National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, yesterday a number of us--I think the number now is somewhere in the 37-to-38 ballpark of Senators--introduced legislation to expedite consideration of the Keystone XL Pipeline. What is interesting to me about all of this is that this is a project that has been literally reviewed and analyzed and studied and scrutinized now for the better part of 3 years.
In fact, they have had two comprehensive environmental evaluations and 3 years of study and review. Then, just recently, the Obama administration deferred a decision on the permit until after the 2012 elections, essentially putting off the decision for about 18 months.
Well, what is ironic and sort of interesting about that is this is a project which--after having been carefully vetted for the past 3 years, carefully reviewed, carefully studied, all of the environmental impact analysis done--would lead to all kinds of economic development for this country and job creation in many of the States that are impacted.
Our State of South Dakota happens to be one of those. The pipeline traverses South Dakota as it heads down to refineries in other places in the country. But it would benefit my State by generating significant amounts of State and local tax revenue, revenue that is much needed by many of the local jurisdictions: school districts, counties, municipalities in the State of South Dakota.
So there is a tremendous benefit to the construction of this pipeline to the various States that are impacted simply as a result of the additional tax revenue that would be raised by it. Add to that, in my State of South Dakota, the hundreds of jobs that would be created, the half billion dollars of economic activity that it would generate--and this is very clear, from the State of South Dakota's standpoint, which is why I believe our Governor has weighed in behind this project, that this is something that ought to at least be decided. There is no reason why, no rational reason why, no logical reason why this project would be delayed for 18 months simply to get past the next election.
All of the work has been done. It seems to me at least there ought to be a decision made. We are talking about a $7 billion investment in this country and partly in Canada to get from where the oil sands are to get the oil to the refineries in the United States. If we look at the overall, as I said, economic impact, number of jobs created, it is pretty impressive--20,000 jobs, I think, is the estimate that it would create in this country.
Those are jobs that, frankly, many of these States could certainly benefit from. Not to mention the fact that we are doing business with someone who is favorable and friendly to us. Canada is our biggest trading partner. I think we do about $640 billion annually in bilateral trade with Canada. Canada is a country with which we have a very good, strong trading relationship. It strikes me at least that if we are going to get oil from somewhere, it makes sense to get it from a country such as Canada as opposed to some of the other countries around the world that are much less friendly to the United States.
In fact, the Keystone XL Pipeline would transport daily about 700,000 barrels of oil that would come through that pipeline. That is the equivalent of the amount that we get on a daily basis from Venezuela.
So if you are thinking about getting 700,000 barrels of oil from somewhere in the world, would it not make more sense to get it from Canada as opposed to Venezuela? I think in terms of what it does for our energy independence, for our energy security, dealing with a friendly nation, and making it more possible for our country to become less dependent upon foreign countries for this energy we need, it strikes me that at least this particular project makes a lot of sense.
You have not only the economic impact, in terms of the activity it would create in the various States that would be impacted by it, the number of jobs created--as I said, 20,000 jobs is the estimate, with a $7 billion initial investment--and all the tax revenue generated for State and local government along the way, but wouldn't it be nice if the United States got into the situation where we were actually an energy exporter?
Believe it or not, this is the first year in the last 62 years--and this is according to a story that ran in the Wall Street Journal yesterday--according to data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday, the United States has sent abroad 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first 9 months of this year, while it imported 689.4 million barrels. That means that, for the first time in 62 years, in 2011--if this trend continues--and it looks as though it will--we will have exported more energy than we imported. We are still a net importer of petroleum, or oil. Hopefully, we can change that in the future by developing these resources we have in this country, one of which is the Bakken Reserve in North Dakota, which is generating enormous amounts of oil for this country. So we are still a net oil importer.
In terms of refined gasoline and other products--refined energy--for the first time in 62 years, in 2011, we may be a net exporter of energy. I think that is an amazing data point, and it suggests this is something that could benefit enormously the American economy. Well, in order for that to happen, we have to have those resources we can get from the oil sands in Canada and bring them into the United States, where they are refined here and then either used here or sent abroad. But it is a way we can generate additional economic activity and jobs for our economy.
This is a quote from the Global Director of Oil, which tracks energy markets. He said this trend we are going to see this year, 2011--again, first time in 62 years we will be a net exporter of energy--he says it looks like a trend that could stay in place for the rest of the decade. That is a remarkable change in terms of the flow of energy from this country. The last time we were a net exporter of energy was during World War II and shortly thereafter. It has been over 60 years.
That is what a project such as this could do for our country--not just the immediate impact on those States through which this pipeline would traverse, in terms of the tax revenue that would be generated for State and local governments, but you also have the economic activity it creates in those States, the jobs it creates in those States, and what it does in order to move us increasingly away from dependence upon other countries in the world with whom we have, at best, shaky relationships to start with.
Doing business with our largest trading partner--a country with which we do enormous amounts of trade every single year--seems to me at least to be a much better solution to this country's energy needs than is getting that same amount of energy from other countries around the world.
Madam President, 700,000 barrels a day is what the pipeline would transport into this country. That is the equivalent that we get on a daily basis from Venezuela. This is a project that ought to be decided. Whether it is decided affirmatively--obviously, as you can tell, I believe it should be. There are people in South Dakota who are opposed to this. There have been ample opportunities for public forums and hearings for people to comment on it. There have been lots of opportunities for those opposed to it to weigh in.
Notwithstanding that, again, all the analyses have been done, the review done, and the studies are now completed, and they have indicated there is no reason for this not to move forward--particularly given the fact that the State of Nebraska has negotiated with TransCanada, the builder of the pipeline, an agreement that would take it in a different direction through that State. All those hoops have been gone through, and the hurdles have been cleared. There isn't a reason why this should be delayed another 18 months until after the next Presidential election--other than, purely and simply, for political reasons.
I hope we will be able to get good, strong support in the Senate for this legislation that would allow this to be decided in a more immediate timeframe. As I said, right now, the administration has punted until after the next election, 18 months down the road. This legislation would enable this to be decided in the next couple of months--the next 60 days or so--subject, obviously, to some requirements that are in there--obviously, the strongest environmental requirements. But all that having been reviewed and having been accomplished, it is time for a decision on this important project.
I hope we can get strong support in the Senate for this legislation. It has been introduced by a number of my colleagues, including the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, Senator Johanns from Nebraska, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, and a number of others. I am a cosponsor. At last count, I think it has somewhere along the lines of 37 or 38 cosponsors. Incidentally, it passed in the House of Representatives already. So there is a vehicle out there that has passed one body of Congress. It is my hope we will be able to get action here in the Senate, and that it might be something we can do that would have an immediate impact on jobs.
We always talk about shovel-ready projects. This is a shovel-ready project. This is ready to go. They are ready to start construction of this project. It has been through in the last 3 years all of the process this government can require it to go through in order to make sure this project should move forward.
I think it is important for this body to act on this legislation and allow us to get to where we can get a decision on this project that will lead to more economic activity, more economic impact, more jobs for Americans, more energy security for this country, and hopefully, at the end of the day, a lessening of the dangerous dependence we have on foreign sources of energy, which we want to get away from. I think it is a win-win. I congratulate the sponsors of the legislation for the thoughtful way they have considered this and put this legislation together. I hope it gets consideration in the Senate.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source