2015: Schweikert Voted For Approving The Keystone XL Pipeline As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. According to the Republican Study Committee, "This budget approves the Keystone XL pipeline." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Immediately Authorizing Construction, Operating and Maintenance Of The Keystone XL Pipeline, Encourages Energy-Efficient Practices In Commercial Real-Estate Buildings And States That Climate Change Is Real. In February 2015, Schweikert voted for to immediately authorizing constructing the Keystone XL pipeline. According to Congressional Quarterly, "this bill immediately authorizes the construction, operation and maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline --- including the pipeline itself and cross-border facilities as described in TransCanada's 2012 application, and any revisions to the pipeline route within Nebraska as required or authorized by the state. Under the measure, the January 2014 environmental impact statement issued by the State Department would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act. It grants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction regarding legal disputes over the pipeline or the constitutionality of this bill. [...] [T]he measure also includes provisions to encourage energy-efficient practices in commercial real estate buildings, to help local schools finance and conduct projects to make them more energy-efficient and to allow certain large 'grid enabled' electric water heaters to continue to be used in certain rural areas. It also includes provisions expressing the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and that Canadian oil transported through the Keystone pipeline should be subject to the federal oil spill liability excise tax." The vote was on passage. The bill passed the House by a vote of 270 to 152. The Senate earlier passed the bill. President Obama vetoed the legislation and the Senate failed to override his veto. [House Vote 75, 2/11/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 10/1/15; Congressional Quarterly, 2/6/15; The Hill, 2/24/15; Congressional Actions, S. 1]
Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Would Carry Crude Oil From Canadian Oil Sands, North Dakota And Montana To Nebraska Market And Gulf Coast Refineries. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Pipeline Required Presidential Approval, Including Environmental Review, Because It Would Cross U.S.-Canada Border. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Because the pipeline would cross an international border, construction requires a presidential permit and would be subject to applicable state laws and permitting requirements. To issue a presidential permit, the State Department, after consulting with other federal agencies and providing opportunities for public comment, must determine that the project would serve the national interest. Because the Keystone XL project would constitute a major federal action with a potentially significant environmental impact, it is also subject to environmental impact statement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Bill Declared That January 2014 Environmental Impact Statement Satisfied Any Federal Environmental Review. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "Deems the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement regarding the pipeline issued by the Secretary of State in January 2014 to fully satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and any law that reqires federal agency consultation or review, including the Endangered Species Act of 1973." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/14]
Bill Required All Legal Challenges Involving Federal Action On Pipeline To U.S. Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "Restricts any legal challenges regarding a federal agency action and such facilities to judicial review on direct appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/14]
2011: Decision On 2008 Pipeline Permit Application Delayed By Environmental Concerns Because Proposed Route Crossed Nebraska's Sand Hills. According to Congressional Quarterly, "TransCanada first applied to the State Department in 2008 for a permit to build the pipeline. During review of the project's environmental impact statement in 2011, concerns were raised regarding the routing of the pipeline through the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska. Consequently, the department in November 2011 announced that it needed to conduct an assessment of alternative routes that avoid the Sand Hills, and TransCanada and the Nebraska state government agreed to identify an alternative route." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
December 2011: At Behest Of Republicans, The 2011 Payroll Tax Extension Law Required Decision On Permit Within 60 Days; President Obama Then Decided To Deny The Permit, Citing Lack Of Time. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Arguing that the pipeline would create jobs, however, congressional Republicans included provisions in the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (PL 112-78) that required the administration to issue a permit for the project within 60 days unless the president publicly determined that the project was not in the national interest. The next month, in January 2012, the State Department with the president's consent denied the Keystone XL permit, citing insufficient time to assess a reconfigured project." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
May 2012: TransCanada Submitted Revised Proposal For Northern Part Of Pipeline That Avoided Sand Hills, Which Nebraska Approved. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In May 2012, TransCanada submitted a new application to the State Department for a reconfigured project running from the Canadian border to the market hub in Steele City, Neb., with route options further east in Nebraska that avoided the Sand Hills region. TransCanada later submitted to Nebraska its preferred option among those routes, which the governor of Nebraska approved in January 2013." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
2013: EPA Challenged State Department Environmental Review Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Oil Spill Response Requirements And Pipeline's Traverse Of Massive Ogallala Aquifer; President Obama Must Resolve Such Challenges. According to Congressional Quarterly, "On March 1, 2013, the State Department issued a revised environmental impact statement for the modified proposal and opened up a public comment period, during which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) objected to State's environmental review. Among its objections, EPA recommended that the department reassess the amount of additional greenhouse gas that would be emitted by further development of Canada's oil sands because of the pipeline and specify how TransCanada would be required to respond in the event of an oil spill. EPA also recommended that State look at relocating the pipeline so it does not cross over the Ogallala aquifer; the aquifer, which runs roughly north to south from South Dakota to Texas and New Mexico, is one of the largest freshwater aquifer systems in the world. As long as EPA continues to challenge the State Department's environmental review, State cannot issue a ruling on its own as to whether the revised Keystone XL project serves the national interest. Under current law, when another agency challenges such a national interest determination, the decision to make that determination (and effectively approve or reject the proposal) becomes the president's to make." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
January 2014: State Department Released Report Concluding That Keystone XL Pipeline Would Not Increase Carbon Pollution, Oil From Alberta Tar Sands Would Be Extracted Anyway. According to the New York Times, "The State Department released a report on Friday concluding that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution, leaving an opening for President Obama to approve the politically divisive project. [...]The new State Department report concludes that the process used for producing the oil --- by extracting what are called tar sands or oil sands from the Alberta forest --- creates about 17 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional oil. But the report concludes that this heavily polluting oil will still be brought to market. Energy companies are already moving the oil out of Canada by rail. [...] The new State Department analysis took into account the growing global demand for oil and the rapidly growing practice of moving oil by rail in areas where pipelines have not been built. 'Given the anticipated outlook of oil prices and the cost of development, no single project will likely affect the rate of extraction,' said a senior State Department official, who asked not to be named under the ground rules imposed by the department."]
