Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3) to approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes.

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Last week, the House of Representatives repealed the Affordable Care Act for the 37th time.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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Today, the House Republicans are making their fourth attempt in 2 years to grant special treatment to TransCanada's Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. That's what happens when you let the oil companies set the agenda.

Rather than tackling the real problems facing American families, we're passing legislation to exempt a foreign company from the rules that every other company in America has to follow. And, of course, last week we voted for the 37th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We're trampling our rule of law to speed Canada's dirty tar sands oil to the gulf, where it can be refined and sent to other countries tax free.

That's great for the tar sands developers and refiners, like the Koch brothers and Valero, but this bill will hurt American families. It won't lower gas prices by a single penny, and it may even raise them. It will lock us into more global warming and risk our farmlands and our water supplies. No wonder Americans are cynical about Congress.

I oppose the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline because it will worsen climate change.

Keystone XL will lock the United States into decades of dependence on dirtier tar sands crude, reversing the carbon pollution reductions we have been working so hard to accomplish. Experts tell us that this Keystone XL will triple production of the tar sands, and that's simply not consistent with any future scenario for avoiding catastrophic climate change. We don't need it. We have our own sources of oil here in the United States, and we're using less oil because of our efficiency in new cars that are getting better mileage.

So I oppose this bill for these reasons; but even if you support the pipeline, you should oppose this bill.

H.R. 3 is an extreme bill. It grants a regulatory earmark to TransCanada, exempting it from all environmental requirements. It's also unnecessary. The State Department is carrying out their review of this highly controversial project.

H.R. 3 would approve the pipeline by fiat, lock out the public, eliminate the President's authority to balance competing interests, and stop Federal agencies from ensuring that, if the project does go forward, we do it as safely as possible.

The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is a bad deal for America. We get all the risks, while the oil companies reap the rewards.

But even if you support it, this bill is harmful and unnecessary, and I'd urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy.

I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the State of California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to another Member of the House from Georgia, the very distinguished gentleman, a member of our committee, Congressman John Barrow.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to our colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of one of our Energy Subcommittees.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how many speakers there are on the other side.

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

Killer tornadoes in Oklahoma, Hurricane Sandy in New York and the Northeast, droughts in the southwest part of this country, record heat waves are now the new normal. We've seen floods; we've seen wildfires. Haven't you noticed that we've been experiencing a change in the climate? And it hasn't been good.

We don't know if all of this is because of greenhouse gases. We do know enough, however, that we don't want tar sands oil to take a chance with the only planet we live in.

We want jobs. Of course we want jobs. And we don't say jobs are not good enough if they're working in the pipeline construction. But we also want to protect this country and this planet; it's the only one we have.

The tar sands are the dirtiest oil we can possibly get. We don't need it. We shouldn't go after it and put ourselves at a greater dependence on a source that will pollute this planet with more greenhouse gases, more carbon emissions, and more climate change. That will not be something we can look at with pride.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

This amendment selects some statements from the State Department's draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to try to suggest that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline poses no threat to the environment. I only wish that were the case.

This is a matter of basic chemistry. Tar sands don't contain oil. It takes a lot of energy to melt and process the tar sands into something that we can use like oil. That extra energy means more carbon pollution.

The State Department estimated that a gallon of gasoline from tar sands is responsible for about 17 percent more carbon pollution than the average U.S. gallon of gasoline. And it estimated that shifting to tar sands crude could add as much U.S. carbon pollution as 4.5 million more vehicles. Not surprisingly, these findings are not in this amendment.

But the real problem with this amendment isn't what it leaves out. The real problem is that it tries to argue that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline does not pose real and serious environmental harm, and that's dangerously wrong.

The fact is we may be able to avoid the worst consequences of climate change or we may be able to fully develop the tar sands without capturing the carbon, but we can't have both. And building Keystone XL is critical to oil companies' plans to triple production of the tar sands.

The State Department's review rests on a key assumption. They assumed that if Keystone XL isn't built, the additional tar sands production would be moved by rail. They also assumed that the extra costs of rail wouldn't be high enough to affect investments in new tar sands projects.

With all due respect to the State Department, this is one case where many experts think they have just got it wrong. A recent Reuters report found big flaws in the State Department's analysis. Among other things, State assumed that rail shipment would cost about $10 per barrel, but current costs are closer to $30 per barrel.

The former Alberta Energy Minister said, ``If there's something that kept me up at night, it would be the fear that before too long we're going to be landlocked in bitumen.''

A Deloitte report said, ``Unless key transportation challenges are overcome, that new oil will have nowhere to go.''

And here's TD Economics: ``Production growth cannot occur unless some of the planned pipeline projects out of Western Canada go ahead.''

And here's what AJM Petroleum Consultants have said: ``Unless we get increased market access, like with Keystone XL, we're going to be stuck. Our production is going to be the one backed out of the system.''

