaminate our

equipment, and then our crops in minutes.

Furthermore, the neighbor directly to the west of us owns

thousands of acres, and had granted TransCanada an easement

anyway. When we politely asked them to seek a way around us,

TransCanada could have slightly altered their route and

traversed that neighboring land differently, avoiding our

property altogether. But instead they just pulled out the

club of eminent domain, telling a reporter later it was just

too late to make any changes.

As some of you may know, in 2011 the Texas Supreme Court

ruled in Denbury

Green that private property rights are far too precious to be

taken by simply checking a box on a form. Furthermore, the

Supreme Court said that when challenged by a landowner, the

burden falls on the pipeline to present reasonable proof it

meets the requirements of a common carrier. So we did just

that, we asked for the proof.

In challenging TransCanada, we asked them to provide proof

they met the qualifications as a common carrier and had the

right of eminent domain. And once again they hid behind the

skirts of the Texas Railroad Commission, saying in essence,

The Railroad Commission believes us, you should too. The

embattled Railroad Commission has proven to be nothing more

than a rubber stamp, they have never denied anyone common

carrier status. So, when we asked for another element of

proof, their tariff schedule, TransCanada said in court they

would not have that tariff schedule until about the time

product started flowing. In other words, they could not

produce this particular proof they were entitled to take my

land until after my land was condemned, handed over to them,

construction was completed and tarsands, the product for

which Keystone is being built, was flowing. This is wrong,

and is precisely why the Keystone XL should not be granted an

exemption from this bill's much needed eminent domain

restrictions.

If I read it correctly, this bill's exemptions for

pipelines already under construction allow current eminent

domain abuses to go unpunished. The bill addresses the

problems, and outlines important solutions, yet allows those

who exploited the process up until a certain date on a

calendar to get off ``scot-free''. And as someone who has

lost part of her family farm to this abuse, that's leaves me,

and lots of people like me out in the cold. And add insult to

injury: our land was taken through abusive means, and the

abusers could get off without even a hand-slap.

Two years ago when our family first began our stand against

eminent domain abuse, TransCanada was flying below the radar

screen. No one seemed to know much about the Keystone XL

Pipeline. But now the light is blindingly bright on

TransCanada, the tarsands, and the threat to everyone's land

and water. People around the world see that TransCanada

represents eminent domain gone unchecked and horribly wrong.

Why else would there be so much pushback, by so many people,

from so many backgrounds, in so many ways, to the Keystone XL

project?

If we allow an exception for TransCanada and the Keystone

XL, we will be setting a dangerous precedent, leaving the

door open for even further misuse of our legal system and

more abuse of landowners unwilling to risk their property for

foreign profits. The same system that enabled the judge in

our case to issue a 15-word ruling from his iPhone would

enable TransCanada and other pipeline companies to use the

incredible legal and psychological leverage of eminent domain

to continue stealing property from American citizens.

We have appealed that iPhone ruling, and look forward to

our day in court with an experienced panel of judges in the

6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Texarkana, Texas. And if our

legal defense fund holds out, we may take it to the Texas

Supreme Court.

Eminent domain abuse at the hands of one greedy corporation

is unforgivable, but it is part of something even bigger.

While all land is invaluable to its owners, farmland holds a

particularly unique position. Rural property rights, like

mine, are the ``fundamental building blocks for our Nation's

agricultural industry.'' ``The use of eminent domain to take

farmland and other rural property for economic development

threatens liberty, rural economies, and the economy of the

United States.'' And TransCanada is at the heart of these

issues right now. Their advertisements in my local newspaper

say ``We want to be more than just a pipeline company: we

want to be a trusted neighbor''. They've given me no reason

to trust them.

I do not believe there has been even one shred of

documentation that proves that one single drop of the

products transported through TransCanada's pipeline will be

refined for use in the U.S. Yet we are supposed to relinquish

our family's tradition and the cultural heritage of the

families who lived on our land before us, just because

TransCanada says, without proof, that their pipeline is for

the public good. How can this pipeline be for the public good

when so much information about it is not even in the public

record? Diluted bitumen, tarsands, whatever you want to call

it, is a product we should fully understand before we start

pumping it through major waterways, sometimes through 70-

year-old pipelines built before tarsands extraction was

economically viable. TransCanada has called this product

proprietary, refusing to provide specifics. How can we ensure

the safety of a substance when we don't even know its

ingredients?

