Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5682, Approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act.

Last night, we got a notice that the Rules Committee was going to have an emergency hearing to expedite very important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was very excited. I thought we were going to deal with an emergency. Perhaps it was Ebola, perhaps it was dealing with the use of force overseas, or emergencies here at home like the thousands of families that are separated because of our broken immigration law or the emergency of balancing our budget before we leave the next generation with a burden of debt. I was really hopeful that the majority was ready to take on a pressing issue facing the country.

Sadly, I was too optimistic. I found out that the bill that was such an emergency, that was expeditiously brought before the Rules Committee and now to the floor is actually a bill that we have already voted on this Congress to bypass the administration's review policy and streamline the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Turned out last night's Rules Committee meeting was far from an emergency. The majority should not have waived clause 11 of rule XXI that normally requires 3 days to review legislation before we vote on it.

To be clear, we have not had 3 days to read this bill. Now, one could argue, since we have pretty much passed the darn thing before and it hasn't changed much, maybe we didn't need the full 3 days, but why are we doing another bill?

I truly hope we are not setting the tone for the 114th where great Representatives, Democratic and Republican, come from all parts of the country to tackle the issues facing our great Nation, balancing the budget, fixing our broken immigration system, and getting our economy moving; and we vote on the same bill, in the case of repealing the Affordable Care Act, 53 times in the 113th Congress.

One time, I understand. The House wants to do it, that is what the people were elected to do, if they believe that, and that is what a majority says, then do it. But what are the other 52 times besides a waste of taxpayer money?

The Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act being revived today is nothing new. Again, it bypasses the pending review process and would immediately authorize the TransCanada Keystone pipeline company to build an 875-mile pipeline from Canada through the United States to the Gulf of Mexico for the exportation of oil.

This bill would expedite a tar sands project without requiring a Federal environmental or administrative review process basically saying that those are automatically concluded and/or sufficient.

I asked Chairman Whitfield in our Rules Committee what their discussion with the administration was on this. When did they last have testimony, formal or informal, from the administration? Where is the administration in this approval process?

Mr. Whitfield informed me that there had been no updates from the administration that they have requested for 6 months, so for all we know, the President might be ready to approve or not approve this project tomorrow, next week, next month--I don't know--but it seems like the two branches of government aren't talking to one another.

Normally, if Congress is interested in where a particular approval process is, we would hold hearings, and we would ask the relevant questions--what are the current sticking points, are there issues that are still pending--rather than bypass any legitimate issues that might still be there around the routing.

As many of you know, the routing has already been changed so as not to impact the Ogallala aquifer, and there could very well be other important issues that affect residents of the States through which the Keystone pipeline would pass.

Clearly, this project is a great favor to our friendly neighbors to the north, the great nation of Canada. The question that we need to figure out as a country is: Does it benefit America? Does it benefit Americans?

There are pros and cons. Obviously, if it goes in your neighborhood, it is not a particular benefit to you--or through your farm--and that was some of the issues that we heard from in the impact statements that are currently being reviewed by the administration.

There is a review process underway. We all wish that review process went faster. We all wish that NEPA would go faster. We all wish that a wide variety of review policies would go faster, but we don't know how that is going to be concluded, and I think it is important that, while they get through it as soon as possible, they are able to do so and take all factors into account.

If Congress wants to change the approval process for these kinds of projects, I think that is a legitimate discussion to have. If Congress determines it needs to reconfigure a review process for a project like this, maybe we would go into the statute and we alter the different agencies or we assign different responsibility or criteria.

That would be a relevant discussion to have, not bypassing something that Congress set up in statute. The President is doing what Congress told him to do in reviewing this process--not this Congress, but the underlying statute when it was passed.

Now, of course, there are a lot of issues around Keystone XL, and rather than interrupting the State Department's ongoing review process, Congress should allow all the relevant issues to be properly addressed around this issue.

I want to emphasize that the Republicans brought this tar sands bill forward just one day after China and the U.S. came to a landmark agreement to address climate change. Tar sands are a high-polluting fuel that, on a life-cycle basis, tar sands crude produces about 20 percent more carbon pollution than conventional crudes.

In addition, we have a study from Cornell University with regard to the effect of the XL pipeline on gasoline for American citizens, and top energy economists in this Cornell study said that if the XL pipeline is built, consumers in our country may end up paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gas as a result of tar sands being diverted.

That is millions of dollars a year out of the pockets of Americans and perhaps into the pockets of wherever all this oil is going. But, again, of what benefit to America is this project?

There is also the simple matter of how a bill becomes a law, okay, so we have a House bill, a Senate bill, and let's take a wild presumption, maybe both Chambers will pass this bill. What happens next? It goes to the President. The President can sign a bill or veto a bill.