Pipeline Supporters Argue Pipeline Would Reduce U.S. Dependence On Oil From OPEC, Create 20,000 Jobs Directly, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs Indirectly, And Would Not Affect The Environment Significantly. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Proponents of the bill argue that the pipeline, which would increase the amount of crude oil the U.S. receives from Canada, would advance the security and diversity of the United States' petroleum supply and benefit the U.S. economically. They say increasing the flow of oil from Canada will reduce U.S. reliance on energy imports from OPEC nations and immediately make the U.S. less vulnerable to political and security-related disruptions in the Middle East and Venezuela. And the pipeline would produce significant economic benefits, they claim, creating 20,000 jobs directly and hundreds of thousands of jobs indirectly, both in building the pipeline and in the refining of crude oil, which is why many labor unions support the pipeline. Proponents also say building the pipeline will not have a significant environmental impact, contending that Canada will develop and sell oil from the Alberta fields regardless of whether the pipeline is built. In fact, they say, blocking construction of the pipeline would force the oil to be transported by ships and trains, which could produce greater levels of greenhouse gases and be more susceptible to accidents and oil spills. They say pipeline transport is much safer and note that TransCanada says it will construct one of the safest pipelines ever built, including such features as 24-hour monitoring of the pipeline and the ability to shut off any section of the line within 15 minutes of detecting a problem. The company also proposes to bury the pipe more deeply than is common." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Pipeline Opponents Argue Tar Sands Oil Will Increase U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, The Proposed Route Will Risk Eight States' Fresh Water Supply With A Devastating Oil Spill, Yet The Economic Benefits Will Not Be Significant. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents highlight environmental concerns regarding oil sands and the pipeline, and they argue that it won't provide any meaningful economic benefit to the United States. They say building the pipeline will promote further development of the Alberta oil sands, which will dramatically increase the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the production of tar sands oil generates three times more carbon emissions than the production of conventional oil. [...] Opponents also argue that the proposed route for the pipeline carries its own high risks. Although the revised route avoids the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, they note, it still crosses over the critical Ogallala aquifer, which provides fresh water for eight states, and they say the type of oil to be transported by the pipeline is particularly threatening. Specifically, the crude extracted from the Alberta oil sands is a heavy, black, viscous oil that is expected to be blended with other toxic hydrocarbons for pipeline transport and which sinks in water. Pointing to recent pipeline spills of a similar crude, in Michigan in 2010 and in Arkansas this year, opponents say a spill into the Ogallala aquifer could be environmentally and economically devastating to local communities and nearly impossible to clean up." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 114th Congress Scorecard]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Approve Construction Of The Keystone XL Pipeline. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, allow TransCanada to construct, connect, operate and maintain the pipeline and cross-border facilities known as the Keystone XL pipeline, including any revision to the pipeline route within Nebraska as required or authorized by the state. It also would consider the January 2014 environmental impact statement issued by the State Department sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. It also would grant the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction regarding legal disputes over the pipeline or the constitutionality of the bill." The House passed the bill by a vote of 266 to 153; the bill was then sent to the Senate, which took no substantive action on it. [House Vote 16, 1/9/15; Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/14; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 9/30/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3]
Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Would Carry Crude Oil From Canadian Oil Sands, North Dakota And Montana To Nebraska Market And Gulf Coast Refineries. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Pipeline Required Presidential Approval, Including Environmental Review, Because It Would Cross U.S.-Canada Border. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Because the pipeline would cross an international border, construction requires a presidential permit and would be subject to applicable state laws and permitting requirements. To issue a presidential permit, the State Department, after consulting with other federal agencies and providing opportunities for public comment, must determine that the project would serve the national interest. Because the Keystone XL project would constitute a major federal action with a potentially significant environmental impact, it is also subject to environmental impact statement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Bill Declared That January 2014 Environmental Impact Statement Satisfied Any Federal Environmental Review. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "Deems the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement regarding the pipeline issued by the Secretary of State in January 2014 to fully satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and any law that reqires federal agency consultation or review, including the Endangered Species Act of 1973." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/14]
Bill Required All Legal Challenges Involving Federal Action On Pipeline To U.S. Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "Restricts any legal challenges regarding a federal agency action and such facilities to judicial review on direct appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/14]
2011: Decision On 2008 Pipeline Permit Application Delayed By Environmental Concerns Because Proposed Route Crossed Nebraska's Sand Hills. According to Congressional Quarterly, "TransCanada first applied to the State Department in 2008 for a permit to build the pipeline. During review of the project's environmental impact statement in 2011, concerns were raised regarding the routing of the pipeline through the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska. Consequently, the department in November 2011 announced that it needed to conduct an assessment of alternative routes that avoid the Sand Hills, and TransCanada and the Nebraska state government agreed to identify an alternative route." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
December 2011: At Behest Of Republicans, The 2011 Payroll Tax Extension Law Required Decision On Permit Within 60 Days; President Obama Then Decided To Deny The Permit, Citing Lack Of Time. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Arguing that the pipeline would create jobs, however, congressional Republicans included provisions in the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (PL 112-78) that required the administration to issue a permit for the project within 60 days unless the president publicly determined that the project was not in the national interest. The next month, in January 2012, the State Department with the president's consent denied the Keystone XL permit, citing insufficient time to assess a reconfigured project." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
May 2012: TransCanada Submitted Revised Proposal For Northern Part Of Pipeline That Avoided Sand Hills, Which Nebraska Approved. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In May 2012, TransCanada submitted a new application to the State Department for a reconfigured project running from the Canadian border to the market hub in Steele City, Neb., with route options further east in Nebraska that avoided the Sand Hills region. TransCanada later submitted to Nebraska its preferred option among those routes, which the governor of Nebraska approved in January 2013." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
2013: EPA Challenged State Department Environmental Review Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Oil Spill Response Requirements And Pipeline's Traverse Of Massive Ogallala Aquifer; President Obama Must Resolve Such Challenges. According to Congressional Quarterly, "On March 1, 2013, the State Department issued a revised environmental impact statement for the modified proposal and opened up a public comment period, during which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) objected to State's environmental review. Among its objections, EPA recommended that the department reassess the amount of additional greenhouse gas that would be emitted by further development of Canada's oil sands because of the pipeline and specify how TransCanada would be required to respond in the event of an oil spill. EPA also recommended that State look at relocating the pipeline so it does not cross over the Ogallala aquifer; the aquifer, which runs roughly north to south from South Dakota to Texas and New Mexico, is one of the largest freshwater aquifer systems in the world. As long as EPA continues to challenge the State Department's environmental review, State cannot issue a ruling on its own as to whether the revised Keystone XL project serves the national interest. Under current law, when another agency challenges such a national interest determination, the decision to make that determination (and effectively approve or reject the proposal) becomes the president's to make." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
January 2014: State Department Released Report Concluding That Keystone XL Pipeline Would Not Increase Carbon Pollution, Oil From Alberta Tar Sands Would Be Extracted Anyway. According to the New York Times, "The State Department released a report on Friday concluding that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution, leaving an opening for President Obama to approve the politically divisive project. [...]The new State Department report concludes that the process used for producing the oil --- by extracting what are called tar sands or oil sands from the Alberta forest --- creates about 17 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional oil. But the report concludes that this heavily polluting oil will still be brought to market. Energy companies are already moving the oil out of Canada by rail. [...] The new State Department analysis took into account the growing global demand for oil and the rapidly growing practice of moving oil by rail in areas where pipelines have not been built. 'Given the anticipated outlook of oil prices and the cost of development, no single project will likely affect the rate of extraction,' said a senior State Department official, who asked not to be named under the ground rules imposed by the department."]