Pipeline companies do not deserve a free ride, especially

when they can't clean up their own messes, and especially

when we taxpayers are subsidizing the cleanup attempts. Look

at Enbridge in Michigan. Look at Exxon in Arkansas. This is a

spill I went to see for myself. Standing at a culvert, I saw

the 5 foot high imprint of the oil rush to the local

wetlands. The thought of seeing the equivalent on my creek

bank is disheartening. America already subsidizes the oil

industry at a monumental disproportion to other industries.

Are we to further subsidize pipelines with our safety, our

security, and our human dignity?

Corporations may be considered to be people, but dollars do

not yet count as votes. TransCanada's money never sleeps, but

neither do landowners like me, faced with the threat of

losing our property, or seeing our land and identities torn

apart.

This bill brings much needed reform to a sometimes flawed

system, and a platform where wrong can be made right. But

with this exception that includes TransCanada, it is turning

a blind eye to the most flagrant abuser of eminent domain

today. I urge you to remove that exclusion, and let those who

have abused be exposed, and suffer the consequences.

TransCanada stole land that has been in my family for 6

decades, and all for a project that will line their pockets.

To allow them to walk away from past abuses without penalty

is egregious. I will continue to fight these injustices

because life, as we know it, depends on it. And I am not

alone.

Respectfully submitted,

Julia Trigg Crawford.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin my remarks by correcting my friend from Texas with reference to his 1-minute statement previous to the time that we began the rule.

As I understood him, he said that for the last 20 months, Democrats have controlled every level of power. Somewhere along the line, I think my friend must be very confused about what the responsibilities of the United States House of Representatives is and are.

That said, my recollection is that in this Congress, which has consumed 6 months, and in the previous one, which took 2 years, that my friends in the Republican Party have controlled the House of Representatives. Unless there is no longer one level of power in Washington, something is misunderstood by me.

Mr. Speaker, the House faces a number of pressing issues that have bipartisan support and that we could be addressing in our limited time before the August recess. For example, we could be reforming in a comprehensive manner our Nation's immigration system. We could be ending the sequester. I have not met a Democrat or a Republican that did not say that the sequester was a bad idea. We could be addressing the doubling of student loan interest rates. We could be having a conference on a farm bill, or we could be appointing--something that I still find very strange--we could be appointing budget conferees.

It used to be that having a conference around this place was a real opportunity for Members, and Members sought to be on the conference. I know my first experience I was fascinated by the fact that I'm on a conference with the other body, the United States Senate. Little did I know that their rules provided for them to vote by proxy, but I came to learn that perhaps it wasn't as important as I thought it was, but it is important to the process.

But for any of these important issues to be addressed, Members would have to work together to resolve their differences. Instead, we're spending our time on two bills that my friends across the aisle know will never become law. I don't have to be a betting person to bet anybody in this institution that what we are discussing here today will not become the law of the land. The reason that I know that is we've already done it four times, this same measure, and it didn't see the light of day in the other body. This one ain't going to either.

These bills today show what I've been saying for quite some time now, and it's that my Republican colleagues really are not manifesting interest in actually fixing our country's problems. In fact, it seems that they're more happy to simply bring Congress to a standstill and call that success.

Mr. Speaker, political victories are not victories for struggling families. In case these bills are not clear enough evidence, my friends recently released their messaging plan for the August work period in our respective districts. That plan is called ``Fighting Washington for All Americans.'' Wow. Despite the irony, I would almost want to call it hypocrisy of sitting Members of Congress trying to paint themselves as outsiders and reformers while ignoring their key role in creating the gridlock. Fighting Washington for All Americans urges Members to consider Washington as a place where nothing good happens, so the less governing that gets done, the better. Yet these two bills today completely contradict those ideas.

H.R. 1582 gives the Department of Energy unprecedented authority to veto Environmental Protection Agency-related regulations. Not only does the bill prevent the EPA from finalizing critical public health and environmental rules, it instructs the Department of Energy to conduct a duplicative and convoluted analysis without any new resources. These are the people that say bureaucracy is a problem, and yet they're creating additional bureaucracy within the framework of these two measures.

