80–957 

113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–61 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 3 

NORTHERN ROUTE APPROVAL ACT 

MAY 17, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SHUSTER, from the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 3] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 

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

purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose of Legislation ............................................................................................. 1 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 3 

Legislative History and Consideration .................................................................. 3 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 11 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 11 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 11 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 12 

Advisory of Earmarks .............................................................................................. 12 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 12 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 12 

Federal Mandate Statement ................................................................................... 12 

Preemption Clarification ......................................................................................... 13 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 13 

Applicability of Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 13 

Section-by-Section Analysis of Legislation ............................................................ 13 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 14 

PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION

H.R. 3 approves the construction, operation, and maintenance of 

the Keystone XL pipeline. The bill declares that a Presidential perVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:13 May 18, 2013 Jkt 080957 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR061P3.XXX HR061P3

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

mit shall not be required for the pipeline described in the application filed on May 4, 2012, by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. 

(TransCanada) to the Department of State for the Keystone XL 

pipeline, including the Nebraska reroute evaluated in the Final 

Evaluation Report issued by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality in January 2013 and approved by the Nebraska 

governor. It also deems the final environmental impact statement 

issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, coupled with 

such Final Evaluation Report, to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and of the National Historic Preservation Act. Furthermore, the legislation ensures that 

other permits necessary for construction to begin are approved in 

a timely fashion or deemed approved given the project’s significant 

level of scrutiny and study. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In September 2008, TransCanada Corp. applied to the U.S. Department of State for a Presidential Permit to cross the U.S.-Canada international border with the Keystone XL pipeline and carry 

oil sands from Alberta, Canada, to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. After 

nearly three years of review, the State Department issued a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the project on August 26, 

2011, finding no significant impacts to most resources along the 

corridor. On November 10, 2011, the State Department announced 

a decision to seek additional information about alternative pipeline 

routes and delayed issuance of the permit. On December 23, 2011, 

however, Congress took action by passing the Temporary Payroll 

Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, which required the President to 

grant the Keystone XL pipeline permit within 60 days of the law’s 

enactment, unless the President determined that the pipeline was 

not in the national interest. On January 18, 2012, the State Department recommended that ‘‘the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline be denied,’’ and that same day, the 

President did so. 

Following the denial, on February 27, 2012, TransCanada informed the Department of State it would proceed with its Gulf 

Coast project from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast refineries. 

As that project had independent utility, it did not need a Presidential permit since it did not cross an international border. TransCanada then, on May 4, 2012, filed a new application with the 

State Department for the Northern Route from the border crossing 

in Montana to Steele City, Nebraska. TransCanada also submitted, 

on September 5, 2012, a new routing alternative to the Nebraska 

Department of Environmental Quality. On January 22, 2013, the 

Nebraska governor approved that new routing. After more review 

and study, the State Department issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on March 1, 2013, for the Northern 

Route. 

The State Department, 10 cooperating agencies, and the three 

requisite State environmental agencies have reviewed and studied 

the Keystone XL pipeline for nearly five years. The length and 

amount of review makes the project the most extensively studied 

pipeline project in the history of this country. In these studies the 

State Department found that the Keystone XL project will have no 

significant impact on the environment. Furthermore, in denying 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

the Keystone XL project in January 2012, the President specifically 

cited concerns with the project’s routing through the Nebraska 

Sand Hills region. H.R. 3 incorporates the revised routing of the 

pipeline through Nebraska that avoids the Sand Hills Region and 

was approved by the Nebraska governor in January 2013. 

Pipelines are both the safest and most efficient method of transporting oil. In addition, the Keystone XL Pipeline will have the 

highest safety standards of any pipeline ever constructed. The 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has recommended, and TransCanada has agreed to implement, 57 projectspecific special conditions for construction of the project. H.R. 3 will 

ensure the Keystone XL Pipeline is approved in a timely manner 

with the highest level of safety to reduce the risks to the environment and the public. 

Furthermore, the Keystone XL pipeline will generate significant 

economic impacts for the Nation. The State Department estimates 

the Keystone XL pipeline will produce 42,100 jobs. In addition, the 

State Department found this project will have a significant positive 

economic impact, including an estimated $3.3 billion in direct expenditures and $2.05 billion in earnings. These earnings, jobs, and 

economic impacts will happen because H.R. 3 moves the Keystone 

XL project forward. 

