99–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–140 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

NORTH AMERICAN-MADE ENERGY SECURITY ACT 

JULY 8, 2011.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. UPTON, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1938] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 1938) to direct the President to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 3 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 3 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 8 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 8 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 9 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 13 

Statement of General Performance, Goals and Objectives ................................... 13 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 13 

Earmark ................................................................................................................... 13 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 13 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 13 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 14 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 14 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 14 

Section-by-Section Analysis of Legislation ............................................................ 14 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 15 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 16 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘North American-Made Energy Security Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds and declares the following: 

(1) The United States currently imports more than half of the oil it consumes, 

often from countries hostile to United States interests or with political and economic instability that compromises supply security. 

(2) While a significant portion of imports are derived from allies such as Canada and Mexico, the United States remains vulnerable to substantial supply 

disruptions created by geopolitical tumult in major producing nations. 

(3) Strong increases in oil consumption in the developing world outpace 

growth in conventional oil supplies, bringing tight market conditions and higher 

oil prices in periods of global economic expansion or when supplies are threatened. 

(4) The development and delivery of oil and gas from Canada to the United 

States is in the national interest of the United States in order to secure oil supplies to fill needs that are projected to otherwise be filled by increases in other 

foreign supplies, notably from the Middle East. 

(5) Continued development of North American energy resources, including Canadian oil, increases domestic refiners’ access to stable and reliable sources of 

crude and improves certainty of fuel supply for the Department of Defense, the 

largest consumer of petroleum in the United States. 

(6) Canada and the United States have the world’s largest two-way trading 

relationship. Therefore, for every United States dollar spent on products from 

Canada, including oil, 90 cents is returned to the United States economy. When 

the same metrics are applied to trading relationships with some other major 

sources of United States crude oil imports, returns are much lower. 

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

(8) Increased Canadian crude oil imports into the United States correspondingly reduce the scale of ‘‘wealth transfers’’ to other more distant foreign sources 

resulting from the greater cost of importing crude oil from those sources. 

(9) Not only are United States companies major investors in Canadian oil 

sands, but many United States businesses throughout the country benefit from 

supplying goods and services required for ongoing Canadian oil sands operations and expansion. 

(10) There has been more than 2 years of consideration and a coordinated review by more than a dozen Federal agencies of the technical aspects and of the 

environmental, social, and economic impacts of the proposed pipeline project 

known as the Keystone XL from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, 

and then on to the United States Gulf Coast through Cushing, Oklahoma. 

(11) Keystone XL represents a high capacity pipeline supply option that could 

meet early as well as long-term market demand for crude oil to United States 

refineries, and could also potentially bring over 100,000 barrels per day of 

United States Bakken crudes to market. 

(12) Completion of the Keystone XL pipeline would increase total Keystone 

pipeline capacity by 700,000 barrels per day to 1,290,000 barrels per day. 

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

(14) The earliest possible construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will make 

the extensive proven and potential reserves of Canadian oil available for United 

States use and increase United States jobs and will therefore serve the national 

interest. 

(15) Analysis using the Environmental Protection Agency models shows that 

the Keystone XL pipeline will result in no significant change in total United 

States or global greenhouse gas emissions. 

(16) The Keystone XL pipeline would be state-of-the-art and have a degree 

of safety higher than any other typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

(17) Because of the extensive governmental studies already made with respect 

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

SEC. 3. EXPEDITED APPROVAL PROCESS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President, acting through the Secretary of Energy, shall coordinate with each Federal agency responsible for coordinating or considering an aspect of the President’s National Interest Determination and Presidential Permit decision regarding construction and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline, to ensure 

that all necessary actions with respect to such decision are taken on an expedited 

schedule. 

(b) AGENCY COOPERATION WITH SECRETARY OF ENERGY.—Each Federal agency described in subsection (a) shall comply with any deadline established by the Secretary of Energy pursuant to subsection (a). 

(c) FINAL ORDER.—Not later than 30 days after the issuance of the final environmental impact statement, the President shall issue a final order granting or denying 

the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, but in no event shall such decision be made later than November 1, 2011. 

(d) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.—No action by the Secretary of Energy pursuant to 

this section shall affect any duty or responsibility to comply with any requirement 

to conduct environmental review. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1938, the ‘‘North American-Made Energy Security Act of 

2011’’, was introduced by Rep. Lee Terry (together with Reps. 

Gardner, Green, McKinley, McMorris Rodgers, Murphy, Myrick, 

Pitts, Ross, Scalise, Sullivan, Upton, Walden, and Whitfield) on 

May 23, 2011. The legislation requires the President to coordinate 

with the relevant federal agencies and reach a final decision granting or denying the Presidential Permit for the proposed Keystone 

XL pipeline project by no later than November 1, 2011. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

A Canadian pipeline company, TransCanada, has long sought to 

increase the capacity of its Keystone pipeline system in order to 

bring more Canadian crude oil to American refineries. A permit application for its proposed expansion project, Keystone XL, was submitted to the State Department in September of 2008. 

In the 33 months since—an unusually long period for such permits—the nation has faced high gasoline prices as well as soaring 

unemployment rates. Approval of Keystone XL would help address 

both of these concerns, but the Obama administration has yet to 

make a final decision about whether to allow the project to move 

ahead. Most recently, the Environmental Protection Agency raised 

several objections that may further delay a final decision. 

Despite the economic downturn, the nation’s demand for petroleum and motor fuels remains strong and is projected by the Energy Information Administration to grow in the years ahead. However, domestic oil production is limited by the federal government. 

