Legislation News & Report (TM) 

TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)

Managing America: Energy

TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)

Week Ending July 29, 2011

H.R.1938 North American-Made Energy Security Act

The bill would direct the President to coordinate with relevant federal agencies regarding the construction and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline that would run from Alberta, Canada, through Nebraska and Oklahoma to the Gulf coast refineries. The President, under a program known as the President's National Interest Determination, can issue such permits after agency review and recommendations.

The purpose of the pipeline is to deliver petroleum from the Canadian oil sand fields into the US. Extracting oil from sand is an expensive effort but is sustained by the high price of oil over the past decade.

The bill aims to expedite an application by The Canadian pipeline company, TransCanada, in 2008. The bill holds that the application has taken an unusually long time and now seems to be hung up on an EPA environmental concern.

The bill weighs the assumed need for less Middle East Oil based on the conclusion that Canada touts 175 billion barrels of oil recoverable in Alberta.

Under the bill, the President would have up to 30 days after the final environmental impact statement or November 11, 2011, whichever comes first, to either grant or deny the Presidential Permit for the pipeline.

Sponsor:  Rep. Lee Terry (NE-2^nd)

Vote:

Motion to recommit.

Rejected the Sutton motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with amendments, by a recorded vote of 181 ayes to 248 noes, Roll No. 649.

Passed House by a recorded vote of 279 ayes to 147 noes with 1 voting ``present,'' Roll No. 650.

Cost to the taxpayers:

Pay-as-you-go requirements:

Cut-as-you-go requirements:   

Regulatory impact:  

Earmark Certification:  

Constitutional Authority: 

## All Rights Reserved. © 2011 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM)

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)

MORE INFORMATION

AMENDMENTS

Congress finds and declares the following:

(1) The United States currently imports more than half of the oil it consumes, often from countries hostile to United States interests or with political and economic instability that compromises supply security.

(2) While a significant portion of imports are derived from allies such as Canada and Mexico, the United States remains vulnerable to substantial supply disruptions created by geopolitical tumult in major producing nations.

(3) Strong increases in oil consumption in the developing world outpace growth in conventional oil supplies, bringing tight market conditions and higher oil prices in periods of global economic expansion or when supplies are threatened.

(4) The development and delivery of oil and gas from Canada to the United States is in the national interest of the United States in order to secure oil supplies to fill needs that are projected to otherwise be filled by increases in other foreign supplies, notably from the Middle East.

(5) Continued development of North American energy resources, including Canadian oil, increases domestic refiners' access to stable and reliable sources of crude and improves certainty of fuel supply for the Department of Defense, the largest consumer of petroleum in the United States.

(6) Canada and the United States have the world's largest two-way trading relationship. Therefore, for every United States dollar spent on products from Canada, including oil, 90 cents is returned to the United States economy. When the same metrics are applied to trading relationships with some other major sources of United States crude oil imports, returns are much lower.

(7) The principal choice for Canadian oil exporters is between moving increasing crude oil volumes to the United States or Asia, led by China. Increased Canadian oil exports to China will result in increased United States crude oil imports from other foreign sources, especially the Middle East.

(8) Increased Canadian crude oil imports into the United States correspondingly reduce the scale of `wealth transfers' to other more distant foreign sources resulting from the greater cost of importing crude oil from those sources.

(9) Not only are United States companies major investors in Canadian oil sands, but many United States businesses throughout the country benefit from supplying goods and services required for ongoing Canadian oil sands operations and expansion.

(10) There has been more than 2 years of consideration and a coordinated review by more than a dozen Federal agencies of the technical aspects and of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the proposed pipeline project known as the Keystone XL from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, and then on to the United States Gulf Coast through Cushing, Oklahoma.

(11) Keystone XL represents a high capacity pipeline supply option that could meet early as well as long-term market demand for crude oil to United States refineries, and could also potentially bring over 100,000 barrels per day of United States Bakken crudes to market.

(12) Completion of the Keystone XL pipeline would increase total Keystone pipeline capacity by 700,000 barrels per day to 1,290,000 barrels per day.