The Keystone XL pipeline will also reduce our Nation’s dependence upon overseas foreign oil and increase the diversity of the Nation’s oil supplies. The State Department has found that the pipeline will transport 830,000 barrels per day of oil from Canada to 

the Gulf Coast, totaling nearly half of the country’s current daily 

imports from the Middle East. Canada is already the Nation’s largest and most reliable trading partner. Moreover, Canada is not a 

member of OPEC, and sourcing our energy needs with Canada, 

rather than Venezuela or the Middle East, is in our national interest. As the State Department has noted, ‘‘non-OPEC Canadian 

crude oil supplies advance the energy security of the United States, 

given Canada’s close proximity, our free trade agreements, and our 

close bilateral relationship with this stable democracy.’’ H.R. 3 will, 

therefore, aid in getting more oil into the market from a stable and 

reliable neighbor. 

H.R. 3 recognizes all of the aforementioned benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline. The project’s environmental impacts have been 

studied and found to have no significant impact on the environment; it will be the safest pipeline in the Nation’s history; it will 

have significant economic impacts on the country; and it will enhance the Nation’s energy independence. 

HEARINGS

No hearings were held on H.R. 3. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONSIDERATION

On March 15, 2013, Representative Lee Terry introduced H.R. 3, 

the Northern Route Approval Act, to expedite the approval of the 

Keystone XL pipeline. On May 16, 2013, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session and ordered the 

bill reported favorably to the House by record vote with a quorum 

present. The vote was 33 yeas, 24 nays and 1 member voting 

present. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Ranking Member 

Rahall, which was defeated by record vote. The vote was 25 yeas 

to 32 nays. The amendment would have struck section 3 from the 

bill. 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

Bishop of New York, which was defeated by record vote. The vote 

was 27 yeas to 31 nays. The amendment would have required 

TransCanada to certify diluted bitumen is oil for the purposes of 

considering contributions to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

Esty, which was defeated by record vote. The vote was 27 yeas to 

31 nays. The amendment would have struck ‘‘operation, and maintenance’’ from section 7 of the bill. 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

Cohen, which was defeated by record vote. The vote was 27 yeas 

to 31 nays. The amendment would have struck section 4 of the bill. 

Another amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

Cohen, which was withdrawn. The amendment would have required oil spill response plans for the project to be shared with the 

Governors in every state through which the pipeline is operated. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires each committee report to include the total number of 

votes cast for and against on each record vote on a motion to report 

and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the 

names of those members voting for and against. There were a total 

of five record votes taken in connection with consideration of H.R. 

3. 

Record votes were taken on amendments offered in Committee by 

Representative Rahall, Representative Bishop of New York, Representative Esty, and Representative Cohen. The Committee disposed of these four amendments by record vote as follows: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSinsert graphic folio 6 HR61p3.001
6 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 7 HR61P3.002
7 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 8 HR61P3.003
8 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 9 HR61P3.004
9 

The final recorded vote was to order H.R. 3 favorably reported 

to the House. The votes were as follows: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 11 HR61P3.005
11 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely 

submitted prior to the filing of the report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included in this report. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the 

enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 17, 2013. 

HONORABLE BILL SHUSTER, Chairman, 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3, the Northern Route 

Approval Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 3—Northern Route Approval Act 

H.R. 3 would specify various procedures pertaining to federal review and permitting of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which 

would be constructed by a private company to carry crude oil from 

Alberta, Canada, to destinations on the U.S. Gulf Coast. In particular, the bill would exempt the proposed project, which would 

cross international borders, from the existing requirement to obtain 

a Presidential permit. In addition, H.R. 3 would deem various actions by federal agencies involved with permitting decisions related 

to the proposed pipeline to be satisfied and certain federal permits 

to be granted. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3 would have no significant impact on the federal budget. Based on information from affected agencies, CBO estimates that the proposed changes to administrative procedures would not significantly affect federal 

spending for such activities relative to current law. The bill would 

not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

H.R. 3 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

On May 1, 2013, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 3 as 

ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on April 17, 2013. On May 2, 2013, CBO transmitted a cost 

estimate for H.R. 3 as ordered reported by the House Committee 

on Natural Resources. All three versions of the legislation are identical, and the CBO cost estimates are the same. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goal 

and objective of this legislation is to expedite the approval of the 

Keystone XL pipeline by deeming the already completed environmental reviews sufficient under Federal law, deeming the necessary permits approved, and placing time limits on permitting 

processes and judicial reviews. 