Many promising domestic onshore and offshore areas are explicitly 

off-limits to energy leasing, and even those that are not may be 

subject to permitting delays or regulatory constraints that effectively make them so. Oil imports are needed to fill the gap between 

consumption and domestic production. 

Unfortunately, many nations that serve as a source of these imports continue to display substantial instability as well as antiAmerican hostility. This raises serious concerns about the risks— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

both economic and otherwise—of continued reliance upon such nations. 

The role of Canadian oil is critical to America’s energy future. In 

addition to being a very stable country, as well as a strong ally and 

our largest trading partner, Canada is America’s single largest 

source of oil imports. Further, Canadian oil production is on the 

rise, especially oil sands production from the province of Alberta. 

The untapped potential is vast—an estimated 175 billions barrels 

of recoverable oil places Alberta second only to Saudi Arabia in 

proven reserves. Canada currently produces more than enough oil 

for its own needs and sends most of the rest South, via pipelines, 

to American refineries. 

Thus, Alberta oil sands production represents a nearly-ideal 

source of supply for the American market that will likely increase 

in the years ahead. However, the existing pipeline system between 

the two nations is unable to keep up with the growing volumes, necessitating the need for a major expansion project such as Keystone 

XL. 

Once completed, the Keystone XL project would add another 

700,000 barrels per day to the capacity of 591,000 barrels per day 

in the existing pipeline, more than enough to make a difference in 

the price at the pump. It can do so for the long term, as output 

from Alberta is expected to provide this additional oil for decades 

to come. In addition to the energy benefits, the construction of Keystone XL will create tens of thousands of American jobs. 

H.R. 1938, the North American-Made Energy Security Act of 

2011, does not change the extensive environmental reviews and 

other requirements necessary for Keystone XL to obtain its federal 

permit. The bill is simply an acknowledgement that this project has 

already been thoroughly studied and that all legitimate concerns 

have been raised and addressed, and sets a date certain—November 1, 2011—by which the Obama administration must reach a 

final decision. 

Keystone XL permitting timeline 

Ordinarily, the U.S. government does not have permit authority 

for oil pipelines, even interstate pipelines. Generally, the primary 

siting authority for oil pipelines would be established under applicable state law. However, the construction, connection, operation 

and maintenance of a pipeline that connects the United States with 

a foreign country has historically required executive permission 

conveyed through a Presidential Permit. Executive Order 13337 

delegates to the Secretary of State the President’s authority to receive applications for Presidential Permits. 

TransCanada submitted an application for a Presidential Permit 

with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) in September 2008. In 

November of 2008, TransCanada submitted a comprehensive environmental report to DOS, thereby initiating the National Environmental Policy Act review process. 

On January 28, 2009, DOS issued its Notice of Intent to Prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement, which commenced a public 

scoping period to identify significant environmental issues. Among 

other things, this included public meetings held in more than twenty impacted communities. On April 16th, DOS issued a Draft EnviVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:16 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR140P1.XXX HR140P1

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
5 

ronmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and extended the public comment period to 77 days. 

On July 2, 2010, DOS closed the comment period on the DEIS. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the 

DEIS was inadequate, requiring DOS to perform additional review 

in a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(SDEIS). The SDEIS was issued on April 29, 2011 and initiated an 

additional 45-day comment period. DOS ultimately concluded that 

‘‘the information in this SDEIS does not alter the conclusions 

reached in the [DEIS] regarding the need for and the potential impacts of the proposed Project.’’ 

On June 6, 2011, EPA again informed DOS that the SDEIS contains insufficient information and requested additional analysis be 

performed for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 

Assuming no further delays—an optimistic assumption—DOS 

should release its FEIS in August, likely initiating an additional 

30-day public comment period. In addition, the comment period will 

begin on the National Interest Determination to solicit views from 

the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, and 

Homeland Security, as well as the Attorney General, Administrator 

of the EPA, and others that the Secretary of State deems appropriate. 

The ongoing permitting process for Keystone XL has thus far 

taken 33 months, and has included multiple opportunities for public input. By comparison, the original Keystone pipeline project was 

permitted in less than 24 months. H.R. 1938 would set November 

1, 2011 as the date by which the administration must act, more 

than three years after the application was originally submitted. 

Throughout the approval process, any and all environmental and 

safety concerns have been addressed. The SDEIS concluded that: 

‘‘[a]s a result of incorporation of the current PHMSA regulations, 

current industry standards, and the set of 57 Project-specific Special Conditions developed by PHMSA and agreed to by Keystone, 

the proposed Project would have a degree of safety over any other 

typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system under current 

code and a degree of safety along the entire length of the pipeline 

system similar to that which is required in [High Consequence 

Areas] as defined under [PHMSA regulations].’’ 

Moreover, claims of environmental damage attributable to production of the oil sands in Alberta—including assertions of substantially higher greenhouse gas emissions relative to conventional 

oil—are particularly misplaced in the context of the U.S. approval 

process for Keystone XL. For example, the on-site impacts and 

emissions are the responsibility of the Alberta government, and 

there is no need for a redundant consideration of these matters. At 

a May 23, 2011 hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Power, Dan McFayden, Chairman of the Energy Resources Conservation Board of Alberta, testified as to the rigor and thoroughness of its approval process and the many safeguards that have 

been put in place. ‘‘Every oil sands project is subjected to regulatory scrutiny throughout its life cycle, from authorization and 

operational compliance to end-of-life closure,’’ he said. 