Essentially, the President can sign a bill approving the Keystone pipeline, which is something that he can do now without this bill. He can approve the pipeline, and if Congress goes through all this deliberative effort at taxpayer expense, talk, and votes and all this stuff, the President still has a decision.

Now, again, obviously, if there are two-thirds in both Chambers, Congress can seize power on a particular issue and exert its own will, but that hasn't been the case on these Keystone pipeline votes, and I don't expect it to be the case on this one.

So it is just an exercise in senseless hot air being thrown around the Chamber where we can pass bills and the same situation prevails if it passes or not; namely, the President can decide whether they want this to go forward or not. If Congress wants to alter that approval process, let's look at the statutory rules around how projects are reviewed for future projects and see if we can reach a bipartisan consensus about that.

I wish that this had been an emergency piece of legislation. I wish that we were tackling a potential public health crisis. I wish that we were tackling terrorism. I wish we were tackling balancing the budget, and I wish we were tackling securing our borders. But we are not.

We are tackling something that isn't going anywhere and, even if passed, will give the President the same choice that he has today, much to do about nothing.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

So again, I was excited that perhaps the Rules Committee was going to consider emergency legislation on public health or Ebola or the war with ISIS or our budget. How about a deficit of half a trillion dollars, I call that an emergency. Instead, here we are dealing with a bill, something that Congress already passed that even if they passed again would make the decisionmaker exactly the same decisionmaker we have today, namely, the President of the United States.

Rather than considering the Keystone pipeline bill--and if we weren't going to deal with one of the real emergencies--why not at least bring up bills that create new green energy jobs in our innovation and energy sector like the bipartisan Public Lands Renewable Energy Act that I offered along with Representatives Gosar, Thompson, and Heck? The Public Lands Renewable Energy Act would expand renewable energy development and create jobs while protecting our Nation's public health and environmental resources. It would provide the framework for a competitive leasing system for wind and energy, solar energy, on public lands. The innovative leasing process would help move our Nation forward with clean energy development while providing funding for conservation, States, and localities. How about that? Let's use some of our great public lands that have good solar or wind characteristics for solar and wind. I think that would be a great bipartisan bill to bring up here today.

Another example of a bill that we could consider today that would create jobs and move to a renewable energy future is the Renewable Electricity Standard Act, H.R. 3654, which I co-introduced in order to boost renewable energy markets across the country. The bill would make sure that utilities generate 25 percent of their electricity from renewable energies like wind, solar, and biomass by 2025. It is a goal, and my great State of Colorado already has a 30 percent renewable energy standard. That legislation would build on the success of over 30 State-based renewable energy standards, including the standard in the great State of Colorado by creating a true national market for renewable energy. It would create jobs and save consumers money on utility bills, help keep gas cheap at the pump, and provide billions in local tax revenues for small towns while cutting carbon pollution. That, to me, sounds like a better idea than spending our time debating a bill that, even if passed, will leave the project that it is talking about in the same situation it is before the bill is discussed.

Instead, Republicans are moving forward on a bill that clings on to Big Oil interests and does nothing to make energy more affordable for American consumers, does nothing to move forward to a clean energy future, and does nothing at all because, even if it passes, it has to go to the President to sign, who is currently the person reviewing the applications as we speak.

The emergency Rules Committee meeting and closed rule today does not allow me to bring forward the Public Lands Renewable Energy Act as an amendment. It doesn't allow me to bring forward the Renewable Electricity Standard Act as an amendment. In fact, the closed rule today ensures that no Member, Republican or Democratic, of this great body can offer an amendment to improve this bill.

I strongly urge my colleagues to set the tone for the next Congress by rejecting this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Speaker, the other side here is arguing like somehow passing this bill would lead to this pipeline being built. That simply isn't the case. The current review process, the decision lies with the President and the Secretary of State. If this bill, in identical form, were to pass both Chambers, the President of the United States will have a choice--approve it or not approve it--the same choice he has now.

So in no way would this Republican bill that we are considering here today make a decision for the President. The President is elected by the people in the country. Congress itself gave the President the authority to review this bill. It only becomes law if he chooses to sign it.

I should point out that this bill exempts TransCanada from multiple environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act or the Endangered Species Act. If the President were to approve the Keystone project, it probably wouldn't even be by signing this bill. He would probably approve it without waiving those laws or perhaps different areas, or perhaps there are other issues that this body doesn't know about because Mr. Whitfield hasn't consulted the President on what the pending issues are in 6 months.

