The Keystone XL Pipeline

Floor Speech

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I think there are a few things that many people across the country, and, hopefully, in the Congress, agree upon. One is that we need to focus like a laser on creating jobs. That is something I think there is universal agreement on here.

I also think there is universal agreement that we ought to become more energy independent as a nation. We need to look for ways in which our country can lessen that dangerous dependence we have on foreign sources of energy. We import a good amount of our oil from other places around the world--some of them not so friendly regimes. That is why it is such a mystery as to why the Keystone XL Pipeline project is running into such resistance from the administration.

It is ironic in many respects because we had the President of the United States, several months ago, saying:

We are going to have to import some oil; and when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, obviously, we've got to look at neighbors like Canada and Mexico that are stable, steady, and reliable sources.

That is what the President said earlier this year, that if we are going to get energy, if we are going to import oil, we ought to import it from countries that are friendly to the United States. I argue there is no country more friendly to the United States than Canada, with whom we have a very robust trading relationship. We do about $640 billion of bilateral trade annually with our Canadian neighbors. So thinking that we might be able to get oil from Canada, as opposed to from Venezuela or somewhere in the Middle East, seems like a good option for this country--a good option that policymakers here ought to be very supportive of.

That, again, makes it an even greater mystery as to why the administration has insisted on blocking or even making a decision about whether we can develop a project called the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would take advantage of those oil resources available in Canada and bring them into the United States, transport them through a pipeline that is 1,700 miles long to refineries where that product can be refined, and people here could benefit from it or it could be sold perhaps somewhere else. Nevertheless, it would benefit the economy.

Both in the initial stages when the project is under construction, as well as later on, it will create lots of jobs. In my State of South Dakota--the pipeline would come through South Dakota as it makes its way down to the refineries, and we would benefit from hundreds of jobs that would be created and $ 1/2 billion in economic activity will be created alone in South Dakota. That is during the construction phase, not to mention all the State and local tax revenue that would benefit many of the local governments across my State and other States through which the pipeline would traverse.

It is increasingly a mystery--I don't know how else to describe it--a curiosity or something--to those of us who see the great benefit in getting our oil resources from a friendly country like Canada as to why this administration would be so opposed even to issuing a decision on permitting this pipeline project that would enable that oil to come from Canada through to refineries in this country.

The other issue on which there is universal agreement is that we ought to put policies in place that create jobs. There is no greater shovel-ready project than the Keystone XL Pipeline. It would have an immediate impact of 20,000 jobs that will be created immediately--a $7 billion initial investment and billions more over the years as this project continues to be utilized. Furthermore, I argue that it will create other opportunities for energy project development. Certainly, the Bakken oil find in North Dakota would stand to benefit from having a pipeline this accessible to it. It creates all kinds of spinoffs and other types of economic activity that would be good for jobs.

We will have something that lessens our dependence upon foreign sources of energy by about 700,000 barrels of oil a day, creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, and enhances the ability of State and local governments to collect revenues, which they desperately need for their own purposes and needs. Yet here we are looking at this project--or at least a decision on it--being blocked by this administration for no apparent reason other than politics, I argue.

We are heading into a political year, and the President is running for reelection next year. I think it is clear that the delay on a decision on this project for 18 months was clearly designed to get past the Presidential election so the President would not have to make a decision that splits his political base. We have the labor groups that are for it and the environmental groups that are opposed to it. I guess it must be a political decision for this administration to delay this project. It doesn't make sense for America and American workers.

The President says he gets up every day and he thinks about what he can do to create jobs. Well, here are 20,000 immediate jobs that we can benefit from right away--not to mention the many jobs that would come if this project was built.

As we look at the legislation sent to us from the House of Representatives, it includes this Keystone XL Pipeline language that would allow a decision to be made 60 days from its enactment. So we could accelerate at least the period in which this decision could be made.

Why is that important? Because this project is going to go on one way or the other. If it is not built in this country, it will be shipped somewhere else around the world--perhaps China or another country--and the American workers and the American economy will suffer, and the American need that we have for energy will not be met. We are not going to benefit or be advantaged by not having this project here or if it goes someplace else. That makes absolutely no sense for our economy, no sense for jobs and for many States that are in support of this project.

I hope as this debate gets underway on the proposal sent from the House of Representatives, the sticking point, the thing that hangs it up is not the Keystone XL Pipeline. People will probably have honest disagreements about various provisions in the legislation being sent to us from the House, but one thing that should not delay or in any way detour this from being considered in the Senate is

resistance or objections to a final decision being made on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

I want to read a few things for you that have been said by some of the folks across this country who think this is a good idea. Many represent working people--the labor unions. The Teamsters said:

The Keystone Pipeline project will offer working men and women a real chance to earn a good wage and support their families in this difficult economic climate.

The AFL-CIO said:

For America's skilled craft construction professionals, any discussion of the Keystone XL project begins and ends with one word: Jobs.

