Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act -- Veto

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from North Dakota on this issue. He has been a fierce advocate for many months in the Senate for the jobs and economic activity, the energy independence, and the positive benefits to our national security in building this pipeline. The most recent development is the frustration with having the President veto a bill that has more than 60 cosponsors in the Senate. This is a broad bipartisan bill. The Senator from North Dakota worked very hard to make it that way. A lot of Members on both sides of the aisle support this pipeline.

What is striking to me about it is some of the misstatements and things that have been said here recently--the President in his veto message and some of the things he said. The Washington Post Fact Checker, as recently as a couple days ago, pointed out that when the President said that this is going to bypass the United States and we are not going to get any benefit from this, not only did they give him one, two, three--he got four Pinocchios from the Washington Post. What that means, folks, is that is a really big whopper to suggest that there is not going to be any benefit to the United States from this.

In fact, they went on to point out in that story that their estimate is that 70 percent of the oil to be refined would be used in this country.

Furthermore, as the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, this is a significant investment, obviously, by people who want to do business in the United States because of our rule of law or rules and certainty that come with that. The production, the oil sands up there in North Dakota is 30 percent owned by Americans. There is a lot of American ownership in this, and Canada is our friend and ally. Instead of getting the same type or quality of oil from a country where we don't have a favorable relationship--Venezuela, for instance--we can get it from Canada, and it can come through this country. The suggestion that it is not going to benefit anybody in this country is completely wrong.

I know the Senator from North Dakota has pointed out before that up to 100,000 barrels of oil a day would be put in here from his State of North Dakota and from Montana--a lot of the light, sweet crude that is so valued--and it would take pressure off the railroads.

Interestingly enough, the Senator from North Dakota pointed out that the administration found no significant environmental impact. Well, think about this. You are now putting this oil on a railcar or a truck, and the studies show that creates 28 to 42 percent more emissions than shipping it in a pipeline. It is going to go some way. It is going to go on a truck, a railcar or a pipeline. If it goes on a railcar or a truck, it will create 28 to 42 percent more emissions than transporting it through a pipeline. From an environmental standpoint, it makes all the sense in the world.

As somebody who represents a border State to North Dakota, we have had our own issues these last couple of years with the rail service and trying to get our agriculture commodities to the marketplace. There is an awful lot of pressure to move oil on rail. If you can move some of that in the pipeline--100,000 barrels a day--it takes a lot of pressure off of the rails and frees up that infrastructure and capacity to move agricultural commodities that are so important to both of our States.

There is a lot of misinformation that has been put out on this particular subject. I hope we can at least have discussions based upon a common set of facts, and most of the facts we are talking about are things that have been put out by the administration.

My State of South Dakota--as the Senator from North Dakota mentioned--would be crossed by this. The estimate by the State Department was that it would create $100 million in earnings in South Dakota, create 3,000 to 4,000 construction jobs, and generate about $20 million in property tax revenue.

There is an awful lot of interest in my State in what happens with the economic activity, the jobs, the property tax revenue, and what that could do to support local governments, law enforcement, schools, and those sorts of things--not to mention getting us away from the dependence we have on foreign sources of energy.

Let's be factual in this discussion. This doesn't bypass the United States. This has tremendous economic and positive economic impacts on our country, and we should not forget that. As we debate this here and have an opportunity now to vote on this veto, we should at least have a set of facts that is consistent with reality.

The Senator from Alaska has been very involved and has been a great leader on this issue.

My colleague from West Virginia is here as well. He has been working very hard to move this project along. It is unfortunate we are where we are. Perhaps we will be a couple of votes short today, but who knows. Maybe some people will come to the right conclusion and help us advance this important project.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership. The Senator from North Dakota pointed out the number of pipelines that already exist in this country. I know the Senator has also pointed out the positive impact--when we get this down and it gets refined in other parts of this country--that a lot of this energy will be used here in the United States. I appreciate the fact that the Senator has made all of those facts abundantly clear on the floor. It is unfortunate that we have not been able to persuade the President, but I still have hope.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source