{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/waxman-and-whitehouse-question-us-trade-representatives-position-on-tar-sands", "Waxman & Whitehouse Question U.S. Trade Representative’s Position on Tar Sands", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Democrat", "House", "RI", "Sheldon Whitehouse", "W000802", "www.whitehouse.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "12.20.13\n\t\t\t Waxman & Whitehouse Question U.S. Trade Representative\u2019s Position on Tar Sands \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\tWashington, D.C. \u2013 As the Obama Administration continues its process of determining whether to approve the development of the Keystone XL pipeline, a group of 21 U.S. Senators and Representatives are raising concerns about reports that U.S. trade negotiators are advocating for weaker international regulations on the tar sands crude oil that the pipeline would transport.\u00a0 In a letter led by Rep. Henry A. Waxman and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the lawmakers ask whether the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has been pressing the European Commission to alter its proposed treatment of tar sands oil in the European Union\u2019s (EU) Fuel Quality Directive (FQD).\u00a0\r\nThe EU has proposed a FQD that would discourage the use of high-emission fuels like tar sands oil.\u00a0 According to reports, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has lobbied against the directive.\r\n\u201cIf these reports are accurate, USTR\u2019s actions could undercut the EU\u2019s commendable goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its transportation sectors,\u201d the lawmakers wrote.\u00a0 \u201cThis would be contrary to the principles of the Obama Administration\u2019s Climate Action Plan and would reflect a short-sighted view of the United States\u2019 economic interests.\u00a0 Given the importance of the issues at stake, we believe clarification of USTR\u2019s position is necessary.\u201d\r\nThe tar sands oil that would be unleashed by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the southern United States produces 17% more carbon pollution, on a lifecycle basis, compared with the average crude refined in the United States, and up to 22% more carbon pollution when the estimate accounts for the full range of products produced from a barrel of tar sands crude.\u00a0\r\nAgainst this backdrop, the lawmakers are calling the U.S. Trade Representative\u2019s reported actions \u201ctroubling,\u201d and at odds with the goal outlined in the President\u2019s Climate Action Plan of \u201cgalvanizing international action to significantly reduce emissions.\u201d\r\nIn addition to Waxman and Whitehouse, the letter was also signed by Senators Barbara Boxer, Ed Markey, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, and Elizabeth Warren; and Representatives John Conyers, Jr., Barbara Lee, Ra\u00fal M. Grijalva, Rush Holt, Louise M. Slaughter, Jerrold Nadler, Judy Chu, Peter DeFazio, Anna G. Eshoo, Sam Farr, Peter Welch, Alan Lowenthal, Mark Pocan, and Steve Cohen.\r\nThe full text of the letter is below.\r\n----------------------------------------------------\r\nDecember 20, 2013\r\n\u00a0\r\nAmbassador Michael Froman\r\nOffice of the United States Trade Representative\r\n600 17th Street, NW\r\nWashington, DC\u00a0 20508\r\nDear Ambassador Froman:\r\nWe write to you today to raise our concerns about the Office of the United States Trade Representative\u2019s position on the European Union\u2019s Fuel Quality Directive (FQD).\u00a0 Recent reports suggest that USTR has pressed the European Commission to alter its proposed treatment of tar sands crude oil in the FQD.\u00a0 If these reports are accurate, USTR\u2019s actions could undercut the EU\u2019s commendable goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its transportation sectors.\u00a0 This would be contrary to the principles of the Obama Administration\u2019s Climate Action Plan and would reflect a short-sighted view of the United States\u2019 economic interests.\u00a0 Given the importance of the issues at stake, we believe clarification of USTR\u2019s position is necessary.\r\nTar sands products have a significantly worse carbon footprint than other petroleum products.\u00a0 The State Department\u2019s Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline northern route acknowledges, for example, that Canadian tar sands bitumen produces 17% more carbon pollution, on a lifecycle basis, compared with the average crude refined in the United States, and 22% more carbon pollution when the estimate accounts for the full range of products produced from a barrel of tar sands crude.[1]\u00a0 Just shifting from the average crude to tar sands crude in the amount that would be carried by the Keystone XL pipeline would raise U.S. carbon pollution by 1215 million metric tons over the next 50 years.[2]\u00a0 According to the Administration\u2019s estimate, the social cost of carbon rises from $37 per MTCO2e in 2015 to $71 per MTCO2e in 2050.[3]\u00a0 This single source of tar sands products, therefore, could produce more than $70 billion in additional damages associated with climate change over 50 years, the costs of which will be partially borne by U.S. businesses and investments worldwide.\r\nAccording to the World Trade Organization, the United States raised the FQD at the October 2013 meeting of the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.\u00a0 The U.S., along with Canada, \u201cargued that all globally-traded petroleum products should be treated without discrimination, in line with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, and urged the EU to consider less trade-restrictive approaches to achieve its goals.\u201d[4]\r\nIn response to questions regarding the treatment of tar sands oil in the FQD from a House Ways & Means Committee hearing, you expressed concern with the level of transparency and public participation in the FQD\u2019s development.\u00a0 You further stated that you \u201craised these issues with senior Commission officials on several occasions, including in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T?TIP) [and] continue to press the Commission to take the views of stakeholders, including U.S. refiners, under consideration as they finalize these amendments.\u201d[5]\r\nThese reports are troubling.\u00a0 A policy of pressuring the EU to alter its FQD would be inconsistent with the goals of the Administration\u2019s Climate Action Plan.\u00a0 As the Plan outlines, one of its three \u201ckey pillars\u201d is \u201cfor the United States to couple action at home with leadership internationally.\u00a0 America must help forge a truly global solution to this global challenge by galvanizing international action to significantly reduce emissions (particularly among the major emitting countries), prepare for climate impacts, and drive progress through the international negotiations.\u201d[6]\u00a0 We strongly agree with the carbon reduction goals of the President\u2019s Plan, both at home and abroad.\r\nGiven the substantial harm that tar sands crude oil poses to the climate and the United States\u2019 long-term economic well-being, as well as the potential conflict with President Obama\u2019s Climate Action Plan, we request that you provide us a statement of USTR\u2019s position on the EU\u2019s Fuel Quality Directive.\r\nSincerely,\r\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/waxman-and-whitehouse-question-us-trade-representatives-position-on-tar-sands"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.2531310096383095, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}