Keystone XL Pipeline

Floor Speech

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, President Obama has said that every morning when he gets up, he thinks about what he can do to create jobs. Yet just in the last couple weeks, he turned thumbs down on a project that would create 20,000 shovel-ready jobs, the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is a project that is teed up and ready to go. It would invest $7 billion initially and create 20,000 jobs immediately. It will address a very important issue for this country--energy.

We talk about getting away from the dependence on foreign sources of energy and becoming more energy independent, and we have an opportunity to do that and, at the same time, create economic opportunity in this country and get people back to work. It is a mystery as to why the administration and the President would not find this particular project to be in America's national interest.

It comes down to whether we are going to continue to import the oil, the energy we need, from unfriendly nations--we get about 700,000 barrels a day from Venezuela--or whether we will get that oil from a friendly neighbor such as Canada. When we look at that juxtaposition, that comparison, and ask should we get that 700,000 barrels of oil from Hugo Chavez or from Canada, most Americans would say it makes more sense to do business with our friendly ally to the north. Also, we would have that come down into this country in a 1,700-mile pipeline, which would transport that oil to refineries in the United States, where it would be refined and create jobs there as well.

In almost all respects, as we look at the project and the attributes that come with it, they are job creation, investment, energy security, not to mention the State and local tax revenue, which is something that is important to a lot of people whom I represent in South Dakota. In fact, I had someone from western South Dakota in my office last week, and he said: We care about the energy security issue, the jobs issue, and all that, but we need the tax revenue for our school districts and county governments that would be generated.

So we have all these positive benefits associated with this particular project. Yet after having studied it for 3 years, about 1,200 days, and having done multiple environmental impact statements--the last one concluded in August of last year--lo and behold, the President decides he is not going to move forward with this project.

We think that is terribly unfortunate, not in the national interest. We believe it is in the national interest to move forward to address the important energy security needs, as well as the needs for job creation and economic growth.

Two of my colleagues, former Governors, now Senators from Nebraska and North Dakota, are people who are well acquainted with these types of projects. The Governor from North Dakota was very involved when the first Keystone Pipeline that was built from Canada through North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and points south. That project went through a permitting process. It was a couple years in the making and it was approved. The construction process was concluded and it is now operational. That is an example of how this particular project can work.

This pipeline would cross the State of the Senator from Nebraska. There were concerns about whether it had the right route in order for this to be done in the best environmental way. Those issues have been addressed. The Nebraska legislature met in special session, and they and the Governor came up with an alternative idea about how to do this. They have been supportive of moving forward with this project as well.

The question before the House is if the President of the United States determines this is not in the national interest, notwithstanding the support of lots of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and I think overwhelming support of the States through which this line would traverse and the labor unions which represent a lot of people who are involved. Many editorial pages support this, including the Chicago Tribune, which said:

Obama's decision will cost the U.S. jobs. ..... He seems to think those jobs will still be there when he gets around to making decision on the pipeline. But they may well be gone for good.

They go further and say his decision ``will deny the U.S. a reliable source of oil.''

They recognize the importance of this project and doing business with a friendly country, the importance of energy independence, and the fact that if we don't benefit from this, it will go somewhere else. They have made it abundantly clear this is not something--if the United States turns it down--they will continue to wait around for until sometime in the future when we might consider it. They will go somewhere else--probably China--with it.

For those reasons, we believe we need to do everything we can do to move this project forward. My colleagues came up with legislation that recognizes the role of the Congress under the commerce clause and our ability to approve this project. I hope we will get an opportunity to discuss and debate this issue in the Senate and get a vote and perhaps get a vote as well in the House of Representatives, where Congress could weigh in and perhaps change the President's mind about this important project.

I am glad to be with my colleagues today. I will yield to the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Nebraska, two great leaders on this particular issue and all issues relating to energy security. They understand the history of this, as well as its importance to America's future.

I ask the Senator from North Dakota if he would like to give us an insight about the first Keystone Pipeline, built through his State a few years ago, the history of that, and the history of how this particular project was put forward as well and why we think it ought to go forward.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work of the Senator from Nebraska on this subject, as well as the Senator from North Dakota, and he has fashioned a solution which I think does give us an opportunity as a Congress to assert our role under the Constitution, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, to move this project forward, notwithstanding the opposition, really of one person--the President of the United States, who is the person right now who is standing in the way of this.

I would again say to my colleague from North Dakota, as we wrap up here, I hear people say this needs to be studied further; that we need to do more analysis. It is sort of mind-boggling to think after more than 1,200 days of study, analysis, review, and scrutiny that people would come to that conclusion. The Keystone XL Pipeline I, which the Senator from North Dakota is well acquainted with because it goes through his State and he was involved in negotiating that project, took 693 days in the process of getting approved. What is interesting to me about this particular project is that after 1,200 days--longer than any of the pipelines of this magnitude--the extended review and more than 10,000 pages of environmental analysis concluded--concluded--the pipeline will not adversely impact the environment. When the announcement was made to deny the construction of the pipeline, the State Department still had 5 weeks to review it if they had chosen to use it. Clearly, the announcement wasn't based on policy but on political expediency, which is what the Senator from Nebraska pointed out.

There is a tremendous amount of resource in my colleague's State--the State of North Dakota--that could benefit as well. I think the State of North Dakota has the potential to generate somewhere on the order of 500,000 barrels of oil, about 100,000 of which, I am told, could be moved through this pipeline if it is approved. It seems to me at least, again, that here is a resource, an energy reserve in our country, in my colleague's State, that could benefit people in this country.

By the way, in 2011, Americans spent more on gasoline than any other year since 1981. And reports indicate that 2012 could be even worse. So when we look at the economic impact on Americans, from our not having our oil and energy being produced in this country, it is a very real impact. In fact, since the President has taken office, gas prices have gone from $1.84 a gallon to over $3.30 a gallon, and this pipeline could be part of that solution.

I want to end with a quote made by the State Department in their review of the pipeline. The Department of Energy, I should say, but it was part of the State Department's review. The Department of Energy noted:

Gasoline prices in all markets served by East Coast and Gulf Coast refineries would decrease, including the Midwest.

That is coming from the State Department's review, the Department of Energy, that gasoline prices in all markets served by east coast and gulf coast refineries would decrease. That is a pretty remarkable economic impact, not to mention all the jobs that would be associated with the construction, and once it is operational the jobs that would be created in refining this oil.

So again it is a win-win, as we heard from the Senator from Nebraska, who said that initially their State had some concerns about the route, but that has been all resolved so this project can move forward.

The legislation of the Senator from North Dakota, which I am proud to support and cosponsor, I hope gets a vote in the Senate, and I know the Senator is going to do everything he can to advance it--I hope he does--and I look forward to working with him.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source