Look at what has been said by the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers:

At a time when jobs are the top global priority, the Keystone project will put thousands back to work and have ripple benefits throughout the North American economy. Our members look forward to being part of this historic project and pledge to deliver the highest quality work to make it a success.

That is what some of the labor leaders are saying. I want to read what some key Democrats in Congress have said about this. These are a few excerpts from Democratic Members of Congress:

America truly cannot afford to say ``no'' to this privately funded, $20 billion jobs-creating infrastructure project, which could bolster our economic, energy, and national security. To that end, we respectfully urge you to ensure that the Presidential permit is issued for Keystone XL.

Here is another quote:

Mr. President, America needs the Keystone XL pipeline. It is in our national interest to have a permit issued for Keystone XL as soon as possible.

The Department of State's final environmental impact statement reaffirmed the findings of the two previous environmental impact statements; namely, that the pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment.

So we have a project that has been OK'ed by the environmental agencies in this country, the people who look at the environmental impacts, who have said this project is ready to go. We have labor organizations that are waiting and are saying this is important to getting people back to work. We have Democrats in Congress who have said this is a project that we should be for. In fact, there was a vote on this language in a freestanding bill in the House recently. There were 47 Democrats who came out in support of the Keystone XL Pipeline legislation. So we have 47 Democrats on record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, through the Chair, I would say to my colleague from North Dakota that my understanding is the legislation does permit that to happen, and that is why I believe the State of Nebraska, including the Governor and our colleagues here in the Senate from Nebraska, have now come out in support of this. Whereas previously there had been some concern about the Ogallala aquifer, my understanding is the legislation allows for that issue to be addressed. And I have a statement here from the Governor of Nebraska expressing his support for this legislation. So it does strike me that at least that should not be an issue that in any way deters consideration of this pipeline and that we shouldn't have to wait 18 months.

I am saying to my colleague from North Dakota--and I think he recognizes the value of this, as he is from North Dakota, and obviously his is a State that could be favorably impacted by the economic activity resulting from this pipeline--that if we don't do this, somebody else is going to benefit from it. This is not going to wait around. There are vast oil sands reserves up in Canada, and they are looking for a place where they can get this to a refinery and get it refined. If the United States doesn't move forward, some other country is going to benefit.

Mr. CONRAD. If I could just say to my colleague, Canada is going to develop this resource. This oil is going to go somewhere. It is absolutely in our national interest for that oil to come to our country. If the language is, as the Senator represents, that it permits the rerouting of the line within Nebraska to avoid the issue with the Ogallala aquifer, then I, for one, on this side, would hope this could be part of the final package.

I hope this is something we can work through in the coming hours. This should not be the thing that prevents us from reaching across the aisle, reaching across the divide between the two Chambers and achieving a result that is critically important for the country.

I thank the Senator for allowing me to ask this question.

Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the question and comments of the Senator from North Dakota. I couldn't agree more with the sentiments he expressed.

I do believe we have in front of us something for which there is a lot of bipartisan support--an extension of unemployment insurance benefits, with some reforms, a payroll tax cut extension, a fix for the physician reimbursements under Medicare, and a number of other things that have been put into this with an eye toward not only addressing what are some very serious concerns--many of these things expire at the end of the year--but also something that would really create jobs, that has a jobs component to it that would do something positive for our economy.

I hope that we can find a way to come together and that this does not become a deterrent to the legislation that is going to be before us in the not too distant future--the proposal that came to us from the House of Representatives. I certainly hope that doesn't unravel as a result of the Keystone XL Pipeline language being included because I recognize--as the Senator from North Dakota has expressed, and many of his colleagues on his side, along with many of my colleagues on our side--the value of what this could do for jobs, what this could do for our economy, and what this could do for America's energy needs. This will enable us to do business with a friendly partner to the north--Canada--as opposed to continuing to import oil from other countries around the world with which we do not have that kind of a friendly and stable relationship.

I would hope the President would make a decision not to get in the way or assert pressure on Members on his side to vote against this simply because it includes this particular provision. It is good for America, it is good for the States that are impacted, and many of the local governments would benefit. It is certainly good for jobs and the economy, as has been voiced by the various labor unions across this country that represent working Americans. With 700,000 barrels of oil coming to America from Canada, we would be creating economic activity and jobs versus 700,000 barrels of oil going someplace else around the world and some
other country benefitting and our becoming even more dependent on foreign sources of energy.

So, Madam President, again, I don't know what to say. This is a no-brainer, and so I hope the Senate will find its way before we adjourn for the Christmas holiday to enact this legislation that has been put forward that would enable this project to be decided. It doesn't prescribe one way or the other what the President does; it just says the President either has to approve it or give a reason why it is not in the national interest.

I see the other Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Hoeven, is here as well. He has been a leader and involved in getting this legislation introduced. I thank both my colleagues for recognizing its importance, and I hope we can move legislation that will get this project decided one way or the other. In my view, an affirmative decision would be preferable and would allow us to move forward.

Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source