More importantly, the Canadian and Alberta provincial governments have made clear that they will allow oil sands production to 

increase regardless of Keystone XL’s fate. If the President fails to 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
6 

approve Keystone XL, the same amount of Canadian oil will very 

likely be produced and transported west via pipelines to Pacific 

ports for export to China and other Asian nations. Thus, approval 

or disapproval of the project ultimately makes no difference regarding the environmental impacts and emissions associated with the 

production of Albertan oil sands. 

These conclusions are further supported by Keystone XL Assess- ment issued by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Policy and International Affairs (the ‘‘DOE KXL Report’’). In June 

2010, Ensys Energy was contracted by DOE to conduct an evaluation of the impacts on United States and global refining, trade and 

oil markets of Keystone XL project to bring additional Canadian 

crudes into the United States. The DOE KXL Report is included as 

part of the SDEIS. The study includes an assessment of global lifecycle GHG impacts of scenarios evaluated in this study. That study 

concluded ‘‘no significant change . . . in global refinery CO2 and 

total life-cycle GHG emissions whether KXL is built or not.’’ 

Changes in lifecycle emissions were calculated with models and 

methodology used in deriving indirect impacts of petroleum consumption for the EPA’s renewable fuels standard program. 

The energy benefits of Keystone XL 

Once completed, the Keystone XL project would add another 

700,000 barrels per day of pipeline capacity to the system’s existing 

591,000 barrels per day, bringing this oil to refineries in the Midwest and Gulf Coast. Subsequent upgrades could boost additional 

throughput to over 800,000 barrels per day. According to the DOE 

KXL Report, Keystone XL holds ‘‘the potential to very substantially 

reduce U.S. dependency on non-Canadian foreign oil, including 

from the Middle East.’’ 

Rapidly-growing production from Alberta’s oil sands is the reason 

the pipeline expansion is needed. America currently imports approximately 2 million barrels per day (mbd) from Canada, of which 

1.1 mbd is from oil sands. However, oil sands production is relatively new and its potential has only begun to be realized. According to testimony at the May 23 hearing from James Burkhard, 

Managing Director of IHS CERA, ‘‘the oil sands make Canada one 

of the very few countries in the world that could substantially increase oil production for the next several decades.’’ He added that 

‘‘over the past decade production growth picked up rapidly and supply more than doubled to about 1.5 mbd in 2010. This is greater 

than the 1.2 mbd that Libya exported to the global market in 2010, 

before the civil war.’’ 

Oil sands production is expected to continue its rapid growth. 

Murray Smith, former member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and Minister of Energy, testified that ‘‘Alberta’s production 

is expected to increase to over 3 million barrels a day by the end 

of the decade.’’ In other words, Canada has more than enough oil 

to dramatically increase exports to the United States and maintain 

them for the foreseeable future. The only limiting factor is pipeline 

capacity. 

By way of comparison, President Obama recently authorized the 

release of 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) for a period of 30 days—an additional million barrels 

per day. Keystone XL has the potential to add 70 percent as much 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
7 

oil per day as this recent SPR release, but with two critical differences. First, the SPR is not a source of newly-produced oil but 

rather a stockpile previously set aside for emergency use, while the 

oil coming from Canada via Keystone XL would represent a genuine addition to the nation’s supply. More importantly, while the 

SPR stockpile is available for a short time span and then would 

need to be replenished, Keystone XL could be supplying oil every 

day for several decades—truly part of the long-term solution to the 

nation’s demand for all of its petroleum needs. 

The economic benefits of Keystone XL 

In addition to the benefits of a secure supply of additional oil 

from a strong ally, approval of Keystone XL is also projected to create a substantial number of jobs. Stephen Kelly, Assistant General 

President of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, 

testified in favor of H.R. 1938 at the May 23rd hearing. According 

to estimates cited by Kelly, the project is ‘‘expected to create approximately 13,000 high-quality, good-paying construction jobs.’’ 

Kelly testified that the wages and benefits for these jobs would be 

approximately $50 per hour. 

The benefits will go well beyond the direct jobs building the pipeline. For example, most of the construction equipment, pipe, and 

other supplies used to build Keystone XL would be U.S.-sourced, as 

well as much of the technical expertise associated with the project. 

Kelly testified that the indirect jobs ‘‘include 7,000 manufacturing 

jobs associated with the production of materials and components 

for the pipeline, and over 118,000 spin-off jobs in various sectors 

related to the design, construction and operation of the pipeline.’’ 

Even after the construction phase is complete, Keystone XL 

would provide employment associated with its operation. Along 

with Canadian oil, the pipeline would also alleviate potential oil 

bottlenecks that might otherwise limit growing oil production in 

North Dakota and Montana, ensuring continued job growth there. 

In addition, Canadian oil can take the place of declining Mexican 

and Venezuelan supplies reaching Gulf Coast refineries, helping to 

maintain or expand jobs at those facilities. Further, given the wellestablished inverse relationship between energy costs and employment, the reduction in oil and gasoline prices as a consequence of 

Keystone XL would yield additional jobs throughout the economy. 

Ironically, during the span in which the Keystone XL permit has 

languished at DOS, the Obama administration and Congress embarked on a $787 billion dollar stimulus package in an attempt to 

reduce unemployment and jump-start the economy. Keystone XL 

would have been a prime example of the ‘‘shovel-ready’’ projects 

that proponents of the stimulus package had hoped to initiate—one 

that creates a large number of well-paying jobs and boosts economic activity. Furthermore, while the stimulus package cost taxpayers a great deal of money (and whether it actually created an 

appreciable number of jobs is a matter of considerable debate), the 

$7 billion dollar Keystone XL project would be financed privately. 