Pipeline Supporters Argue Pipeline Would Reduce U.S. Dependence On Oil From OPEC, Create 20,000 Jobs Directly, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs Indirectly, And Would Not Affect The Environment Significantly. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Proponents of the bill argue that the pipeline, which would increase the amount of crude oil the U.S. receives from Canada, would advance the security and diversity of the United States' petroleum supply and benefit the U.S. economically. They say increasing the flow of oil from Canada will reduce U.S. reliance on energy imports from OPEC nations and immediately make the U.S. less vulnerable to political and security-related disruptions in the Middle East and Venezuela. And the pipeline would produce significant economic benefits, they claim, creating 20,000 jobs directly and hundreds of thousands of jobs indirectly, both in building the pipeline and in the refining of crude oil, which is why many labor unions support the pipeline. Proponents also say building the pipeline will not have a significant environmental impact, contending that Canada will develop and sell oil from the Alberta fields regardless of whether the pipeline is built. In fact, they say, blocking construction of the pipeline would force the oil to be transported by ships and trains, which could produce greater levels of greenhouse gases and be more susceptible to accidents and oil spills. They say pipeline transport is much safer and note that TransCanada says it will construct one of the safest pipelines ever built, including such features as 24-hour monitoring of the pipeline and the ability to shut off any section of the line within 15 minutes of detecting a problem. The company also proposes to bury the pipe more deeply than is common." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Pipeline Opponents Argue Tar Sands Oil Will Increase U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, The Proposed Route Will Risk Eight States' Fresh Water Supply With A Devastating Oil Spill, Yet The Economic Benefits Will Not Be Significant. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents highlight environmental concerns regarding oil sands and the pipeline, and they argue that it won't provide any meaningful economic benefit to the United States. They say building the pipeline will promote further development of the Alberta oil sands, which will dramatically increase the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the production of tar sands oil generates three times more carbon emissions than the production of conventional oil. [...] Opponents also argue that the proposed route for the pipeline carries its own high risks. Although the revised route avoids the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, they note, it still crosses over the critical Ogallala aquifer, which provides fresh water for eight states, and they say the type of oil to be transported by the pipeline is particularly threatening. Specifically, the crude extracted from the Alberta oil sands is a heavy, black, viscous oil that is expected to be blended with other toxic hydrocarbons for pipeline transport and which sinks in water. Pointing to recent pipeline spills of a similar crude, in Michigan in 2010 and in Arkansas this year, opponents say a spill into the Ogallala aquifer could be environmentally and economically devastating to local communities and nearly impossible to clean up." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Approve Construction Of The Keystone XL Pipeline. In November 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "Authorizes TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. to construct, connect, operate, and maintain the pipeline and cross-border facilities specified in an application filed by TransCanada Corporation to the Department of State on May 4, 2012." The House passed the bill by a vote of 252 to 161; the bill was then sent to the Senate, which did not taken any substantive action on it. [House Vote 519, 11/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5682]
Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Would Carry Crude Oil From Canadian Oil Sands, North Dakota And Montana To Nebraska Market And Gulf Coast Refineries. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Pipeline Required Presidential Approval, Including Environmental Review, Because It Would Cross U.S.-Canada Border. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Because the pipeline would cross an international border, construction requires a presidential permit and would be subject to applicable state laws and permitting requirements. To issue a presidential permit, the State Department, after consulting with other federal agencies and providing opportunities for public comment, must determine that the project would serve the national interest. Because the Keystone XL project would constitute a major federal action with a potentially significant environmental impact, it is also subject to environmental impact statement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Bill Declared That January 2014 Environmental Impact Statement Satisfied Any Federal Environmental Review. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "Deems the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement regarding the pipeline issued by the Secretary of State in January 2014 to fully satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and any law that reqires federal agency consultation or review, including the Endangered Species Act of 1973." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/14]
Bill Required All Legal Challenges Involving Federal Action On Pipeline To U.S. Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "Restricts any legal challenges regarding a federal agency action and such facilities to judicial review on direct appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/14]
2011: Decision On 2008 Pipeline Permit Application Delayed By Environmental Concerns Because Proposed Route Crossed Nebraska's Sand Hills. According to Congressional Quarterly, "TransCanada first applied to the State Department in 2008 for a permit to build the pipeline. During review of the project's environmental impact statement in 2011, concerns were raised regarding the routing of the pipeline through the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska. Consequently, the department in November 2011 announced that it needed to conduct an assessment of alternative routes that avoid the Sand Hills, and TransCanada and the Nebraska state government agreed to identify an alternative route." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
December 2011: At Behest Of Republicans, The 2011 Payroll Tax Extension Law Required Decision On Permit Within 60 Days; President Obama Then Decided To Deny The Permit, Citing Lack Of Time. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Arguing that the pipeline would create jobs, however, congressional Republicans included provisions in the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (PL 112-78) that required the administration to issue a permit for the project within 60 days unless the president publicly determined that the project was not in the national interest. The next month, in January 2012, the State Department with the president's consent denied the Keystone XL permit, citing insufficient time to assess a reconfigured project." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
May 2012: TransCanada Submitted Revised Proposal For Northern Part Of Pipeline That Avoided Sand Hills, Which Nebraska Approved. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In May 2012, TransCanada submitted a new application to the State Department for a reconfigured project running from the Canadian border to the market hub in Steele City, Neb., with route options further east in Nebraska that avoided the Sand Hills region. TransCanada later submitted to Nebraska its preferred option among those routes, which the governor of Nebraska approved in January 2013." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
2013: EPA Challenged State Department Environmental Review Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Oil Spill Response Requirements And Pipeline's Traverse Of Massive Ogallala Aquifer; President Obama Must Resolve Such Challenges. According to Congressional Quarterly, "On March 1, 2013, the State Department issued a revised environmental impact statement for the modified proposal and opened up a public comment period, during which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) objected to State's environmental review. Among its objections, EPA recommended that the department reassess the amount of additional greenhouse gas that would be emitted by further development of Canada's oil sands because of the pipeline and specify how TransCanada would be required to respond in the event of an oil spill. EPA also recommended that State look at relocating the pipeline so it does not cross over the Ogallala aquifer; the aquifer, which runs roughly north to south from South Dakota to Texas and New Mexico, is one of the largest freshwater aquifer systems in the world. As long as EPA continues to challenge the State Department's environmental review, State cannot issue a ruling on its own as to whether the revised Keystone XL project serves the national interest. Under current law, when another agency challenges such a national interest determination, the decision to make that determination (and effectively approve or reject the proposal) becomes the president's to make." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
January 2014: State Department Released Report Concluding That Keystone XL Pipeline Would Not Increase Carbon Pollution, Oil From Alberta Tar Sands Would Be Extracted Anyway. According to the New York Times, "The State Department released a report on Friday concluding that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution, leaving an opening for President Obama to approve the politically divisive project. [...]The new State Department report concludes that the process used for producing the oil --- by extracting what are called tar sands or oil sands from the Alberta forest --- creates about 17 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional oil. But the report concludes that this heavily polluting oil will still be brought to market. Energy companies are already moving the oil out of Canada by rail. [...] The new State Department analysis took into account the growing global demand for oil and the rapidly growing practice of moving oil by rail in areas where pipelines have not been built. 'Given the anticipated outlook of oil prices and the cost of development, no single project will likely affect the rate of extraction,' said a senior State Department official, who asked not to be named under the ground rules imposed by the department."]
