Keystone XL Pipeline
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the subject of the Keystone Pipeline. I am pleased to follow my esteemed colleague from the great State of Texas. I think it is only appropriate that I follow him, both because I agree absolutely with his remarks and I think it shows the importance of this project to North Dakota and Texas and across this country. This is an incredibly important project, so I am pleased to be here again today to address it.
RUSSELL EVENMO
First of all, let me say it is nice to welcome Russell Evenmo to the floor on his last day. He has done an outstanding job working for me. He also has my chart, so I am glad we are able to get him on the floor.
The legislation we have authored on the Keystone Pipeline is included in the House package that provides an extension for the payroll tax cut. It is very appropriate that it is in that package, so I come today to talk about some misperceptions I am hearing out there in regard to this legislation. The first is that somehow this is an add-on to the payroll tax holiday extension legislation which some think shouldn't be there. I wish to address that, because it is absolutely where it should be. It is a jobs bill. The extension of the payroll tax cut, the payroll tax holiday, is about helping to create more jobs in this country. It is about helping people who are out there working hard every day. It is about stimulating economic activity. It is a tax reduction to help get this economy going and to help get people back to work.
Keystone is a jobs bill. It belongs in a jobs package. This is a jobs package. This is about creating jobs. It creates jobs without the Federal Government spending 1 penny. In fact, this will generate hundreds of millions of dollars of State and local tax revenues. It will generate private investment, but it will create jobs. This is a jobs package. So I wish to address that misperception I have heard from time to time and respond that this does belong as part of a jobs package. Of course it does. This is how we create jobs.
I appreciate greatly the esteemed Senator from Texas speaking about some of the things that are going on in North Dakota, and he is absolutely right; Texas has a long history with the energy industry. North Dakota is increasingly becoming a stronger and stronger energy player in all types of energy. We have wind; we have hydro; we have biofuels; we have biomass; we have solar. We are now the fourth largest oil-producing State in the country. Next year we will be the third largest oil-producing State in the country behind only Alaska and, of course, No. 1, Texas. But to do that, we need infrastructure. We need to be able to transport our oil--oil that we produce--to the refineries around the country. We will put 100,000 barrels of oil a day that we produce in North Dakota into this pipeline and get it down into the gulf refineries. So this isn't just about moving Canadian crude into the U.S; this is about moving our own domestic product as well.
As the Senator from Texas may have explained, there is a backlog of oil in Cushing right now, which is a hub for oil. But we need to move that oil from Cushing, in Oklahoma, down to the refineries in Texas and Louisiana. This pipeline will move that product to these refineries. So, again, it is not just about moving Canadian crude into the United States; this is about moving product throughout the United States as well where we have serious bottlenecks. When we have those bottlenecks, our producers in North Dakota get less. They face a discount. If the product has to move by rail or by truck, we suffer a discount. That affects not only the oil companies themselves but it also affects the individual producers, the mineral owners who get royalty payments. This is about truly creating economic activity.
The first point I want to emphasize is that this is absolutely--is and should be--part of this jobs package.
The second point I want to talk about for a minute is that the concern has been expressed that somehow we are rushing this process. Somehow we are not taking enough time in terms of approving this pipeline, so maybe that could create an environmental concern. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are taking more time than we did for almost the exact same project that has already been approved.
This red line here on this chart is the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline runs from Alberta, Canada, down to Patoka, IL. It brings product down to refineries in the United States. That pipeline has not only been approved but it has been built. It moves 590,000 barrels a day of oil from the Alberta, Canada area down to our refineries. That has been approved and built, and we are moving almost 600,000 barrels of oil today. This is the Keystone XL project, right next to it--a very similar project.