ADVISORY OF EARMARKS

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee is required to include a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits 

as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives. No provision in the bill includes an 

earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit under clause 

9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Pursuant to section 3(j) of H. Res. 5, 113th Cong. (2013), the 

Committee finds that no provision of H.R. 3 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another federal program, a program that was included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related 

to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

Pursuant to section 3(k) of H. Res. 5, 113th Cong. (2013), the 

Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 3 does not specifically direct the completion of any specific rule makings within the meaning of section 551 of title 5, United States Code. 

FEDERAL MANDATE STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(Public Law 104–4). 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the 

report of any Committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a 

statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, or tribal law. The Committee states 

that H.R. 3 does not preempt any state, local, or tribal law. H.R. 

3 preserves the rights and permitting authority of states through 

which the Keystone XL pipeline will be constructed. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title; Northern Route Approval Act 

This section provides the title of the bill. 

Section 2. Findings 

In this section, Congress finds that: (1) investing in the national 

infrastructure will boost the Nation’s competitive edge in energy, 

(2) importing oil from our ally Canada will be in the national interest by lessening our dependency on foreign oil, (3) the Keystone XL 

pipeline will provide thousands of new job opportunities with laborrelated benefits, (4) Nebraska has reviewed and approved the reroute, (5) the Department of State and other agencies have conducted studies and analyses of Keystone’s environmental, economic, 

and social impacts, (6) pipeline transportation of oil is the safest 

and more economically and environmentally effective means, and 

(7) Keystone XL is in the same position as the Alaska Pipeline in 

1973 prior to Congressional action and burdened by bureaucracy. 

Section 3. Keystone XL permit approval 

This section declares that no Presidential Permit is needed for 

TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline as submitted in an application filed on May 4, 2012 to the Department of State, and supplemented by the Final Evaluation Report issued by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. This section also states that 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Secretary 

of State on August 26, 2011, along with the Final Evaluation Report, satisfies all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). 

Section 4. Judicial review 

Subsection (a) gives original and exclusive jurisdiction (except for 

review by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari) to the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to resolve 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

challenges regarding the validity of federal agency or officer’s final 

order for the construction or maintenance of Keystone XL; the constitutionality of any provision in the Act; and the adequacy of any 

environmental impact statement prepared under NEPA. 

Subsection (b) sets a 60-day deadline for filing any claims under 

this Act. 

Subsection (c) requires expedited consideration by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for any action 

brought under subsection (a), taking into account the national interest of energy security. 

Section 5. American burying beetle 

Subsection (a) finds that: (1) environmental reviews of the Keystone XL project satisfy all the requirements of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)); and (2) the 

Keystone XL project will not jeopardize the American burying beetle’s existence or modify or destroy its critical habitat. 

Subsection (b) deems the Secretary of the Interior to have issued 

a written statement setting forth the biological opinion that the Act 

is not a prohibited taking of the American burying beetle under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Section 6. Right-of-way and temporary use permit 

This section deems the Secretary of the Interior to have granted 

a right-of-way and temporary use permit under section 28 of the 

Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185) and the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). 

Section 7. Permits for activities in navigable waters 

Subsection (a) requires the Secretary of the Army to issue all 

permits under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 

(33 U.S.C. 403) necessary for construction of Keystone XL within 

90 days of receipt of the application. 

Subsection (b) gives the Secretary the authority to waive any 

procedural requirements in order to accomplish the purposes of this 

section. 

Subsection (c) deems the permit required under subsection (a) 

issued, if the Secretary of the Army does not issue such permit 

within the timeframe required under subsection (a). 

Subsection (d) limits the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency from prohibiting or restricting any activity or 

use of an area under this section. 

Section 8. Migratory Bird Treaty Act permit 

This section deems the special purpose permit under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), as described in the application with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Keystone 

XL pipeline on January 11, 2013, issued. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

H.R. 3 makes no changes in existing law. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS