National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2011
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the North American Energy Security Act of 2011. This is legislation I am sponsoring, along with Senator Lugar, Senator Vitter, Senator Johanns, and 37 other cosponsors--we already have 37 cosponsors on this legislation. This is a solutions-oriented bill that addresses concerns along the route of the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline is designed to carry 700,000 barrels a day of oil from Alberta, Canada, from the oil sands area in Canada, to refineries in the United States along the gulf coast, both in Texas and in Louisiana.
This is a $7 billion high-tech pipeline that will make a huge difference for our country, both in terms of energy security and also job creation. This is a project, Keystone Pipeline, that I have been working on for quite some time, formerly as Governor of the State of North Dakota and now as part of this body, the Senate. There already exists a pipeline called the Keystone Pipeline, which was built by TransCanada, that goes from Alberta, Canada, all the way down to our refineries. This pipeline runs through the eastern part of North Dakota and on down to Paducah, IL, and other locations as well, bringing approximately 600,000 barrels a day of Canadian crude into the United States.
The Keystone XL project would also be constructed by TransCanada, and it would come down from the Alberta area in Canada down just along North Dakota's western border in eastern Montana and go on down to Cushing and, as I said, to the refineries along the gulf coast.
In addition to bringing Canadian crude into the United States, it would also pick up crude along the way, crude produced in North Dakota. For example, in my home State of North Dakota, we will add 100,000 barrels a day of light sweet crude produced in the Williston Bay, centered in North Dakota and Montana, into that pipeline.
It is also designed to move our domestic crude to refineries as well. This is an important project that has been in the permitting process for 3 years. It has been going through the NEPA process, seeking an environmental impact statement and approval not only of EPA but of our State Department for 3 years.
We need to get it going because it is not only about reducing our dependance on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, and other places in the world that are not friendly to the United States, but it is also a huge job creator. This project is a big-time job creator. We are talking about a $7 billion investment to build the pipeline. We are talking about 20,000 construction jobs right away. We are talking about 250,000 jobs over time. We are talking about $600 million in tax revenue to States and other localities.
This is a huge project, and we need to get it going. We particularly need to get it going at a time when we have 9 percent unemployment in our economy and more than 14 million people looking for work. So we need it to get that economic activity going. We need it to get people back to work. We need it for energy security. We need this project to reduce our dependance on oil from the Mideast.
Where is the project right now? The latest issue that has been raised as far as not getting approval for the project from the Department of State was that the State of Nebraska had environmental concerns that the pipeline, this 1,700-mile pipeline running from the oil sands in Canada all the way down to our refineries, that in its route through the State of Nebraska, it was going through an area that was environmentally sensitive and that would create a problem.
It is the High Plains area, the Sand Hills area of Nebraska. The concern was that with the Ogallala aquifer underlying that area and the irrigation for that farming and ranching region, that pipeline was a problem. In fact, there was opposition in the State of Nebraska to the project for that reason.
However, working with the company, TransCanada, and with the State of Nebraska, we have addressed that issue. Recently, the State of Nebraska had a special session. Gov. Dave Heineman called a special session in Nebraska. They held the session, and they came up with a plan, through their Department of Environmental Quality, working with the EPA, to reroute the project in the State of Nebraska.
On the basis of that rerouting and going through the approval process they developed between the State and Federal Government, on that basis, they have now addressed that concern in Nebraska. What this legislation does, it essentially is a solutions-based piece of legislation that says: OK, we are addressing these issues that have been raised. Now we need to move forward to capture the tremendous benefits for our country that this project provides: big-time job creation and reducing our dependance on Middle Eastern oil.
How does the bill work? Specifically, what it provides is that 60 days after its passage, the pipeline is approved so work can commence on the Keystone XL pipeline. That means 20,000 jobs. That means $7 billion in investment starts right away.
Then, as to the Wyoming piece, the State of Wyoming, together with EPA and the Federal Government, works through to reroute in Nebraska, so that a portion of the pipeline is then approved once they have gone through their process and decided on the route that meets the concerns in Nebraska.
In essence, this legislation, again, it is about addressing the concerns, solving the problem, and moving forward. This incorporates the special legislation and the solution that has been put forward by the State of Nebraska. It incorporates it right into the bill and enables us to move forward.
I have referenced the tremendous benefits in terms of energy security, in terms of job creation, in terms of working with our best friend and ally, Canada, in reducing our dependence on oil from places such as the Middle East and Venezuela.
But let me address one other point. Another point that has been brought up in opposition to the pipeline project is that the production of oil in Canada, in the oil sand region, produces CO
2. So that if this pipeline is built, some argue then there will be more CO
2 released because of
production in Canada in the oil sands and that product coming into the United States.
But, in fact, without this pipeline, we will produce more CO
2. The point, let me underscore, is that this pipeline project will actually produce less CO
2 than we would otherwise produce without the creation of the pipeline.
Why is that? Let me go through it. If we do not have the pipeline, then instead of bringing that product into the United States, that product will still be produced. The production will still occur in Canada. But the pipeline, instead of coming into the United States, will be rerouted to the western border of Canada, and it will be sent to China.
That means large oil tankers will be hauling the product to refineries in China. The refineries in China produce higher emissions than our refineries. Plus, we have those ships that produce CO
2 as they haul all this product to the Far East. Furthermore, since that supply is not coming to the United States, we have to continue to import product from the Middle East and also from places such as Venezuela, as I mentioned.
In essence, we have supertankers bringing that product to the United States. So not only are we, in essence, now hauling the equivalent of 700,000 barrels a day around the world in supertankers and producing CO
2 emissions there, we are also taking this product over to the Chinese refineries, where they have higher emissions.
My point is, the oil sands are still produced, are they not, under either scenario? But without this pipeline, we actually have higher CO
2 emissions on a global basis. Again, it is about addressing all the concerns that have been raised with this project, and it does that. At the same time, we create tens of thousands of jobs right off the bat. We create hundreds of millions in revenue for States and localities at a time when they badly need it and, again, we reduce our dependance on oil from parts of the world where it truly is an issue for our country in regards to energy security.
It is about common sense. It is about addressing all the issues that have been raised. I urge my colleagues to join me and the 37 sponsors and cosponsors that we already have on this legislation to pass it and help put people back to work, help get our economy going, and help improve our national energy security.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source