And here's what the former editor of Oilweek said: ``Essential to diminishing hopes for an oil sands bonanza are three proposed pipelines.''

The Canadian Energy Research Institute said, ``with Keystone XL in place and operating at capacity, bitumen production could increase substantially.''

Keystone XL Pipeline is the key to enabling a massive increase in tar sands production and locking in our dependence on this very dirty oil. This would be catastrophic for the climate.

This amendment tries to downplay the climate impacts of Keystone XL, but even under the State Department's flawed analysis, there isn't another project in America with bigger climate impacts.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this Weber amendment and on H.R. 3.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, the issue is, if we don't build this pipeline, can that tar sands oil be trucked? Can it be taken to market? And I submit that if it's not, if we don't build this tar sands pipeline, they're not going to be able to afford to truck it anywhere else.

They're trying to get us to help bail them out with this dirty tar sands oil so they can use the United States to help Canadian oil production, and we ought to say ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this month we passed a grim milestone. Scientists recorded atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide of more than 400 parts per million. The last time carbon dioxide concentrations were at that level was 3 million years ago. Seas were 60 feet higher, and human beings did not even exist. This milestone is yet another urgent reminder that we need to take immediate action to build a clean energy, low-carbon future.

The Keystone XL pipeline takes us precisely in the wrong direction. This

pipeline will expedite production of the dirtiest and most carbon- intensive crude oil on the planet and lock in our dependence on this dirty fuel for decades to come. I'm strongly opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline for that reason.

But if the House is going to pass a bill that approves the Keystone XL pipeline, the least we can do is try to minimize the harm. That's the point of this amendment.

Tar sands don't contain oil. It takes a lot of energy to melt and process the tar sands into something that we can use like oil. That extra energy means more carbon pollution. This isn't in dispute, although we hear arguments that it is, but it is not in dispute.

The State Department has estimated that a gallon of gasoline from tar sands is responsible for about 17 percent more carbon pollution than the average U.S. gallon of gasoline. Other studies suggest that numbers could be even higher.

To protect our Nation from droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather, we need to be reducing carbon pollution. But, according to the State Department, using tar sands crude from Keystone XL could increase U.S. carbon pollution by up to 20 million metric tons per year. That's why the Keystone pipeline is a huge step in the wrong direction.

My amendment simply holds TransCanada and the tar sands producers accountable for their carbon pollution. It says that they have to reduce other carbon pollution to offset the extra pollution from Keystone XL. This won't get us closer to meeting our climate goals and building a clean energy future, but at least we won't be increasing the U.S. carbon pollution.

This amendment is not a cure-all. Approving Keystone XL will allow the oil industry to triple tar sands production. During the Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on this bill, we heard testimony that there's no plausible scenario in which tar sands production triples and we don't avoid a catastrophic level of climate change.

So make no mistake; even with this amendment, the Keystone XL pipeline would be a disaster for the climate, but this amendment would help. It would minimize extra carbon pollution. It would send a message to the tar sands producers and Alberta that they need to do a lot more to address climate change, and it would signal that the United States Government takes the threat of climate change seriously.

We need to start holding oil executives accountable for the pollution that is threatening our health and welfare. We need to make the polluters accountable for the damage they are inflicting on our children and our grandchildren. Our generation has an obligation to protect the Earth for future generations. This amendment is at least a small step in that direction.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote ``no'' on the final bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close on this amendment?

My colleagues, I think this amendment says if you're going to go ahead with this pipeline, at least look for other ways to reduce carbon emissions. Put the burden on the Keystone XL pipeline producers and Alberta, Canada. Don't just accept all the pollution if it can be minimized by our carbon reductions. That will help reduce the harm that this whole project will cause for the climate change that's threatening us and that we're seeing today throughout this country everyday in the news. It will help minimize aggravating that problem.

It's not a solution, but it's a way that we can say that if we're going to have the XL pipeline, at least get some offsets on carbon so that we're not just increasing it to the maximum levels possible of all the greenhouse gases that are going into the air.

I urge support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

How will this delay the project? It simply says, as they develop this pipeline, they have to look for other ways. They can then start figuring that out without delaying the project, as I understand it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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, 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.

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

Last Congress, I voted for every piece of pro-Keystone pipeline legislation that was brought before this body--every piece of pro- Keystone pipeline legislation. But something has happened along the way between then and now. That something is called a hijacking of this bill by the right wing.

I support the Keystone pipeline project. I believe it will be an important element in our domestic energy infrastructure.

Last Congress, I was pleased to support and vote for Keystone legislation that was considered and passed by the House, including H.R. 1938. However, I am opposed to the pending measure primarily due to section 3 of the bill.

The bill we are considering today is vastly different from H.R. 1938. That was reasonable, responsible legislation. H.R. 3 is absolutely not.