(13) The Keystone XL pipeline would provide short-term and long-term employment opportunities and related labor income benefits, as well as government revenues associated with sales and payroll taxes.

(14) The earliest possible construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will make the extensive proven and potential reserves of Canadian oil available for United States use and increase United States jobs and will therefore serve the national interest.

(15) Analysis using the Environmental Protection Agency models shows that the Keystone XL pipeline will result in no significant change in total United States or global greenhouse gas emissions.

(16) The Keystone XL pipeline would be state-of-the-art and have a degree of safety higher than any other typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system.

(17) Because of the extensive governmental studies already made with respect to the Keystone XL project and the national interest in early delivery of Canadian oil to United States markets, a decision with respect to a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline should be promptly issued without further administrative delay or impediment.

To Top

AMENDMENTS

Jackson Lee (TX) amendment (No. 10 printed in H. Rept. 112-181) that adds a sense of Congress that the United States must decrease its dependence on oil from countries that are hostile to the interests of the United States of America and that Canada has long been a strong trading partner and increasing access to their energy resources will create jobs in the United States.

Agreed by voice vote

Christensen amendment (No. 4 printed in H. Rept. 112-181) that sought to include a finding stating that the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement estimates that the Keystone XL pipeline would increase carbon pollution associated with United States fuel use by up to 23,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide;

Failed by voice vote

Welch amendment (No. 1 printed in H. Rept. 112-181) that sought to add language to the findings section that states that the Keystone XL pipeline would run through the Ogallala Aquifer and explain the risk involved with this route (by a recorded vote of 164 ayes to 260 noes, Roll No. 640);

Rush amendment (No. 2 printed in H. Rept. 112-181) that sought to strike paragraph 15 of the findings section (by a recorded vote of 164 ayes to 261 noes with 1 voting ``present,'' Roll No. 641);

Eshoo amendment (No. 3 printed in H. Rept. 112-181) that sought to include a finding stating D846the PHMSA Administrator testified at a Congressional hearing and stated that the PHMSA had not done a study analyzing the risks associated with transporting diluted bitumen; also require PHMSA to complete a review of the risks associated with transporting diluted bitumen, and whether current pipeline regulations are sufficient (by a recorded vote of 163 ayes to 264 noes, Roll No. 642);

Cohen amendment (No. 5 printed in H. Rept. 112-181) that sought to strike finding 16 and replace it with language that outlines TransCanada's recent pipeline safety issues with the Keystone pipeline (by a recorded vote of 155 ayes to 272 noes, Roll No. 643);

Murphy (CT) amendment (No. 6 printed in H. Rept. 112-181) that sought to add findings language noting that construction of the pipeline would permit a new source of oil exports to China and other nations (by a recorded vote of 152 ayes to 275 noes, Roll No. 644);

Rush amendment (No. 7 printed in H. Rept. 112-181) that sought to extend the deadline for permit decision to 120 days after final environmental impact statement or until January 1, 2012 (by a recorded vote of 161 ayes to 265 noes, Roll No. 645);

Hanabusa amendment (No. 8 printed in H. Rept. 112-181) that sought to require that a Presidential Permit approving the construction and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline will not be issued unless the Secretary of Energy in consultation with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), certify that the applicant has calculated a worst-case oil spill scenario for the proposed pipeline; and has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary and the PHMSA that the applicant possesses the capability and technology to respond immediately and effectively to such a worst case scenario (by a recorded vote of 168 ayes to 260 noes, Roll No. 646);

Johnson (GA) amendment (No. 9 printed in H. Rept. 112-181) that sought to require a study on the health impacts of increased air pollution in communities surrounding the refineries that will transport diluted bitumen through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (by a recorded vote of 163 ayes to 263 noes, Roll No. 647);

Kucinich amendment (No. 11 printed in H. Rept. 112-181) that sought to require an analysis of the effect of the proposed pipeline on manipulation of oil markets and increased gas prices for American consumers (by a recorded vote of 164 ayes to 261 noes, Roll No. 648).

To Top

All Rights Reserved. © 2011 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM)

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)