Pipeline Supporters Argue Pipeline Would Reduce U.S. Dependence On Oil From OPEC, Create 20,000 Jobs Directly, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs Indirectly, And Would Not Affect The Environment Significantly. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Proponents of the bill argue that the pipeline, which would increase the amount of crude oil the U.S. receives from Canada, would advance the security and diversity of the United States' petroleum supply and benefit the U.S. economically. They say increasing the flow of oil from Canada will reduce U.S. reliance on energy imports from OPEC nations and immediately make the U.S. less vulnerable to political and security-related disruptions in the Middle East and Venezuela. And the pipeline would produce significant economic benefits, they claim, creating 20,000 jobs directly and hundreds of thousands of jobs indirectly, both in building the pipeline and in the refining of crude oil, which is why many labor unions support the pipeline. Proponents also say building the pipeline will not have a significant environmental impact, contending that Canada will develop and sell oil from the Alberta fields regardless of whether the pipeline is built. In fact, they say, blocking construction of the pipeline would force the oil to be transported by ships and trains, which could produce greater levels of greenhouse gases and be more susceptible to accidents and oil spills. They say pipeline transport is much safer and note that TransCanada says it will construct one of the safest pipelines ever built, including such features as 24-hour monitoring of the pipeline and the ability to shut off any section of the line within 15 minutes of detecting a problem. The company also proposes to bury the pipe more deeply than is common." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Pipeline Opponents Argue Tar Sands Oil Will Increase U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, The Proposed Route Will Risk Eight States' Fresh Water Supply With A Devastating Oil Spill, Yet The Economic Benefits Will Not Be Significant. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents highlight environmental concerns regarding oil sands and the pipeline, and they argue that it won't provide any meaningful economic benefit to the United States. They say building the pipeline will promote further development of the Alberta oil sands, which will dramatically increase the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the production of tar sands oil generates three times more carbon emissions than the production of conventional oil. [...] Opponents also argue that the proposed route for the pipeline carries its own high risks. Although the revised route avoids the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, they note, it still crosses over the critical Ogallala aquifer, which provides fresh water for eight states, and they say the type of oil to be transported by the pipeline is particularly threatening. Specifically, the crude extracted from the Alberta oil sands is a heavy, black, viscous oil that is expected to be blended with other toxic hydrocarbons for pipeline transport and which sinks in water. Pointing to recent pipeline spills of a similar crude, in Michigan in 2010 and in Arkansas this year, opponents say a spill into the Ogallala aquifer could be environmentally and economically devastating to local communities and nearly impossible to clean up." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Approve Construction Of The Keystone XL Pipeline's Northern Portion. In May 2013, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "declares that a presidential permit is not required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from the Canadian border through Nebraska as described in the [pipeline's 2012] revised proposal --- which would allow that project to proceed. Under the measure, environmental impact statements issued to date would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Interior Department and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are deemed to have granted all the necessary permits for the pipeline to proceed (including permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act). [...] The bill also declares that the pipeline does not jeopardize the American burying beetle, an endangered species." The House passed the bill by a vote of 241 to 175; the bill was then sent to the Senate, which did not take any substantive action on it. [House Vote 179, 5/22/13; Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3]
Bill Required All Legal Challenges Involving The Pipeline Or Challenging The Bill Be Filed In The Federal Appeals Court In Washington, D.C. Within 60 Days Of Triggering Event. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Exclusive jurisdiction regarding legal disputes over the pipeline or the constitutionality of this bill would be granted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, unless the Supreme Court is involved by means of a legal process known as writ of certiorari. Claims regarding the pipeline must be brought within 60 days of the action that gives rise to the claim." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Would Carry Crude Oil From Canadian Oil Sands, North Dakota And Montana To Nebraska Market And Gulf Coast Refineries. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Pipeline Required Presidential Approval, Including Environmental Review, Because It Would Cross U.S.-Canada Border. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Because the pipeline would cross an international border, construction requires a presidential permit and would be subject to applicable state laws and permitting requirements. To issue a presidential permit, the State Department, after consulting with other federal agencies and providing opportunities for public comment, must determine that the project would serve the national interest. Because the Keystone XL project would constitute a major federal action with a potentially significant environmental impact, it is also subject to environmental impact statement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
2011: Decision On 2008 Pipeline Permit Application Delayed By Environmental Concerns Because Proposed Route Crossed Nebraska's Sand Hills. According to Congressional Quarterly, "TransCanada first applied to the State Department in 2008 for a permit to build the pipeline. During review of the project's environmental impact statement in 2011, concerns were raised regarding the routing of the pipeline through the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska. Consequently, the department in November 2011 announced that it needed to conduct an assessment of alternative routes that avoid the Sand Hills, and TransCanada and the Nebraska state government agreed to identify an alternative route." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
December 2011: At Behest Of Republicans, The 2011 Payroll Tax Extension Law Required Decision On Permit Within 60 Days; President Obama Then Decided To Deny The Permit, Citing Lack Of Time. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Arguing that the pipeline would create jobs, however, congressional Republicans included provisions in the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (PL 112-78) that required the administration to issue a permit for the project within 60 days unless the president publicly determined that the project was not in the national interest. The next month, in January 2012, the State Department with the president's consent denied the Keystone XL permit, citing insufficient time to assess a reconfigured project." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
May 2012: TransCanada Submitted Revised Proposal For Northern Part Of Pipeline That Avoided Sand Hills, Which Nebraska Approved. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In May 2012, TransCanada submitted a new application to the State Department for a reconfigured project running from the Canadian border to the market hub in Steele City, Neb., with route options further east in Nebraska that avoided the Sand Hills region. TransCanada later submitted to Nebraska its preferred option among those routes, which the governor of Nebraska approved in January 2013." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
2013: EPA Challenged State Department Environmental Review Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Oil Spill Response Requirements And Pipeline's Traverse Of Massive Ogallala Aquifer; President Obama Must Resolve Such Challenges. According to Congressional Quarterly, "On March 1, 2013, the State Department issued a revised environmental impact statement for the modified proposal and opened up a public comment period, during which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) objected to State's environmental review. Among its objections, EPA recommended that the department reassess the amount of additional greenhouse gas that would be emitted by further development of Canada's oil sands because of the pipeline and specify how TransCanada would be required to respond in the event of an oil spill. EPA also recommended that State look at relocating the pipeline so it does not cross over the Ogallala aquifer; the aquifer, which runs roughly north to south from South Dakota to Texas and New Mexico, is one of the largest freshwater aquifer systems in the world. As long as EPA continues to challenge the State Department's environmental review, State cannot issue a ruling on its own as to whether the revised Keystone XL project serves the national interest. Under current law, when another agency challenges such a national interest determination, the decision to make that determination (and effectively approve or reject the proposal) becomes the president's to make." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Pipeline Supporters Argue Pipeline Would Reduce U.S. Dependence On Oil From OPEC, Create 20,000 Jobs Directly, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs Indirectly, And Would Not Affect The Environment Significantly. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Proponents of the bill argue that the pipeline, which would increase the amount of crude oil the U.S. receives from Canada, would advance the security and diversity of the United States' petroleum supply and benefit the U.S. economically. They say increasing the flow of oil from Canada will reduce U.S. reliance on energy imports from OPEC nations and immediately make the U.S. less vulnerable to political and security-related disruptions in the Middle East and Venezuela. And the pipeline would produce significant economic benefits, they claim, creating 20,000 jobs directly and hundreds of thousands of jobs indirectly, both in building the pipeline and in the refining of crude oil, which is why many labor unions support the pipeline. Proponents also say building the pipeline will not have a significant environmental impact, contending that Canada will develop and sell oil from the Alberta fields regardless of whether the pipeline is built. In fact, they say, blocking construction of the pipeline would force the oil to be transported by ships and trains, which could produce greater levels of greenhouse gases and be more susceptible to accidents and oil spills. They say pipeline transport is much safer and note that TransCanada says it will construct one of the safest pipelines ever built, including such features as 24-hour monitoring of the pipeline and the ability to shut off any section of the line within 15 minutes of detecting a problem. The company also proposes to bury the pipe more deeply than is common." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Pipeline Opponents Argue Tar Sands Oil Will Increase U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, The Proposed Route Will Risk Eight States' Fresh Water Supply With A Devastating Oil Spill, Yet The Economic Benefits Will Not Be Significant. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents highlight environmental concerns regarding oil sands and the pipeline, and they argue that it won't provide any meaningful economic benefit to the United States. They say building the pipeline will promote further development of the Alberta oil sands, which will dramatically increase the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the production of tar sands oil generates three times more carbon emissions than the production of conventional oil. [...] Opponents also argue that the proposed route for the pipeline carries its own high risks. Although the revised route avoids the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, they note, it still crosses over the critical Ogallala aquifer, which provides fresh water for eight states, and they say the type of oil to be transported by the pipeline is particularly threatening. Specifically, the crude extracted from the Alberta oil sands is a heavy, black, viscous oil that is expected to be blended with other toxic hydrocarbons for pipeline transport and which sinks in water. Pointing to recent pipeline spills of a similar crude, in Michigan in 2010 and in Arkansas this year, opponents say a spill into the Ogallala aquifer could be environmentally and economically devastating to local communities and nearly impossible to clean up." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Delaying The Keystone XL Pipeline's Approval Until Pipeline Operators Demonstrate They Will Offset Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Oil Sands During May 2013 consideration of a bill that would have effectively approved the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Schweikert voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] add[ed] to the findings in Section 2 of the bill statements that reliance on oil sands crudes for transportation fuels would likely result in an increase in incremental greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. It would also provide that the bill will not take effect unless the president finds that TransCanada or tar sands producers will fully offset the additional greenhouse gas emissions." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 146 to 269. [House Vote 170, 5/22/13; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 67; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3]
Underlying Bill -- The Northern Route Approval Act -- Would Have Effectively Approved The Keystone XL Pipeline's Northern Portion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill declares that a presidential permit is not required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from the Canadian border through Nebraska as described in the revised proposal --- which would allow that project to proceed. Under the measure, environmental impact statements issued to date would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Interior Department and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are deemed to have granted all the necessary permits for the pipeline to proceed (including permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act). [...] The bill also declares that the pipeline does not jeopardize the American burying beetle, an endangered species." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Would Carry Crude Oil From Canadian Oil Sands, North Dakota And Montana To Nebraska Market And Gulf Coast Refineries. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
EPA Objected To State Department's Environmental Assessment Of Pipeline Project, In Part, Because It Wanted Reassessment Of Greenhouse Gas Emission Increase Due To Higher Use Of Tar Sands Made Possible By Pipeline. According to Congressional Quarterly, "On March 1, 2013, the State Department issued a revised environmental impact statement for the modified proposal and opened up a public comment period, during which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) objected to State's environmental review. Among its objections, EPA recommended that the department reassess the amount of additional greenhouse gas that would be emitted by further development of Canada's oil sands because of the pipeline and specify how TransCanada would be required to respond in the event of an oil spill. [...] As long as EPA continues to challenge the State Department's environmental review, State cannot issue a ruling on its own as to whether the revised Keystone XL project serves the national interest. Under current law, when another agency challenges such a national interest determination, the decision to make that determination (and effectively approve or reject the proposal) becomes the president's to make." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Amendment's Sponsor Argued That Net U.S. Carbon Emissions Would Increase Because U.S. Would Use More Tar Sands Oil Because Of Pipeline, And Transforming Tar Sands Into Usable Oil Requires Large Amount Of Energy. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the sponsor of the amendment, said, "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." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
Amendment's Opponents Argued Keystone XL Would Not Affect U.S. Carbon Footprint Because Tar Sands Oil Imported Via Pipeline Is Similar To Heavy Crude Oil That The U.S. Already Imports From Elsewhere.. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) said, "There are two realities here. Number one is that on the process of obtaining the bitumen, the crude that comes and will be put into the pipeline, that process is becoming more efficient all the time and decreasing its carbon footprint. But what's produced is equal to a heavy crude. That's what the State Department, under the appropriate rules, stated or concluded, based on the environmental impact studies. It is, in essence, equal to what we're importing from Venezuela today. In essence, it's neutral. That's the State Department's own conclusions and analysis--that it would have no real impact on climate change. So the study has been completed and this amendment is not necessary. It's just another way to keep delaying." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Call For The Approval Of The Keystone XL Pipeline. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The RSC budget calls for the approval of the Keystone Pipeline, which instantly creates jobs and aids in reducing our dependency on unstable regimes in hostile regions in the world." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
President Obama Rejected The First Application For The Keystone XL Pipeline. According to the New York Times, "In January, President Obama rejected the company's previous application to build the full pipeline, saying a Congressional mandate that he decide on the project by mid-February did not allow adequate time to complete environmental reviews." [The New York Times, 2/27/12]
The Keystone XL Pipeline Was Designed To Export 1.1 Million Barrels Of Canadian Crude Oil Per Day. According to The New York Times, "A much longer pipeline to Texas, called Keystone XL, is still under federal review. If fully developed as proposed, the system would allow Canada to export an additional 1.1 million barrels of oil a day." [The New York Times, 5/18/10]
Keystone XL Oil Would Come From Oil Sands, Which Have Serious Environmental Problems. According to the New York Times, "Whatever the advantages, serious environmental problems and risks come with producing oil from oil sands. Most of the biggest production sites are huge mine pits, accompanied by ponds of waste that are so toxic that the companies try to frighten birds away with scarecrows and propane cannons. Extracting oil from the sands produces far more greenhouse gases than drilling, environmental groups say, and the process requires three barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced because the dirt must be washed out. Already, tailing pools cover 50 square miles of land abutting the Athabasca River." [New York Times, 5/18/10]
