S 1932 PCSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Calendar No. 245CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

112th CONGRESSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1st SessionCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

S. 1932CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

To require the Secretary of State to act on a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

November 30, 2011CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. VITTER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. COATS, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. WICKER, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. MORAN, Mr. THUNE, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ENZI, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. RISCH, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. KIRK, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. BURR, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. LEE, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HELLER, Mr. CORKER, Mr. TOOMEY, and Ms. AYOTTE) introduced the following bill; which was read the first timeCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

December 1, 2011CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Read the second time and placed on the calendarCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

A BILLCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

To require the Secretary of State to act on a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘North American Energy Security Act’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) United States overdependence on oil imports from hostile or unstable regions damages United States national security, endangers the economy of the United States, puts the lives of military and civilian personnel at risk, and ensures that access to oil imports comes at tremendous taxpayer expense;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) the United States imports more than half of the oil it consumes, much of it from countries that do not have the level of environmental standards of Canada and the United States and that are hostile to United States interests or that have political and economic instability that compromises supply security;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) while a significant portion of the United States’ oil 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 oil-producing nations;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(4) strong increases in oil consumption in the developing world outpace growth in oil supplies, bringing tight market conditions and higher oil prices in periods of global economic expansion or when supplies are threatened;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(5) the development and delivery of oil from Canada to the United States is in the national interest of the United States by helping to secure reliable oil supplies to meet demand that is otherwise projected to be met by increases in imports from less secure and reliable suppliers;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(6) secure and reliable trade with Canada complements United States domestic energy priorities;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





(8)(A) Canada and the United States have the largest 2-way trading relationship in the world;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) for every United States dollar spent on products from Canada, including oil, 90 cents is returned to the United States economy; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(C) when the same metrics are applied to trading relationships with some other major sources of United States crude oil imports, returns are much lower;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(9)(A) the principal choice for Canadian oil exporters is between moving increasing crude oil volumes to the United States or Asia, particularly China; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) increased Canadian oil exports to China would result in increased crude oil imports to the United States from less secure and reliable foreign sources, many of which do not have the level of environmental standards of Canada and the United States;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(10) increased Canadian crude oil imports into the United States correspondingly reduces the scale of wealth transfers to other more distant foreign sources resulting from the greater cost of transporting crude oil from those sources;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(11) not only are United States companies major investors in Canadian oil sands, but many United States businesses throughout the United States benefit from supplying goods and services required for ongoing Canadian oil sands operations and expansion;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(12) there has been more than 3 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;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(13) the Keystone XL pipeline represents a high capacity pipeline supply option that could meet near, 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 crude oil to market;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(14) completion of the Keystone XL pipeline would increase total Keystone pipeline system capacity by 700,000 barrels per day to 1,290,000 barrels per day;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(15) the Keystone XL pipeline would directly create 20,000 jobs and many more long-term jobs and related labor income benefits through the supply chain;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(16) the earliest possible construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will increase the quantity of proven and potential reserves of Canadian oil available for United States use and increase United States jobs and will, as a result, serve the national interest;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(17) the Keystone XL pipeline would be state-of-the-art and be constructed to meet the highest safety standards; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(18) as a result 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.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 3. PERMIT FOR KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE.

(a) In General- Except as provided in subsection (b), not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall grant a permit under Executive Order 13337 (3 U.S.C. 301 note; relating to issuance of permits with respect to certain energy-related facilities and land transportation crossings on the international boundaries of the United States) for the Keystone XL pipeline project application filed on September 19, 2008 (including amendments).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Exception-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) IN GENERAL- The President shall not be required to grant the permit under subsection (a) if the President determines that the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the national interest.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) REPORT- If the President determines that the Keystone XL pipeline is not in the national interest under paragraph (1), the President shall, not later than 15 days after the date of the determination, submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the minority leader of the House of Representatives a report that provides a justification for determination, including consideration of economic, employment, energy security, foreign policy, trade, and environmental factors.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) EFFECT OF NO FINDING OR ACTION- If a determination is not made under paragraph (1) and no action is taken by the President under subsection (a) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline described in subsection (a) that meets the requirements of subsections (c) and (d) shall be in effect by operation of law.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(c) Requirements- The permit granted under subsection (a) shall require the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) The permittee shall comply with all applicable Federal and State laws (including regulations) and all applicable industrial codes regarding the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of the United States facilities.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) The permittee shall obtain all requisite permits from Canadian authorities and relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) The permittee shall take all appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate any adverse environmental impact or disruption of historic properties in connection with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the United States facilities.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(4) For the purpose of the permit issued under subsection (a) (regardless of any modifications under subsection (d))--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) the final environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, satisfies all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f);CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) any modification required by the Secretary of State to the Plan described in paragraph (5)(A) shall not require supplementation of the final environmental impact statement described in that paragraph; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(C) no further Federal environmental review shall be required.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(5) The construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities shall be in all material respects similar to that described in the application described in subsection (a) and--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) in accordance with the construction, mitigation, and reclamation measures agreed to by the permittee in the Construction Mitigation and Reclamation Plan found in appendix B of the final environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, subject to the modification described in subsection (d);CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) the special conditions agreed to between the permittee and the Administrator of the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation found in appendix U of the final environmental impact statement described in subparagraph (A);CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(C) if the modified route submitted by the Governor of Nebraska under subsection (d)(3)(B) crosses the Sand Hills region, the measures agreed to by the permittee for the Sand Hills region found in appendix H of the final environmental impact statement described in subparagraph (A); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(D) the stipulations identified in appendix S of the final environmental impact statement described in subparagraph (A).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(6) Other requirements that are standard industry practice or commonly included in Federal permits that are similar to a permit issued under subsection (a).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(d) Modification- The permit issued under subsection (a) shall require--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) the reconsideration of routing of the Keystone XL pipeline within the State of Nebraska;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) a review period during which routing within the State of Nebraska may be reconsidered and the route of the Keystone XL pipeline through the State altered with any accompanying modification to the Plan described in subsection (c)(5)(A); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) the President--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) to coordinate review with the State of Nebraska and provide any necessary data and reasonable technical assistance material to the review process required under this subsection; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) to approve the route within the State of Nebraska that has been submitted to the Secretary of State by the Governor of Nebraska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(e) Effect of No Approval- If the President does not approve the route within the State of Nebraska submitted by the Governor of Nebraska under subsection (d)(3)(B) not later than 10 days after the date of submission, the route submitted by the Governor of Nebraska under subsection (d)(3)(B) shall be considered approved, pursuant to the terms of the permit described in subsection (a) that meets the requirements of subsection (c) and this subsection, by operation of law.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Calendar No. 245CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

112th CONGRESSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1st SessionCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

S. 1932CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

A BILLCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

To require the Secretary of State to act on a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

December 1, 2011CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Read the second time and placed on the calendarCommentsClose CommentsPermalink