Instead of taking the straightforward approach that H.R. 1938 did, which set a specific deadline for the President to grant or deny a permit for the Keystone pipeline, the pending measure completely eliminates the requirement for a permit. It waives a permit, and it deems a permit application by a foreign company for a major undertaking in the United States to be approved.

As I said, I want to see this pipeline built, but it will not be built under this proposal. Waiving permits? Deeming permit applications approved? For a foreign company? We don't even do that for our domestic companies.

Everybody in this country understands that you need a permit for certain activities. You need a permit to drive. You need a permit to mine coal. You need a permit to build a highway. You need a permit to construct a shopping mall. You even need a permit, a license, to get married.

So what right do the promoters of this bill have to jeopardize this pipeline with such a frivolous proposal? That is exactly what we're doing with this legislation.

Make no mistake about it, this is a bumper sticker bill, ideology driven, born of fancy, not fact. Jobs hang in the balance here, an important supply of energy held hostage. This bill is a mockery.

It boils down to this: right-wing politics trumping what is right, what is correct, and what is just for this pipeline to proceed through the permitting process--to be built, to put people to work.

So let's get serious. Let's dispense with the kindergarten tactics. Too much is on the line here. While the promoters of this bill play politics, I can assure them that this is no laughing matter in the heartland of America.

It is my hope that this bill can be approved during House consideration today and that I will be able to support it by the time we reach final passage. Otherwise, I will vote ``no'' in recognition of what this bill is as currently drafted.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on our Transportation Freight panel, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a valued member of our committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. Chairman, may I have a time check.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), who, like me, is a supporter of the Keystone pipeline.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to close, although I do have a couple of Members lurking in the hallway here somewhere threatening to come to speak. So maybe I'll slowly close unless the gentleman from California wants to use his time.

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

We've had a short debate here, and I'm sure it will continue during the amendment process. My concerns are as I stated in my opening comments. The fact that we are deeming a foreign company the outright right, giving them a permit, without any further requirements or actions needed, is of deep concern to me.

As I said, I have many coal companies that mine in a responsible way in West Virginia. They've gone through the responsible processes of obtaining a permit. Granted, they're having trouble in some areas. At least they know that they have to obtain a permit to mine.

They're not asking to outright be deemed to have a permit without having to show how responsible they are in their operations. But in this legislation, to give a foreign company an outright application, is truly concerning to this particular Member who supports the pipeline project.

We had some discussion in committee last week about what I and others view as preferential treatment for a foreign company, and some on the majority side of the aisle refused to concede that TransCanada is a foreign company or even that Canada is a foreign country. You know what? The last time I checked, you do need a passport to enter Canada.

That's really beside the point, but I did want to raise it since I'm sure it will come up before this debate is concluded.

The point is that this bill waives a permit for such a major undertaking. And these companies that are producing these tar sands in Canada like Exxon, Shell, Valero, CNRL, Conoco for TransCanada, I daresay that they have to obtain a permit from the Canadians to undertake such operations to build this pipeline, and now we're saying they don't have to in our country. For a foreign country, it is troubling that we would grant such a permit outright, to deem that they have met all safety and environmental requirements when we don't even do that for our own domestic companies.

With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3 today, unless of course during the amendment process my amendment, which is to strike section 3, were to miraculously be adopted by this body. Then, perhaps, I could support the legislation. But other than that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation.

So I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as amendment No. 5 in the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I'm offering this amendment on behalf of myself and Peter DeFazio of Oregon.

This amendment simply strikes section 3 of the bill. This is the section which states that the Keystone XL pipeline does not require a permit to cross the international border between Canada and the United States. Under this amendment, all other provisions of the bill remain intact, including those relating to judicial review, rights-of-way, and the Clean Water Act.

I believe that getting into the business of waiving permits for a foreign company to do business here in the United States is not the way to facilitate the construction of this pipeline. American interests are at stake here, and to allow this extremely massive pipeline project to proceed without a permit is ludicrous. As I said in comments earlier today, we do not even do that for domestic companies here in this country.

Section 3 also creates a very convoluted and confusing regime. It references a final Environmental Impact Statement issued on August 26, 2011, as satisfying NEPA for the project. Yet that EIS was done for a different permit application than the one currently pending.

I repeat: that EIS was done for a different permit application than the one that's currently pending.

In February 2012 TransCanada split the project into two pieces--the northern route and the southern route. The company then on May 4, 2012, reapplied for a permit for the revised route, limiting it to the northern route that is the subject of H.R. 3.

Yet the pending legislation references an EIS from August 2011-- again, for an entirely different permit application.

As a supporter of the Keystone pipeline, I find it difficult to see how this convoluted process set forth in section 3 would facilitate its construction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Nebraska's comments. I understand the EIS to which he refers was done for the State of Nebraska, but not for the current pending application.

I yield the balance of my time to the cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).