I want to talk a little bit about the timeline on this as well. I was formerly the Governor of North Dakota. While I was Governor, TransCanada built the Keystone Pipeline and now they are working to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. Let's walk through that timeline for a minute. First let's start with the Keystone Pipeline. That project initially applied for a permit on April 19, 2006. The final environmental impact statement was issued 2 years later--actually less than 2 years later. It was issued on January 11, 2008. So in less than 2 years, this project, very similar--in less than 2 years they got a final environmental impact statement. And amazingly enough, within 60 days after that final environmental impact statement it was signed off on and approved by the State Department. It had final approval. So it all happened within a 2-year process for that project.
Now let's talk about the Keystone XL project. Keystone XL: TransCanada, the same company, is building it. The same company is building both projects. They filed for a State Department Presidential permit in September 2008. That is when they filed for their permit. They went through the whole process. They got a final environmental impact statement on August 26, 2011--3 years.
The first project, the whole project was approved in less than 2 years. This project, we have already been at it for 3 years. So people are saying this is rushing--somehow rushing the project. Almost an identical project, fully approved from start to finish in 2 years, and we are sitting here 3 years later, and we don't even have approval yet, and we are rushing the process somehow.
Furthermore, the Department of State indicated that after all this environmental work--after 3 years of environmental work the State Department said, We are going to have a decision out before year end, meaning now. Before the end of this year, the State Department says, we are going to have a decision.
So myself and others who have been working on this say: Well, that is great. Finally, we are going to get a decision. Then all of a sudden the administration says: No, no, we are not going to have a decision. We are going to need another 18 months. We are going to need another 18 months somehow because there is concern about the route through Nebraska. That was the concern.
So the State of Nebraska then--let's make sure I have my dates right--then said: OK, we are concerned in Nebraska. But we are going to address the problem. We are going to solve the problem. The State of Nebraska had a special session on November 1 of this year, which concluded on November 22. In their special session, they agreed that they would reroute the Keystone XL Pipeline as to the route in Nebraska. The concern was that it went through western Nebraska, what is called the Ogallala Aquifer or the sandhills region. There is a lot of irrigation there. Even though there are other pipelines there, they said: We do not want it in that part, so we will agree to reroute the pipeline in Nebraska.
All this legislation provides, the legislation we have written--and there have been other bills on this--but the legislation included in the House package we are working to get passed in the Senate, here is what it says: 60 days after the bill is passed, the President, through the Department of State, has to make a determination on whether this project is in the national interest. They do not have to say yes. They can say yes or they can say no, but they have to determine whether it is in the national interest--60 days after the bill is passed.
But as to the Nebraska piece, we say, Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality will work with EPA and the State Department and take the time they need to reroute in Nebraska. Because that was the concern. It does not set a timeline on how fast they have to do it. It says: You have the time you need to reroute and address the concern that was raised.
This legislation is all about solving the concern that was raised so this project can go forward. It does not set a timeline on it. Again, where is this rush that it could somehow create an environmental issue? It is not there.
The point is this: If we do not pursue this project, this oil will still be produced--700,000 barrels a day--700,000 barrels a day of Canadian crude. It will still be produced. But instead of coming down to our refineries in the United States, instead of creating jobs in the United States, instead of reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East, the oil is going to China. That pipeline, instead of going south, will go west. The product will be put on oil tankers and it will go to Chinese refineries. In the Chinese refineries there will be higher emissions, lower environmental standards. So you are going to have more emissions, more environmental impacts.
Again, I come back to the point: Are we going to create more energy independence for ourselves, are we going to create more jobs here, or are we going to send that product to China? Because that is the choice. That is the real choice. Do you want to deal with reality, real terms? That is the choice we face.
Look, this project is about creating jobs. It belongs in a bill that is about creating jobs. This--and I will wrap up, Mr. President--legislation is about reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East--700,000 barrels a day--not to mention the product it helps my State of North Dakota, Montana, and others move down to our refineries in Texas and Louisiana.
With this pipeline, we will have better environmental stewardship, not worse. This is a project on which we need to move forward. We have drafted this legislation. We have worked on a bipartisan basis to get legislation that addresses the concerns. It is time to move forward. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source