Opponents Expressed Concerns Over The Pipeline Running Through Aquifers And Farmland. According to The New York Times, "Meanwhile, more conservative Midwestern senators raised other types of environmental concerns. The Keystone XL would run underground through prime Midwestern farmland, including the heartland's largest aquifer. Both Senator Mike Johanns (Republican) and Senator Ben Nelson (Democrat) of Nebraska say they worry that a spill or accidents would contaminate drinking water, pastures and crops in their state." [The New York Times, 11/1/10]
Opponents Of The Pipeline Claimed That It Would Increase Dependence On Fossil Fuels. According to The New York Times, "Last week, 11 Democratic Senators seemed to be urging a 'no' vote based on climate considerations. In a letter to Mrs. Clinton, they noted that greater reliance on a type of oil known for generating high levels of greenhouse gas emissions would run counter to the Obama administration's stated clean energy goals. 'Approval of this pipeline will significantly increase our dependence on this oil for decades,' it said." [The New York Times, 11/1/10]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring That Oil From The Keystone XL Pipeline Be Sold In The United States. During May 2013 consideration of a bill that would have effectively approved the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Schweikert voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would prohibit final approval and construction of the Keystone XL pipeline until the president determines that all oil and refined fuels transported through the Keystone XL Pipeline is used in the United States and not exported, unless the president finds that an exception is in the national interest or required by law." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 162 to 255. [House Vote 177, 5/22/13; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 75; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3]
Underlying Bill -- The Northern Route Approval Act -- Would Have Effectively Approved The Keystone XL Pipeline's Northern Portion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill declares that a presidential permit is not required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from the Canadian border through Nebraska as described in the revised proposal --- which would allow that project to proceed. Under the measure, environmental impact statements issued to date would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Interior Department and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are deemed to have granted all the necessary permits for the pipeline to proceed (including permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act). [...] The bill also declares that the pipeline does not jeopardize the American burying beetle, an endangered species." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Would Carry Crude Oil From Canadian Oil Sands, North Dakota And Montana To Nebraska Market And Gulf Coast Refineries. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Amendment's Sponsor Argued That It Would Ensure Pipeline Made U.S. More Energy Independent. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), the amendment's sponsor, said, "Now, the proponents of the Keystone pipeline, as we've heard today, say it is important for U.S. energy security. That can't be true if the oil just passes through the United States on its way to other countries, and there is nothing in the underlying legislation that would require that the oil transported through the Keystone pipeline, or the refined fuels produced from that oil, stay in the United States to benefit American consumers. In fact, when the president of TransCanada, who got a sweetheart deal through this legislation, was asked whether he would commit to keeping the Keystone tar sands oil and the refined fuels in the United States, he said, no. That's why we need to adopt this amendment. [...] [T]he re-export of crude oil is already allowed under current law. Without my amendment, crude oil that comes out of Keystone could circumvent U.S. refineries and be exported as crude. I ask my colleagues to think hard about how that helps America. The Keystone XL pipeline would ask the United States to bear all of the environmental risk of transporting the dirtiest oil in the world without ensuring that U.S. consumers or our energy security see any benefits from this." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
Rep. Terry: "Absurd" Amendment Would Require TransCanada To Make Unrealistic Guarantee That No Products Made From Keystone XL Oil Would Be Exported. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) said, "Now, [Rep. Holt] also mentioned [...] that a [...] high-level representative from TransCanada said no, we're not going to guarantee that it all won't be exported. Well, let's put it in context. There are people who are extracting the oil out of the ground. They contract with TransCanada to transport that to the customer that will have control over it and refine it. So the common carrier in the middle has no control over the contract between the producer and the refiner. That's why he said no. They have no say-so over what the refiner does. [...] But here's why this amendment has to be defeated, and this is why this is just kind of an absurd amendment because it says none of that oil that's put in a barrel could be exported. None of it. None of its byproducts either. So if you took the oil and made it into a plastic container of whatever you're exporting, you can't do that, because it's plastic made from something that came through TransCanada. The gentleman also mentioned diesel. Even at the highest level of our dependence on OPEC oil, because of our use of gasoline as our dominant source of transportation, as opposed to diesel, which is our symbiotic relationship with Europe, where they use diesel, not gasoline, we have exported that, so we can't even continue that level of relationship, that symbiotic relationship where they send us the gasoline they don't use and we send them the diesel. We can't do that. And as in every barrel, there will be lubricants, there will be gels, there will be other industrial uses that are exported all the time that we couldn't do here. But what the American consumer wants is the gasoline from that. And economics, marketplace pressures, are going to tell you it's just a lot cheaper to refine it here and then send it to their gas stations, and that's what the consumer wants. That's what's going to happen. Even the State Department said that was a fallacy that the gasoline was going to be exported. So this is one of those amendments that sounds populist and good. But when you think it through, it's just a measure to kill the pipeline." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Extending The Deadline For Filing Any Legal Challenges To The Keystone XL Pipeline From 60 Days To One Year. During May 2013 consideration of a bill that would have effectively approved the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Schweikert voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would lengthen the time period for a person to file a claim against pipeline operators from 60 days to one year." The underlying bill required that all legal challenges involving the pipeline or challenging the bill be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit within 60 days of any triggering event. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 182 to 234. [House Vote 175, 5/22/13; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/13; Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 72; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3]
Underlying Bill -- The Northern Route Approval Act -- Would Have Effectively Approved The Keystone XL Pipeline's Northern Portion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill declares that a presidential permit is not required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from the Canadian border through Nebraska as described in the revised proposal --- which would allow that project to proceed. Under the measure, environmental impact statements issued to date would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Interior Department and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are deemed to have granted all the necessary permits for the pipeline to proceed (including permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act). [...] The bill also declares that the pipeline does not jeopardize the American burying beetle, an endangered species." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Would Carry Crude Oil From Canadian Oil Sands, North Dakota And Montana To Nebraska Market And Gulf Coast Refineries. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Underlying Bill Required All Legal Challenges Involving The Pipeline Or Challenging The Bill Be Filed In The Federal Appeals Court In Washington, D.C. Within 60 Days Of Triggering Event. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Exclusive jurisdiction regarding legal disputes over the pipeline or the constitutionality of this bill would be granted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, unless the Supreme Court is involved by means of a legal process known as writ of certiorari. Claims regarding the pipeline must be brought within 60 days of the action that gives rise to the claim." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Amendment's Sponsor: Time Limit Should Be Extended Because Bill Would Require Plaintiffs To Assemble Complex, Detailed Factual Case To Meet A High Burden Of Proof, And To Make Their Arguments In D.C., Far From Home. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), the amendment's sponsor, said, "This amendment is especially needed because H.R. 3, the underlying bill, vests exclusive jurisdiction over any and all claims arising under the act in a single court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is thousands of miles from many of those who may be impacted. [...] The Keystone pipeline is proposed to run from Alberta, Canada, through the great States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and my State of Texas, all the way to the gulf. Maybe there is some collateral impact as well, but the only court in the country authorized to hear the claims of the residents of any of these States who seek justice for a legally cognizable claim or injury is located more than 1,000 miles away from their homes. Mr. Chairman, they cannot go to a district court. They cannot go to the southern district. This will impose an undue hardship and a financial burden on ordinary Americans seeking justice. Instead, the bill requires them to find and retain a high-priced D.C. lawyer whom they don't know and may have never met to represent their interests in a court far, far away. Another reason for extending the time period in which to file a claim--remember, this is after the passage and construction of this particular entity--from 60 days to 1 year is that, by lodging jurisdiction in the D.C. Court of Appeals, the burden of proof and persuasion is shifted from the governmental and corporate actors involved to the homeowners, small businesses, and individuals bringing legal rights. [...] This amendment is to relieve the burden on some of the very people many of us represent, and that is, of course, those individual claimants who happen to be in faraway places who now have to go to the D.C. Court of Appeals and to actually bear the burden of responsibility dealing with the fact that when you challenge the factual evidentiary determinations made in an EIS statement, an Environmental Impact Statement, for example, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they're not supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. That's an extreme burden that will have to be carried by plaintiffs. They'll have to secure lawyers here in the D.C. area. They'll have to travel here, bear extra expenses. It will be necessary to get experts, locate and prepare witnesses, relocate themselves, and gather and review documentary materials." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
Amendment Opponent Called It "Simply One More Delay Tactic," Said Expedited Procedures Limited In Coverage And Deadlines Do Not Affect Legal Rights. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) said, "Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to undermine an important streamlining provision in the bill that sets firm deadlines for filing claims. In order to cause maximum delays, opponents of projects often wait until the final possible day to file claims. Setting firm reasonable deadlines has no impact on legal rights. This bill is limited in the types of claims that receive the expedited review to just three: validity of final orders, constitutionality of the act, and adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement. These claims must be filed within 60 days of the final order or action giving rise to that claim. No other claim is affected by the 60-day filing deadline. Because of the limitations on types of claims covered by the deadline, 2 months is more than ample time to file with the D.C. circuit. Extending to a new year is simply one more delay tactic." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring That The Keystone XL Pipeline Operator Obtain Environmental And Other Regulatory Review Of Future Pipeline Operations And Maintenance. During May 2013 consideration of a bill that would have effectively approved the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Schweikert voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would strike 'operation' and 'maintenance' from several provisions of the bill in order to remove the exemption to TransCanada from government oversight during operation or maintenance of the pipeline." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 182 to 234. [House Vote 174, 5/22/13; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 71; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3]
Underlying Bill -- The Northern Route Approval Act -- Would Have Effectively Approved The Keystone XL Pipeline's Northern Portion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill declares that a presidential permit is not required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from the Canadian border through Nebraska as described in the revised proposal --- which would allow that project to proceed. Under the measure, environmental impact statements issued to date would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Interior Department and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are deemed to have granted all the necessary permits for the pipeline to proceed (including permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act). [...] The bill also declares that the pipeline does not jeopardize the American burying beetle, an endangered species." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Would Carry Crude Oil From Canadian Oil Sands, North Dakota And Montana To Nebraska Market And Gulf Coast Refineries. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Underlying Bill Would Have Directed The Army Corps Of Engineers To Approve Any Permits Required For Pipeline's Construction, Operations And Maintenance By Relevant Sections Of The Clean Water Act And River And Harbors Act. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT), the amendment's sponsor, said, "My amendment would strike the words ``operation and maintenance'' from section 7 of the bill. This section requires the Army Corps of Engineers to approve all permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the River and Harbors Act, within 90 days of receipt of a permit application. The mandate to approve all permits would apply regardless of whether the project meets the needs of the law or not and would cover not only the initial construction of the project, but takes the unprecedented step of applying to all future operation and maintenance, in perpetuity." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
Initial Corps Permits Would Cover Operations, Maintenance Activities For First Five Years, New Permits Would Be Required For Future Operations, Maintenance. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Esty said, "When a version of this amendment was offered in committee, the majority opposed it, claiming that the Corps permits are intended to cover both the construction and the ongoing operations and maintenance of a project. This is simply not accurate. Following the markup, I consulted with the Army Corps, which stated very clearly that ongoing operations and maintenance activities beyond the initial 5 years are not authorized under the initial permit for the construction of the project. In fact, according to the Corps, operations and maintenance activities that occur in the future beyond the initial 5 years need to be authorized under a separate permit at the time the activity takes place. In addition, any permit that is issued today by the Corps for construction or maintenance would expire in 5 years and would need to be renewed. I would like to submit for the Record a copy of the Army Corps' explanatory decision document nationwide permit 12, which describes the permitting procedures. So the language in the underlying bill would give construction and all future operations and maintenance under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act a free pass from review by requiring the Corps to approve them regardless of whether they minimize or mitigate the impacts." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
Amendment Sponsor: Amendment Would Remove Bill's "Unwarranted And Reckless [...] Special Treatment" For A Foreign Company. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Esty said, "The mandate to approve all permits would apply regardless of whether the project meets the needs of the law or not and would cover not only the initial construction of the project, but takes the unprecedented step of applying to all future operation and maintenance, in perpetuity. Not only is this unprecedented; it is unwarranted and reckless. Each time the House has debated the Keystone XL pipeline, the focus has always been on expediting the construction. This amendment does not affect or delay construction. I repeat: this amendment does not affect or delay construction of the pipeline. Whether you support the pipeline or not, section 7 goes far beyond that. It would require the Corps to grant any permit request for operation and maintenance of the pipeline for all eternity. We do not provide this special treatment to any other pipeline operator in the U.S. Domestic companies are required to go through the proper process for obtaining permits for construction, operation, and maintenance activities. Why would we treat a foreign company differently and give it a free pass through a multi-decade lifespan of the pipeline?" [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
Amendment And Pipeline Supporter Said Corps Review Of These Permits Was Important For Limiting Flooding And Damage To The Environment; Noted Southern Part Of Pipeline Was Being Constructed Without Such An Exemption. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL), said, "I have always been a supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline. I have voted for it every time it has come to this floor in any form in which it has come here. This bill, however, goes beyond simply completing the environmental review and Presidential approval of the pipeline. This bill mandates that the Army Corps and other agencies approve permits not just for construction but for all future maintenance activities on the pipeline. The Army Corps review of permits is important to limiting environmental damage and other impacts like flooding. The southern portion of this pipeline, which I'm very happy is underway, is currently being constructed without having to waive laws and automatically approve permits like this." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