In fact, rather than require tax dollars Keystone XL would generate substantial tax revenues for state and local communities 

along its route as well as the federal government. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
8 

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline precedent 

There are many historical parallels between Keystone XL and 

the debate over the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the early 1970s. Back 

then, a major discovery of oil on the North Slope of Alaska in 

Prudhoe Bay—the largest on the continent prior to development of 

the Alberta oil sands—necessitated a pipeline to transport this oil 

to American refineries, hence the proposed 700-mile Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline. The project was thoroughly studied for several years during which all legitimate environmental and safety concerns were 

addressed. Nonetheless, federal approval became bogged down by 

NEPA-related delays similar to those currently impeding Keystone 

XL. 

However, Middle East turmoil and rising oil prices finally 

sparked Congressional action. In 1973, Congress passed and President Nixon signed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, 

which removed all federal roadblocks to the project. Construction 

on the pipeline began in 1974 and was completed in 1977. It has 

been in operation ever since. 

Since that time, the pipeline has delivered 16 billion barrels of 

oil to the American market, and has contributed substantially to 

the health of Alaska’s economy while creating jobs throughout the 

nation. And, notwithstanding the many dire predictions at the time 

from anti-pipeline activist groups (several of whom now oppose 

Keystone XL), the pipeline has amassed an excellent environmental 

and safety record and did so using technology far less sophisticated 

than what would be required for Keystone XL. 

The main difference between the Trans-Alaska Authorization Act 

and the North American-Made Energy Security Act is that the latter does not automatically approve the project, but merely requires 

the President to make a decision on Keystone XL by a date certain. 

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Energy and Power on May 23, 2011 held 

a legislative hearing on a discussion draft of the ‘‘North AmericanMade Energy Security Act of 2011’’ and received testimony from: 

The Honorable Dan McFayden, Chairman, Alberta Energy 

Resources Conservation Board; 

Mr. Alex Pourbaix, President, Energy and Oil Pipelines, 

TransCanada; 

Mr. Stephen Kelly, Assistant General President, United Association of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters; 

Mr. James Burkhard, Managing Director, Global Oil, IHS 

Cambridge Energy Research Associates; 

Mr. Jeremy Symons, Sr. Vice President, Conservation & 

Education, National Wildlife Federation; and, 

Mr. Murray Smith, President, Murray Smith & Associates. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On May 16, 2011, a discussion draft of H.R. lll, the North 

American-Made Energy Security Act, was released. 

On May 23, 2011, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held 

a legislative hearing on the discussion draft and Representative 

Terry, together with Representatives Ross, Upton, Whitfield, Sullivan, Green, McMorris Rodgers, Walden, McKinley, Gardner, ScaVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:16 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR140P1.XXX HR140P1

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
9 

lise, Myrick, Pitts and Murphy introduced the discussion draft as 

H.R. 1938, the North American-Made Energy Security Act (the 

‘‘NAMES Act’’). 

On June 15, 2011, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power favorably reported the NAMES Act to the full Committee by a voice 

vote. During the markup, three amendments were offered and defeated by voice vote. 

On June 23, 2011, the full Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session. During the markup, six amendments 

were offered, of which one was adopted, and the Committee ordered 

H.R. 1938 favorably reported to the House. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. A motion by Mr. 

Upton to order H.R. 1938, reported to the House, as amended, was 

agreed to by a record vote of 33 yeas and 13 nays. The following 

reflects the recorded votes taken during the Committee consideration, including the names of those Members voting for and 

against. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
10 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here HR140P1.001
11 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 19 here HR140P1.002
12 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 20 here HR140P1.003
13 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee made findings that are reflected 

in this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

H.R. 1938 directs the President to expedite consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline project. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the committee finds that H.R. 1938, the 

North American-Made Energy Security Act, would result in no new 

or increased budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

EARMARK

In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the 

committee finds that H.R. 1938, the North American-Made Energy 

Security Act, contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

JULY 8, 2011. 

Hon. FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1938, the North American-Made Energy Security 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. 

Enclosure. 

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

In September 2008, a Canadian firm applied for a permit to construct the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry crude 

oil from Alberta, Canada, to destinations on the U.S. Gulf Coast. 

Because the proposed pipeline would cross international borders, it 

requires a Presidential Permit issued by the Department of State. 

H.R. 1938 would direct the President, acting through the Secretary 

of Energy, to coordinate with federal agencies to complete all necessary actions required to enable the Secretary. of State to issue 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
14 

a final order to either grant or deny that Presidential Permit no 

later than November 1, 2011. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1938 would have no signifi- cant impact on the federal budget. According to the Department of 

State and the Department of Energy, the regulatory activities related to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline are already underway, 

and CBO expects that, under current law, a final decision will be 

made during fiscal year 2012. Based on information from those 

agencies, CBO estimates that any change in federal costs to comply 

with the accelerated timeframe specified by H.R. 1938 would be insignificant. Enacting H.R. 1938 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. H.R. 1938 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs 

on state, local, or tribal governments. The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll. The es- timate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES 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. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

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

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO 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. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION

Section 1: Short title 

Section 1 provides the short title for the legislation, the ‘‘North 

American-Made Energy Security Act.’’ 