So again, as a Member of this body who is not on the committee of jurisdiction, I can't say that I have been briefed by the administration on what the pending issues are. Apparently, Mr. Whitfield hasn't either. So let's find out what they are and are there additional areas that have to be rerouted, are there precautions that have to be made because of the high temperature of the tar sands as they race across our country.

Approving this Keystone XL pipeline, which this bill, again, would not do--it would simply go to the President who could choose whether he wants to move forward or not, just as he can now--but it would simply benefit foreign oil interests. The real issue is where are the benefits for the American people--the health and safety of the American people, the integrity of agriculture-based economies in the areas that would be affected. Does Congress really want to give TransCanada special benefits and exemptions or should they be held to the same standard as other important energy projects?

We need to help America grow renewable energy to wean ourselves off of our reliance on fossil fuels. If Congress wants to weigh in on how large energy projects should be approved, by all means, let's do it. But, quite frankly, you don't do it by presenting a bill to the President which gives him the exact same options that he has today. It doesn't move the ball down the road one way or the other.

I share the desire that my colleagues have that hopefully the process is nearing its completion. Whether that is a week or a month or 6 months, I don't know. Apparently, the committee doesn't know either, because they haven't asked the Executive. But I do trust that they are taking the factors that Congress wrote into law into consideration and, hopefully, will come to the conclusion one way or the other regardless of whether this bill is passed or not.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

What we have here is Congress trying to interfere with a highly technical review process that has already resulted in the rerouting of the proposed pipeline to ensure that the integrity of the Ogallala aquifer is preserved and that there are potentially other important issues to Americans that live in the affected areas where the pipeline would be built. Instead of hearing what those issues are or talking to the administration about what pending issues remain or are standing in the way of approval, Congress is seeking to shortcut that process,

exempt the XL pipeline from the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act to immediately order it to be built regardless of the legitimate issues that should be waived.

When my colleague says, oh, somehow it is only 2 percent of the American people that oppose it, that is not the discussion we are having here today. It is not about who supports it or who opposes it. There needs to be the studies that are done to make sure that the routing of it maintains the health and safety of the American people, doesn't jeopardize the economy in the affected areas. Those are the issues that have already resulted in several changes of the plan and could result in additional changes to the plan of where and how the pipeline could be built. For Congress to somehow say we are just tired of dealing with the technical issues and we just want it done puts American lives at risk, puts America's health at risk.

We all wish that this process could have been completed 6 months ago, 3 months ago. We hope it is completed a month from now, 6 months from now. But giving the President the same choice he has today by passing this bill doesn't move the process forward. We should be taking advantage of our last few precious weeks before the end of the year to address some of the important pieces of legislation that the Senate has sent over, but somehow what we are debating, repealing the Affordable Care Act for the 53rd time or the Keystone pipeline again and again, somehow this body hasn't had time to even consider or debate or allow a vote on important pieces of legislation like the bipartisan immigration reform package that received more than two-thirds support in the United States Senate. There is a companion bill that is bipartisan that has been introduced in the House. There is a discharge petition at the desk for Members to sign to demand a simple up-or-down vote to fix our broken immigration system, secure our borders, reduce our budget deficit by over $200 billion.

There is a discussion of jobs with the Keystone project. Well, let me tell you, this bill on immigration reform that if this body allows a vote on would create over 250,000 jobs for American citizens.

Or how about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? The Senate has acted on a bill that would prevent an employer from firing somebody just because they are gay or lesbian. It shouldn't be any of your boss' business who you date or who you love after work. The Senate passed that. More than three-quarters of the American people support it. We filed a discharge petition on that bill. We would love to be acting on that bill here today instead of yet again shortcutting the process with regard to an oil project.

This Congress has been a frustrating Congress. Unfortunately, here in our final weeks, I hope we are not setting the tone for an equally ineffective and inefficient 114th Congress. The American people deserve better. It is time to move forward with the renewable energy agenda, with balancing our budget, with fixing our broken immigration system, with making college more affordable, rather than talking in circles about projects that are already under review and won't be any more or less under review if the bill passes because it requires the signature of the same President who is currently charged with making this decision under current law in statutes passed by the United States Congress. Let's not waste our limited time on bills that won't go anywhere and won't do anything.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform, to the floor of the House.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas yield for that purpose?

Mr. SESSIONS. I object.

Mr. POLIS. Well, unfortunately, yet again, we have been stymied in our efforts to address a critical issue facing the American people with a bill that would create over 250,000 jobs for American citizens, would secure our border, restore the rule of law, and unite American families. That is what the work of Congress should be; that is what the American people want Congress to do. If the 113th Congress can't do it, I sure hope that the President moves forward with the powers that have been granted to him by Congress and that the 114th Congress proves to be better than this Congress is in its waning days.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Source