Amendment Opponent Agreed That It Would Not Have Impacted Construction Of Pipeline. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Bud Schuster (R-PA), and opponent of the amendment, said, "Once again, this amendment does nothing more than to delay or gut the bill. It is correct what the gentle-lady from Connecticut says in that this amendment does not impact the construction at all--and it does not." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
Amendment Opponents Said It Made No Sense To Permit Pipeline's Construction Without Also Granting Permission To Operate It; And Doing So Would Simply Bring Delay And Uncertainty To The Project. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) said, "This amendment would further delay the Keystone XL pipeline and create additional uncertainty for the project. This amendment would basically gut the bill by allowing the construction but not the operation of the pipeline. It makes absolutely no sense for the Federal Government to permit a project to be constructed but not operated. This would be like getting a building permit to construct a house but not being able to certify the occupancy to actually live in the house." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
Amendment Opponent Said Oversight Of Pipeline Would Still Occur, As Regulators Would Ensure That Its Operators Obeyed The Requirements Of Any Approved Project Permits. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) said, "This pipeline will be subject to continued oversight by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Corps, and other regulators to ensure that the operators are complying with the project's permit requirements." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Blocking The Keystone XL Pipeline Until The Government Has Audited The Pipeline's Vulnerability To, And Preparation For, Terrorist Attacks And Any Resulting Oil Spills. During May 2013 consideration of a bill that would have effectively approved the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Schweikert voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] prohibit[ed] final approval and construction of the Keystone XL pipeline until the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, in consultation with the Homeland Security Department, conducts a study on the pipeline's vulnerabilities to terrorist attack and certifies that corrective actions are in place to guard against an attack and to mitigate any resulting spill." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 176 to 239. [House Vote 172, 5/22/13; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 69; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3]
Underlying Bill -- The Northern Route Approval Act -- Would Have Effectively Approved The Keystone XL Pipeline's Northern Portion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill declares that a presidential permit is not required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from the Canadian border through Nebraska as described in the revised proposal --- which would allow that project to proceed. Under the measure, environmental impact statements issued to date would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Interior Department and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are deemed to have granted all the necessary permits for the pipeline to proceed (including permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act). [...] The bill also declares that the pipeline does not jeopardize the American burying beetle, an endangered species." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Would Carry Crude Oil From Canadian Oil Sands, North Dakota And Montana To Nebraska Market And Gulf Coast Refineries. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Amendment's Sponsor Argued Attacks Against Oil Pipelines Do Happen Throughout The World, And Are Serious Threat Recognized By Federal Officials. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA), the amendment's sponsor, said, "Across the United States, more than a half million miles of pipelines transport natural gas, oil, and other hazardous liquids. Within this network, nearly 180,000 miles of pipeline carry hazardous liquids, including more than 75 percent of our country's crude oil and 60 percent of all of its petroleum products. This important network connects our power plants, ports, refineries, airports, and military bases. While these pipelines are no doubt critical to the U.S. energy supply, we must also recognize the potential threat. Sadly, as the recent bombing in Boston--my hometown--demonstrated, America must always be on the alert to a terrorist attack on our own soil, sometimes even a native-born one. All it takes is a few bad actors to inflict terrible damage. Unfortunately, our Nation's pipelines remain an easy target. Both domestically and globally, pipelines have been a favorite of terrorists. There have been attempted attacks on pipelines throughout the world, including in Colombia, Canada, London, Nigeria, and Mexico, to name a few. The Cano Limon oilfield in Colombia has been bombed more than 950 times since 1993, for example. Here in the United States, fortunately, we don't face that kind of threat every day, but the threat is still real. Since September 11, Federal authorities have continued to acknowledge that our pipelines are a possible target." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]
2011: Oklahoma Man Attempted To Destroy A Natural Gas Pipeline In That State With A Self-Made Improvised Explosive Device. According to a press release from the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, "DANIEL WELLS HERRIMAN, age 41, of Konawa, Oklahoma, [...] was indicted in September 2011 and was found guilty by a federal jury in May, 2012. [...] The evidence presented at the trial established that in July and August 2011 the defendant, without lawful authority, made an improvised explosive device or IED. The defendant maliciously attempted to damage and destroy a natural gas pipeline near Okemah, Oklahoma when he placed the device under the pipeline and set the timer on the device. The device was discovered by a pipeline employee and was disrupted by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol Bomb Squad. The defense claimed Herriman was legally insane at the time of the crime." [Press Release, Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District Of Oklahoma, 12/5/12]
2001: Drunk Alaska Man Shot Trans-Alaska Pipeline Once, Caused Rupture, 285,000-Gallon Oil Spill, Which At The Time Was The Third-Largest Oil Spill In The State's History. According to the Chicago Tribune, "A man has been convicted of shooting the trans-Alaska pipeline in a drunken fit last year and causing 285,000 gallons of crude oil to coat part of a spruce forest in interior Alaska. The spill was the second-biggest ever from a rupture in the pipeline and the third-biggest in Alaska. A state Superior Court jury in Fairbanks on Friday convicted Daniel Lewis, 38, who has a history of criminal convictions and alcohol problems, of all five charges: criminal mischief, assault and drunken driving, all felonies, as well as oil pollution and weapons misconduct, both misdemeanors. The pipeline was shut down for two days after the October 2001 shooting, and North Slope oil production came to a near standstill while crews plugged the line near Livengood, Lewis' hometown. The community, about 50 miles north of Fairbanks, is at the midpoint of the 800-mile pipeline. Randy Lewis, the defendant's brother, testified that both were drinking on the day of the shooting. Randy Lewis said his brother aimed a high-powered rifle at him, then switched targets and shot the pipeline." [Chicago Tribune, 12/8/02]
Many Vandals Had Shot At The Alaskan Pipeline In The Past, And It Is Made Of Thick Steel And Heavy Insulation That Ordinarily Would Have Prevented Penetration Into Pipeline's Interior. According to the Chicago Tribune, "The shooting was the only time a bullet has penetrated the pipeline, although vandals have left numerous bullet strikes over the years." Indeed, according to the FBI, "One case that stands out for [Special Agent Bruce Milne of the Fairbanks Field Office] occurred in October 2001, when a resident of Livengood---a town of less than two dozen people about 50 miles north of Fairbanks---shot a hole in the pipeline with a high-powered rifle. A bullet would not ordinarily breach the pipeline's exterior, which is constructed of thick steel and lined inside with several inches of high-density insulation. But the single shot from Daniel Lewis' rifle somehow did penetrate the pipeline, and oil began streaming out with tremendous force. 'If you would have put your hand in front of the leak," Milne said, "the pressure would have taken it off.'" [FBI website, 11/23/12]
Amendment Opponents Argued It Was Intended To Delay Pipeline, As Required Review Would Duplicate Existing Government Guidelines Covering Relevant Threats And Responses, And Government Could Review How Pipeline Operators Had Assessed The Risk. A ccording to the Congressional Record, Rep. Bud Schuster (R-PA) said "My good friend from Virginia, I understand his need to make sure that our pipelines are safe, but this amendment is redundant of existing Transportation Security Administration guidelines. It's unnecessary and simply attempts to further delay the project. TSA guidelines bring a risk-based approach to the application of the security measures throughout the pipeline industry. As stated in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, DHS assesses risk as a function of threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences. With this in mind, the most effective security programs employ a risk management process that facilitates protective planning and decisionmaking [sic] to mitigate the risk for pipeline assets. The operator's risk assessment methodology is subject to review by the TSA. Therefore, risk and vulnerability to pipelines are already covered under current guidelines. There is no need to specifically single out this pipeline for further study. Clearly, this is intended to delay the Keystone pipeline from being built, so I urge a 'no' vote." [Congressional Record, 5/22/13]