Section 2: Findings 

Section 2 offers numerous Congressional findings regarding domestic and global oil markets, the national security and economic 

benefits of Canadian oil imports, the parameters of the Keystone 

XL’s capacity and environmental impact, and the process of permit 

approval thus far. 

Section 3: Expedited approval process 

Section 3 directs the President, acting through the Secretary of 

Energy, to coordinate with all Federal agencies responsible for an 

aspect of the President’s National Interest Determination and Presidential Permit decision regarding construction and operation of 

Keystone XL, to ensure that all necessary actions are taken on an 

expedited schedule. The President must issue a final order grantVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:16 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR140P1.XXX HR140P1

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
15 

ing or denying the Presidential Permit for Keystone XL 30 days 

after the issuance of the final environmental impact statement, but 

in no event later than November 1, 2011. Section 3 makes also 

makes clear that no action made by the Secretary of Energy pursuant to this section shall affect any duty or responsibility to comply 

with any requirement to conduct environmental review. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

This legislation does not amend any existing Federal statute. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
(16) 

1TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P., Application of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. 

for a Presidential Permit Authorizing the Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Pipeline 

Facilities for the Importation of Crude Oil to be Located at the United States-Canada Border, 

7–9 (Sept. 19, 2008); U.S. Department of State, Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, Keystone XL Project, Applicant for Presidential Permit: TransCanada Keystone 

Pipeline, LP, 1–5 (Apr. 22, 2011). 2 Exec. Order No. 11423, 33 Fed. Reg. 11741 (Aug. 16, 1968); Exec. Order No. 13337, 69 Fed. 

Reg. 25299 (Apr. 30, 2004). 3 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 94–83. 

4 Exec. Order No. 13337, § 1(c), 69 Fed. Reg. 25299 (Apr. 30, 2004). 

5 U.S. Department of State, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline Project, 75 Fed. Reg. 20653 (Apr. 16, 

2010); U.S. Department of State, Notice of Availability of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline Project, 76 Fed. 

Reg. 22744 (Apr. 22, 2011). 

DISSENTING VIEWS ON H.R. 1938 

The State Department is currently considering a permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline, pursuant to the Department’s 

delegated authority to permit a transboundary pipeline project if 

the Department finds that such a project is in the national interest. 

Keystone XL is a highly controversial $7 billion pipeline that would 

transport up to 830,000 barrels per day (bpd) of tar sands crude oil 

almost 2,000 miles from Alberta to refineries in the Gulf Coast.1

H.R. 1938, the ‘‘North American-Made Energy Security Act of 

2011,’’ would override the State Department’s ongoing process. The 

bill would set a November 1, 2011, deadline for the State Department to act on the permit, direct the Department of Energy to establish a schedule for other responsible agencies to participate in 

the process, and make a series of findings that essentially predetermine the outcome of the State Department’s evaluation of the pipeline. 

Transboundary pipeline projects require Presidential approval to 

proceed. The President has delegated the authority to permit transboundary pipeline projects to the State Department under Executive Orders 11423 and 13337, which require a finding that a project 

is in the national interest.2 Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, in considering a project, the State Department 

must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) assessing 

the project’s impacts on the environment and evaluating alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects.3 E.O. 13337 recognizes that these complex decisions involve 

matters within the expertise of multiple federal agencies, and it 

provides specified federal agencies 90 days to comment on the application.4

The Department of State published a draft EIS on April 16, 

2010, for public comment. In response to extensive criticism of the 

draft, the State Department published a supplemental draft EIS 

(SDEIS) on April 22, 2011, providing additional information and 

analysis on various aspects of the project.5 The public comment period on the SDEIS closed on June 6, 2011. The State Department 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
17 

6 House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whit- field, Markup on H.R. 1938, 112th Cong. (June 15, 2011) (available at http://republicans. 

energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Markups/Energy/061511/Whitfield.pdf). 7 House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Testimony of TransCanada president for energy 

and oil pipelines Alex Pourbaix, Hearing on the American Energy Initiative, 112th Cong. (2011) 

(preliminary transcript available at http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/ 

files/imageluploads/TranscriptlHearinglEPl05.23.11.pdf). 8 Id. 

is currently evaluating comments on the SDEIS from the public 

and other federal agencies and is preparing the final EIS, which is 

expected to take several months. 

After completing the analysis of the project’s environmental impacts, the State Department will proceed to determine whether the 

project is in the national interest, which requires consideration of 

other factors beyond the environmental impacts. Pursuant to E.O. 

13337, other federal agencies including the Departments of Defense, Justice, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Energy and 

Homeland Security, and EPA have 90 days to provide their views 

regarding whether the proposed project is in the national interest. 

Also, the State Department has pledged that it will provide 30 days 

for the public to weigh in on the national interest determination, 

concurrent with the other agencies’ review period. The State Department has stated that it intends to act on the permit by the end 

of the year. 

H.R. 1938 would short-circuit this process. It requires the State 

Department to issue the permit decision within 30 days of the 

issuance of the final EIS and no later than November 1, 2011. This 

would cut the time available for federal agencies to consult on the 

State Department’s national interest decision by two-thirds and either substantially reduce or wholly eliminate the public comment 

period. The bill also would make findings related to the permit decision on matters currently being evaluated by the State Department and other federal agencies. 

