Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?



113th Congress                                            Rept. 113-61
                    }  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES  {
 1st Session        }                            {       113-61 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 permit 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 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 project-specific 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.
    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:


    The final recorded vote was to order H.R. 3 favorably 
reported to the House. The votes were as follows:


                      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.
    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).

                        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 labor-related 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 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.