I said yesterday in the Rules Committee I would be astounded at how much time it's going to take the Energy Department and the EPA to coordinate their efforts. Evidently, these people haven't been trying to talk to these bureaucrats the way that I have over the course of time, and it requires, this measure does, extra examination, despite the Office of Management and Budget's interagency review of all regulations, which includes the Department of Energy, in the review of EPA rules.

I did a little research, Mr. Speaker, on how many times over the course of the time that I've been here that Members on the other side have offered measures, that did not become law, to abolish the Department of Energy. Hear me loud and clear: to abolish the Department of Energy.

Now we come today, after that having been done numerous times, we come today and the Energy Department is the answer. These same people wanted to, I guess everything with an ``E'' that's in the Cabinet, they wanted the Department of EPA to be abolished at one time, the Department of Education. They need to change their acronyms over there or else they'll find themselves abolished, if they don't get past A, B,

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

And would the Speaker be kind enough to tell both sides how much time we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Several of our colleagues, including the previous speaker, are suggesting that this bill is better than previous versions. But this is actually the worst version yet from a public health and environmental perspective.

All you have to do is look at the Statement of Administration Policy to see how this bill has gotten worse. The administration is concerned that there's no clear and appropriate authority for taking corrective action on unlimited or leaking impoundments or units.

Unlike H.R. 2273, from the last Congress, this says that an unlined impoundment that is found to be contaminating groundwater only has to close after alternative disposal capacity is available at the same site. Well, many of these facilities don't have the space for additional capacity at the same site. That means that the pollution can go on for years, or even indefinitely.

This bill is the worst version of coal ash legislation yet. That's why all the environmental groups oppose this legislation. They even sent a letter to the House today that states, ``This bill is more dangerous to human health and environment than previous versions of this legislation.''

Mr. Speaker, I'm very sad today. One of my college classmates is being funeralized, or has been funeralized as we are speaking. Her funeral was at 11 o'clock. She lives in a community called Golden Heights. In Golden Heights, in a 2-square mile radius from a dump that dumped into that community for a considerable period of time, the incidence of cancer of dear friends of mine, male and female, is inordinately high by comparison to any other place in the State of Florida.

Something is wrong with the picture of continuing to pollute and to not be mindful of who are the victims of that pollution.

Mr. Speaker, I make the distinction that I was not talking about coal ash, and I'm glad I don't live near one of those places where they are dumping like in Uniontown, Alabama.

If we defeat the previous question, I'm going to 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 gas pump.

To discuss his bill, I would like now to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The previous speaker is a person that, there are few in Congress that I have greater respect for. I certainly understand the dynamics of living in communities. In my judgment, she's absolutely correct that what we should be doing is everything we can to constructively make sure that we are about the business of ensuring the health of the communities that we live in.

So, to that degree, while I stand by my position that I'm glad I don't live next to these facilities, unfortunately, I live close to, and have for some time, facilities that have been harmful that claimed that they were protecting the health and the environment of people.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) said something that I would like to correct. He'll be down here, I'm sure, later today or whenever this measure comes up. He noted that the Environmental Protection Agency testified ``that they do not oppose'' this coal ash bill.

I want to make sure that everyone knows that the Environmental Protection Agency said that because they are not permitted to take a position on legislation, only the administration is allowed to say they support or oppose legislation. And in the administration position last night, they did not say that they don't support the coal ash bill, nor was it a veto threat.

I would urge my colleague from Texas to point me to the time that Barack Obama has vetoed something.

One of the things, I've been on that committee--he's been there 7 months. I've been there years, and I've been there with other Presidents, and it is not uncommon for Congress to propose and to have the administration oppose and vice versa.

Mr. Speaker, both of these bills before us today are so tilted toward commercial operations that they reflect a warped sense of what is important to the people in this great country of ours. These bills undermine environmental laws that have been proven to protect communities and provide for the development of energy to run America.

While we need to develop laws that promote energy and commerce, snide commentary regarding failed policies at the Department of Energy ignores the number of successes through the years under different administrations and this one that the Department of Energy has put forward.

We cannot, in many respects, develop laws that promote energy and commerce and ignore the consequences of those activities. Pollution is not equivalent to progress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bills, and I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment to the rule in the Record, along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to stop being ``Repealicans'' and be about the business of trying to do something constructive in this House of Representatives.

I would ask them to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 228 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I

may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

I reserve the balance of my time in order to close.

No.

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.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.