I. PURPOSE OF H.R. 1938

Supporters of H.R. 1938 assert that the bill is necessary to get 

the Keystone XL pipeline built, claiming that the Obama administration has stonewalled on the project approval and created unnecessary delays in the permitting process.6 TransCanada’s president 

for energy and oil pipelines, Alex Pourbaix, stated that TransCanada has waited 33 months for the State Department’s permit 

decision on Keystone XL, while prior pipeline permit applications 

have taken 20 months.7

However, there is reason to believe that the review process has 

been appropriate given the scope and implications of the project. 

When asked whether the length of the Keystone XL review justified special legislation to truncate the review process, 

TransCanada’s Pourbaix declined to endorse H.R. 1938, testifying 

that the company had ‘‘no involvement in this proposed legislation.’’ Mr. Pourbaix stated that the review process for Keystone XL 

was ‘‘entirely appropriate, given the magnitude of the project and 

ensuring that people and stakeholders are heard in this process.’’ 8

The review process has taken longer than other recent pipelines, 

in part because Keystone XL is a larger and more controversial 

project and because the initial environmental review from the State 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
18 

9See, e.g., Letter from Rep. Inslee et al. to Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State (June 23, 2010) 

(conveying concerns of 50 members of the House of Representatives); Letter from Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Energy and Commerce Committee, to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of 

State (July 2, 2010) (online at: http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100706/ 

State.070210.Clinton.Keystone.XL.pdf); Letter from Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Energy and 

Commerce Committee, to Elizabeth Orlando, Keystone XL Project Manager, Department of 

State (July 2, 2010) (online at: http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100706/ 

State.070210.Orlando.Keystone.XL.pdf). 10Department of State Keystone XL Pipeline Project, How to Get Involved (available at http:// www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open) (accessed June 30, 2011). 11Letter from Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assur- ance, U.S. EPA, to Jose Fernandez and Kern-Ann Jones, U.S. Department of State (Jul. 16, 

2010). 12 Id. 13 House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, testimony of Jeremy Symons, Hearing on the American Energy Initiative, 112th Cong. (2011) (online at: http://democrats.energy 

commerce.house.gov/index.php?q=hearing/hearing-on-theamerican-energy-initiative-day-8). 14 House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, testimony of Randy Thompson, Hearing on the 

American Energy Initiative, 112th Cong. (2011) (online at: http://democrats.energy 

commerce.house.gov/index.php?q=hearing/hearing-on-theamerican-energy-initiative-day-8). 15 U.S. Department of State, State Department Announces Next Steps in Keystone XL Pipeline Permit Process (Mar. 15, 2011). 

Department was widely viewed as inadequate.9 The comment period on the DEIS closed on May 31, 2010. Pursuant to NEPA, EPA, 

DOE, the Interior Department and other federal agencies commented on the draft EIS, and there were over 40,000 public comments as well.10 As required by statute, EPA reviewed the adequacy of the draft EIS and rated the draft as ‘‘Category 3—Inadequate Information,’’ which is the lowest rating possible.11 In particular, EPA suggested that the State Department provide additional analysis on greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution from refineries, pipeline safety, and potential environmental justice concerns.12

One witness before the Committee raised concerns that the Keystone XL pipeline would raise gas prices by facilitating oil company 

market manipulation, hurt energy security by allowing tar sands 

product to be exported from the Gulf Coast, and jeopardize clean 

water supplies, among other concerns.13 Another invited witness 

submitted written testimony expressing concerns of farmers and 

ranchers near the pipeline route whose livelihood would be threatened by a spill.14

Also, no evidence has been presented to the Committee suggesting that the State Department will fail to carry out its stated 

plans to act on the permit application by the end of the year, or 

that the project would be endangered by waiting until then.15

While EPA filed additional comments on the SDEIS, EPA noted 

that the State Department had agreed to address many of the 

issues raised in the final EIS, and EPA’s comments do not threaten 

or delay the State Department’s ability to move forward with a 

final decision. With the close of the public comment period on the 

SDEIS in early June, the State Department has several months to 

complete the final EIS by September, while still providing 90 days 

for agency consultations on the national interest determination and 

a concurrent 30 days for public comment on the determination 

prior to the end of the year. 

This bill would require the State Department to make a decision 

within 30 days of the final EIS, or by November 1, 2011, at the latest. This cuts the period for interagency consultation on the national interest determination by two-thirds and drastically shortens 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
19 

16TransCanada Keystone Pipeline Group Ltd., Keystone XL Pipeline Section 52 Application, 

Section 3: Supply and Markets at 7. 17 Id. 18Purvin & Gertz, Inc., Western Canadian Crude Supply and Markets, Prepared for Trans- Canada Keystone Pipeline Group Ltd. (Feb. 12, 2009) at 27–28. 19 Id. at 29. See also, Philip Verleger, If gas prices go up further, blame Canada, Minnesota Star-Tribune (Mar. 13, 2011). 20Philip Verleger, If gas prices go up further, blame Canada, Minnesota Star-Tribune (Mar. 13, 2011). 21 EnSys, Keystone XL Assessment—Final Report, 99 (Dec. 23, 2010). 

22 Id. at 6. 23 EnSys, Keystone XL Assessment—Final Report, 103 (Dec. 23, 2010). 

or eliminates any opportunity for public comment on the national 

interest determination. 

Proponents of this bill also argue that the Keystone XL pipeline 

will lower gas prices, enhance energy security, and create jobs, and 

therefore the permit should be approved. 

Although the majority views claim that the Keystone XL pipeline 

will reduce gas prices, they provide no support for that assertion. 

In fact, some analyses indicate that the pipeline would actually 

raise gasoline prices in the United States, particularly in the Midwest, which would see supplies drop as oil is diverted to refineries 

on the Gulf Coast. In its application for the Keystone XL pipeline, 

TransCanada told the Canadian government that the Midwest 

market is ‘‘oversupplied,’’ resulting in ‘‘price discounting’’ for Canadian heavy crude oil.16 TransCanada concluded that a pipeline to 

the Gulf Coast will benefit all heavy crude producers in Western 

Canada ‘‘by increasing the price they receive for their crude.’’ 17

TransCanada also provided an independent analysis predicting 

that the Keystone XL pipeline would increase prices by $6.55 per 

barrel of crude oil in the Midwest and $3 per barrel everywhere 

else.18 By 2013, this will generate between $2 billion and $3.9 billion in additional revenue for Canadian oil companies.19 Dr. Philip 

Verlerger, a prominent oil market analyst, concluded after analyzing Keystone XL that ‘‘millions of Americans will spend 10 to 20 

cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel’’ if the pipeline 

is built.20

Supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline also argue that it will enhance energy security by reducing reliance on oil imports from the 

Middle East and Venezuela. A report by EnSys, which was contracted by DOE, finds that U.S. imports of Venezuelan crudes are 

projected to drop in all scenarios and are only minimally affected 

by building or not building Keystone XL.21

The majority views also are misleading in providing a partial 

quote from the EnSys report to claim that the report found that 

‘‘Keystone XL holds ‘the potential to very substantially reduce U.S. 

dependency on non-Canadian foreign oil, including from the Middle 

East.’’ The full quote from the report is: ‘‘Together, growing Canadian oil sands imports and U.S. demand reduction have the potential to very substantially reduce U.S. dependency on non-Canadian 

foreign oil, including from the Middle East.’’ 22 In fact, EnSys found 

that policies to lower oil demand have a substantially larger impact 

on U.S. imports of Middle Eastern crude than would increasing the 

amount of Canadian oil sands imports.23 The majority’s quote also 

eliminates the distinction that EnSys makes between the effects on 

Middle Eastern oil imports of increasing oil sands imports (which 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
20 

24 EnSys, Response to the Reuters News item published February 1, 2011 10:10pm EST, by 

Timothy Gardner and Edited by Devid Gregorio (undated) (online at: http:// 

www.ensysenergy.com/files/ResponsetoReutersonKeystoneXLassessmentreport.pdf). 25Philip K. Verleger, The Tar Sands Road to China (May 2011). 26 H.R. § 1938 2(14). 

has an effect) and building the Keystone XL pipeline (which does 

not). After a news report containing a similar mischaracterization 

of the EnSys results, EnSys released a statement clarifying its 

findings: 

The EnSys report makes clear that it is the low demand 

scenario, (which assumes strong policy actions to reduce 

U.S. oil use), supported by potentially increasing US imports of Canadian crudes, that ‘‘could essentially eliminate 

Middle East crude imports longer term’’, not the Keystone 

XL pipeline. As the EnSys report clearly states in its executive summary, the Keystone XL pipeline would not of 

itself have any significant impact on U.S. oil imports.24

Another analysis finds that the Keystone XL pipeline would facilitate the export of Canadian crude to China rather than the 

United States.25

II. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

A. Section 2: Findings 

Section 2 makes congressional findings on matters relevant to 

the State Department’s permit decision. Several findings supplant 

the State Department’s review process, directly stating that Keystone XL is in the national interest. The findings are broadly unbalanced, presenting only statements that support approval of the 

Keystone XL project. Some findings are even inaccurate and misleading. The cumulative effect of the findings is to conclude that 

construction of the Keystone XL project is in the national interest, 

and making it difficult for the State Department to reach any other 

conclusion. 

Several of the findings resolve key issues that the State Department is currently considering in the permit decision. Section 2(4) 

states that ‘‘(t)he development and delivery of oil and gas from 

Canada to the United States is in the national interest of the 

United States in order to secure oil supplies to fill needs that are 

projected to otherwise be filled by increases in other foreign supplies, notably from the Middle East.’’ Another finding states that 

the earliest possible construction of Keystone XL will make Canadian oil reserves available for U.S. use and increase jobs and ‘‘will 

therefore serve the national interest.’’ 26 These findings infringe on 

the President’s authority to decide whether the pipeline is in the 

national interest of the United States. 

The findings are also unbalanced. The bill presents reasons to 

approve the Keystone XL pipeline while ignoring or denying the 

many concerns about the project. 

One of the central objections to the Keystone XL pipeline is the 

effect on climate change. It is widely recognized that tar sands 

crudes have higher life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional crudes, and the SDEIS found that the project could increase U.S. life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions by up to an addiVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:16 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR140P1.XXX HR140P1

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
21 

27See, e.g., State Department, SDEIS at 3–199 (April 22, 2011). 28 EnSys, Keystone XL Assessment—Final Report at 117 (Dec. 23, 2010); EnSys, Keystone XL Assessment—Final Report, Appendix, 40 (Dec. 23, 2010). 29See Woynillowicz et al., Oil Sands Fever, Pembina Institute, 36–52 (Nov. 2005). 30Letter from Cynthia Giles, U.S. EPA to Jose W. Fernandez, Assistant Secretary, Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, U.S. Dept. of State and Dr. Kern-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary, 

Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Dept. of State (June 6, 

2011). 31Pipelines key to growth in North American crude output, IEA says, Globe and Mail (June 17, 2011). 32 Untimely pipeline spills: TransCanada, Enbridge buffected by accidents; Alberta frets over landlocked bitumen, Petroleum News (June 19, 2011). 33 Anthony Swift et al., Tar Sands Pipelines Safety Risks, a Joint Report by the Natural Re- sources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Pipeline Safety Trust, and Sierra Club, 

6 (Feb. 2011) (online at www.nrdc.org/energy/files/tarsandssafetyrisks.pdf). 34 House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Testimony of Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Administrator Cynthia L. Quarterman Hearing on ‘‘Pipeline Safety,’’ 

112th Cong. (Jun. 16, 2011). 35 House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Testimony of Randy Thompson, Hearing on the American Energy Initiative, 112th Cong. (May 23, 2011) (online at http://democrats. 

energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/imageluploads/TestimonylEPl05.23.11lThompson.pdf). 

tional 23 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent annually, although EPA commented that this was an underestimate of the high-end 

amount.27 EnSys project that, if other pipeline projects are not ap- proved, construction of Keystone XL would increase tar sands production by 800,000 barrels per day and increase global CO2-equivalent emission by 20 million metric tons per year by 2030.28 However, the findings fail to acknowledge any of these projections. In 

fact, the only mention of global warming is an inaccurate claim regarding the lack of impact on greenhouse gas emissions, which is 

discussed further below. 

The findings also make no mention of the other environmental impacts of increased tar sands production, including the destruction of Canada’s boreal forests and wetlands, and the degradation 

of water and air quality.29 EPA has raised concerns about the 

health impacts on communities that live near refineries from increased emissions from refineries.30

The majority views dismiss the environmental concerns by as- serting that oil sands production will increase with or without construction of Keystone XL. However, the International Energy Agency disagrees, finding that as much as 1 million barrels per day of 

production could fail to materialize if new pipelines are delayed.31

Similarly, sources in the oil industry and Albertan government indicate that access to pipelines is key to industry’s plans to more 

than double tar sands production by 2020.32

The bill findings also downplay serious concerns about the safety of diluted bitumen pipelines. Critics argue that tar sands bitumen 

is more corrosive than conventional oil and may exacerbate pipeline deterioration.33 These concerns are heightened by the series of accidents along TransCanada’s first Keystone pipeline in the first 

year of operation. The Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration testified in the Energy and Power 

Subcommittee that PHMSA has not evaluated the risks associated 

with transporting diluted bitumen.34 A breach of the Keystone XL pipeline that contaminates the Ogallala Aquifer would be calamitous. The findings also fail to address the concerns of landowners 

who will see the pipeline cross their land.35

Several of the findings are inaccurate or misleading. Contrary to Section 2(15), there has not been analysis using EPA models showVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:16 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR140P1.XXX HR140P1

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
22 

36Letter from Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, U.S. EPA, to Rep. Bobby L. Rush (Jun. 22, 2011). 37Green Party of Canada, Greens Defend BC North Coast Oil Tanker Ban (Feb. 25, 2011) (online at http://greenparty.ca/media-release/2011-02-25/greens-defends-bc-north-coast-oil-tankerban). See also The Tar Sands Road to China. 38See The Tar Sands Road to China. 39Keystone XL Assessment—Final Report at 30–31. 40 U.S. Department of State, Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Keystone 

XL Project, Applicant for Presidential Permit: TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP at ES–4 

(Apr. 22, 2011) (hereinafter ‘‘SDEIS’’). 

ing that construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will result in no 

significant change in United States or global greenhouse gas emissions. EPA confirmed the inaccuracy of this finding in a letter to 

Ranking Member Rush.36 Section 2(7) suggests that Canadian oil 

would ship to China if Keystone XL were not built. There is no existing outlet for any meaningful quantity of tar sands oil to be sent 

to China and there are significant barriers to constructing the necessary pipeline(s).37 Once completed, however, Keystone XL may 

provide a ready export corridor for the oil to Southeast Asia.38 Section 2(14) implies that faster construction of Keystone XL would 

speed the flow of Canadian oil to the U.S., but industry analyses 

show that spare pipeline capacity would persist until 2024 even 

without the construction of Keystone XL.39

B: Section 3: Expedited approval process 

Section 3 shortens the review process for the Keystone XL permit 

application by requiring that the President issue a final order 

granting or denying the Presidential Permit within 30 days of the 

issuance of the final environmental impact statement, and no later 

than November 1, 2011. The expedited approval process requires 

the Secretary of Energy to coordinate the federal agencies involved 

in the national interest determination to ensure that the agencies 

act on an expedited schedule. The federal agencies must meet any 

deadline established by the Secretary of Energy. 

This language would substantially cut the time available for federal agencies and the public to provide their views on the national 

interest determination. Currently, after the State Department 

issues a final EIS, there will be a 90-day period for the Department 

to consult with other federal agencies to determine if issuing a permit for the project is in the national interest.40 The public would 

also be able to submit comments on the national interest determination during the first 30 days of this period. This bill eliminates 

two-thirds of the time currently provided for federal agencies to 

consult on the national interest determination. It also would require reduction or elimination of the 30-day public comment period 

on the national interest determination that the State Department 

has committed to provide. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
23 

For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views contained in the Committee’s report. 

HENRY A. WAXMAN. 

BOBBY L. RUSH. 

JAY INSLEE. 

LOIS CAPPS. 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY. 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN. 

DORIS O. MATSUI. 

ANNA G. ESHOO. 

DIANA DEGETTE. 

KATHY CASTOR. 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS. 

fi 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS