Keystone XL Pipeline Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to discuss the
two concerns I have about the bill currently before the Senate--the
regulation that would grant immediate approval of the Presidential
permit necessary to construct and operate the Keystone XL Pipeline.

First and foremost, I believe a thorough regulatory review process is
critical for any major infrastructure project, particularly one that
will cross our country's border. Regulatory review enables the
identification of economic impacts from a major project and, more
importantly, environmental impacts that infrastructure projects such as
the Keystone Pipeline may bring.

We shouldn't trade transparency for expediency when it comes to the
construction of an international project that has such scope. I can't
support a bill that sacrifices these important protections. That is why
I voted in the past against legislation to allow the Keystone XL
Pipeline to circumvent the normal review process, and that is why I
intend to again vote against this bill.

I also have a number of concerns about the impact of the Keystone
Pipeline on our environment. In the past 2 weeks, we have had a
spirited debate on this floor, and a number of my colleagues have come
to the floor to talk about the pipeline oilspills we have seen in this
country.

Just a few days ago, an oil pipeline burst, leaking 50,000 gallons of
crude oil into the Yellowstone River in Montana. Yet this spill pales
in comparison to the 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill where over 1
million gallons of oil sands poured into Talmadge Creek in Michigan.
The cleanup has already cost more than $1 billion and taken over 4
years to complete. In fact, to date there has been no authoritative
study on how the spills of oil sands crude may differ from those of
conventional crude oil. This means we have no idea about the spill's
long-term effects on the health of wildlife in that river.

The other issue that has been raced onto the floor is the fact that
right now, because of the way we define crude oil, TransCanada--
supporting and planning to build the Keystone Pipeline--is not required
to pay into the federal oil spill liability trust fund, which would
ensure taxpayers against any spills. So we have this out-of-state, out-
of-country foreign company that is coming in to build this pipeline,
and yet they are not required to pay, as any American company would be,
into the oil spill liability trust fund. That, to me, doesn't make
sense. Circumventing the regulatory process for Keystone prevents us
from understanding the health hazards that we would face should another
spill occur.

I am also concerned that construction of the Keystone Pipeline will
increase carbon emissions and undermine some of the most critical
climate policies that we have in place. The pipeline poses threats to
our environment that have already been identified. Tar sands greenhouse
gas emissions are 81 percent greater than those of conventional oil.
That is because the production of oil sands crude is more energy
intensive, or more greenhouse gas intensive, than conventional crude
production. Additional processes are required to extract the oil,
remove the sand, and dilute the oil so that it can flow in a pipeline.

In addition, if the pipeline is approved, much of the boreal wetlands
in Alberta, Canada, which act as a carbon sink, would be destroyed,
releasing 11 million to 47 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

One of the reasons I am concerned about circumventing the regulatory
process is because I believe this could set a precedent for a rushed
approval of infrastructure projects currently under consideration in
New Hampshire.

In New Hampshire, we have two projects that really merit careful
consideration and thorough review that could be affected by a precedent
that says we should ignore the regulatory process. In New Hampshire,
the Northern Pass transmission proposal, which proposes to deliver
hydropower from Quebec into the New England energy markets and goes
through northern New Hampshire, would bring power to southern New
England, but New Hampshire wouldn't benefit. And any suggestion that we
would circumvent the process is a real concern to people in New Hampshire who would be affected by that project.

The other project is the potential reversal of the Portland-Montreal
pipeline, which, if the determination were made to do this, would send
oil sands through many New Hampshire communities, and that oil would
then be shipped to foreign countries.

So if we set the precedent of trading transparency for expediency
with Keystone, without requiring the completion of a comprehensive
approval process, local communities in New Hampshire may not have a
meaningful voice in the process that deals with Northern Pass or
reversing the Portland-Montreal pipeline. I think that is unacceptable.

These three projects--Keystone, Northern Pass, and Portland-
Montreal--have one important thing in common: They should undergo the
comprehensive environmental and safety approval process required by
existing law, and that should be done independent of politics.

Circumventing the Presidential permitting process for cross-border
pipelines and electric transmission facilities avoids the due process
that is needed to determine whether these projects are in the best
interests of the country.

In New Hampshire, Northern Pass and the Portland-Montreal pipeline
have raised serious concerns for people who live in areas impacted by
these projects. That is why I worked with the entire New Hampshire
congressional delegation in a bipartisan way to ensure that both
projects undergo a transparent, thorough, and comprehensive review
process. That allows the input of local communities who will be
affected by these projects.

Like people in New Hampshire and across the country, I share concerns
about our Nation's energy future. Throughout my career I have fought
for smart policies that will reduce energy costs in New Hampshire and
across the country, that will help create jobs, and will protect our
air and water from pollution.

But I don't believe mandating a project that bypasses the approval
process is a smart policy. We need to be smart and thoughtful about our
energy future. I think it would set a dangerous precedent for other
projects that could have serious consequences in New Hampshire and in
other States around the country.

I appreciate the debate we have had here on the Senate floor about
the Keystone Pipeline, but I will be opposing this bill.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source