[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 187 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8401-S8403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the President of the United States has said
repeatedly that he makes jobs his top priority, he wakes up every
morning thinking about what he can do to create jobs and how he can
create jobs. Yet we have the greatest shovel-ready project in the
country right in front of us, and when it comes to that particular
project, for some reason the President is suddenly not interested. I
think we have to ask the question of why that is. I think there are
probably
[[Page S8402]]
a number of reasons, most of which have to do with politics and not the
economy and not jobs because clearly this is a subject on which there
is no debate when it comes to the job-creation potential there, the
impact it would have on the economies of multiple States in our country
and what it would do for the issue of energy security.
The project to which I am referring is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The
Keystone XL Pipeline is a project that has been under review now for
the better part of 3 years. In fact, there have been two environmental
studies. If you look at all of the due diligence that has been done, it
has clearly been reviewed, it has been analyzed, it has been studied,
and it has been scrutinized. It has gotten to the point now where it is
time to move forward, time to make a decision on this.
Ironically and I think sort of surprisingly to a lot of people,
recently the administration said they are not going to decide this now,
for 18 months. They are going to put it off for 18 months--
interestingly enough, from a timing standpoint, until after the next
election. I think it is unfortunate that is the case because, again, if
your No. 1 priority is job creation, you have one here ready to go
today that could be under construction, and it would immediately create
20,000 jobs in this country, and it would create $7 billion of
investment and a lot of revenue for State and local governments, many
of which desperately need it.
In my own State of South Dakota, the Keystone XL Pipeline would
traverse my State of South Dakota as the oil that comes from the oil
sands area up in Canada makes its way down to the refineries and other
parts of the country, comes through South Dakota, and just in our State
alone that would be about $\1/2\ billion of economic activity, meaning
hundreds of jobs and revenue for a lot of State and local governments.
This project in my State, like so many States where it comes through,
where it impacts--there have been a number of opportunities for people
to be heard, to get their input made on this. It has been going on now
for 3 years. You finally get to a point where you have to say it is
time to make a decision one way or the other. Clearly, my view on this
is that this is a project that should move forward. But one way or the
other, the President of the United States and his administration ought
to be acting with some finality on this subject now, not waiting 18
months, not waiting until after the next election because it is
politically expedient to do that, but making a decision now. Why is
that? Because, if it does not get done here, that oil from the oil
sands area in Canada will go somewhere else and some other country
around the world will benefit from that. It will not be the United
States, it will not be refineries here in this country, it will not be
the citizens of America--who have a good relationship with our neighbor
to the north. Canada is our biggest single trading partner. We do about
$640 billion of bilateral trade every single year with Canada. It makes
a lot of sense, if you are thinking about energy security, if you are
worried about the dangerous dependence that we have on other countries
around the world for our energy needs, that if we are going to get
energy we get it from a country with which we have a good relationship,
a country that is friendly and a country with which we do a tremendous
amount of trade.
If we cannot move forward, it is going somewhere, probably to Asia,
probably to China. China will get the benefit. The citizens of China
will get the benefit of this project rather than having the American
people benefit from all this project would entail if we could get it
approved here.
But we ought to at least make a decision. We have all these
discussions in this country, all the rhetoric coming from the other
side about how it is so important that we create jobs in this country.
Yet the administration seems willing to disregard that and say we are
going to make what is clearly a political decision and put this off for
18 months until after the next election.
I think it is interesting to note what some are saying about this,
and frankly even what the President himself has said as recently as
last April about the importance of getting energy from countries that
are stable and friendly. This is something the President said:
Importing oil from countries that are stable and friendly
is a good thing.
That is something the President of the United States said as recently
as last April. There is a letter that went from 22 congressional
Democrats to the President, telling him that America needs the Keystone
XL Pipeline. Twenty-two Democratic Members of the House of
Representatives weighed in on this issue. We have had Democratic
Senators here as well who weighed in with the administration and
weighed in publicly and said this is an important project that needs to
be completed.
You even have the labor unions. Traditionally you would think of them
as part of the President's political base. What are they saying about
this? The AFL-CIO said:
For America's skilled craft construction professionals, any
discussion of the Keystone XL Pipeline project begins and
ends with one word: JOBS.
That is what the AFL-CIO is saying.
Laborers' International Union of North America says it is:
. . . not just a pipeline, but it is a lifeline for
thousands of desperate working men and women.
You have bipartisan support here in Congress. You have the working
people, the organizations of this country that represent working
people, weighing in saying this is a project that needs to be approved,
that would create jobs, that would address some of the economic angst
we are feeling in this country, and here we are faced with this
unnecessary delay.
We have legislation that has 40 cosponsors in the Senate. It was
introduced last week. Many of our colleagues have taken the lead:
Senator Hoeven of North Dakota, Senator Johanns from Nebraska, Senator
Murkowski, Senator Barrasso, who is here on the floor, and others who
believe so strongly in the issue of economic growth, job creation,
energy security, national security, that we have introduced a bill that
would allow this project either, No. 1, to move forward or to have to
provide a rationale why it would not move forward. It is pretty simple,
straightforward legislation. It would allow 60 days from enactment of
the legislation for a decision to be made about the permit, one way or
the other. Either it gets permitted or, on the contrary, the President
gives an explanation as to why it should not be permitted. But at least
we get a decision made so there is some economic certainty for the
people behind this project, the people who are making this investment,
about whether it is going to go forward.
One thing we hear over and over from small businesses across this
country--and large businesses, job creators--is we need economic
certainty. We cannot continue to operate in this complete cloud of
economic uncertainty if we are going to put investment out there and
create the jobs that go with that investment.
Mr. President, 700,000 barrels a day is the equivalent of what we get
daily from Venezuela. If we could get 700,000 barrels of oil today from
Canada, a friendly neighbor to the north, or 700,000 barrels from
Venezuela or any other countries from which we import oil, it seems so
logical and such a no-brainer for us to be able to trade and interact
and to have this economic relationship with Canada on this particular
project. It does come across that way, as I said, in many parts of the
Dakotas and Montana. It would encourage greater oil production here in
this country as well, because you have the Bakkan Reserve in North
Dakota and Montana which we would be able to access for this pipeline
to be able to get some of their energy to refiners around this country.
It is an ``all of the above'' domestic energy strategy: More domestic
oil, more alternative fuels, more innovation. It is all these things we
need when we talk about energy security. But clearly in this case, for
some unexplained reason, the administration has concluded that this
project should not go forward.
There was a concern raised earlier on about the State of Nebraska and
the route the pipeline was taking. That issue has been addressed. The
leaders in Nebraska--Senator Johanns and the Governor of Nebraska--have
come together behind an alternative route which I believe was agreeable
to the company, TransCanada, so you can no
[[Page S8403]]
longer hide behind that and use that as a shield. The legislation we
are introducing would make, of course, this subject to States rights
and having States such as Nebraska intervene and work with the company
to find this alternative route. It also would ensure and require strong
environmental protections in the legislation. So that issue is
something the legislation has addressed.
More than anything else, what it does is it at least forces some
action. It at least says we are going to be serious about job creation
in this country or we are not. We are going to support a shovel-ready
project that could create 20,000 jobs and start immediately or we are
not. All this rhetoric and all the hot air that comes from people here
in Washington, DC, about wanting to create jobs, this is putting it to
the test. This is where you have to put up or shut up when it comes to
whether you are serious about creating jobs in this country.
I hope my colleagues here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle--
because I believe this is a bipartisan issue--will work with us to
advance this legislation. There is some thinking that perhaps the House
of Representatives, the other body, may include it in some legislation
they send us that could be coming this way in the not too distant
future.
If that is the case, I hope we will pick that up and act on it
because if we are serious and mean what we say about job creation in
this country, there is no better way than to put some certainty behind
this project. Again, it would be one thing if this had not been studied
and overstudied and evaluated and analyzed and scrutinized--but it has,
over and over again, now for the better part of 3 years. Mr. President,
700,000 barrels of oil today from Canada and the Bakkan region in North
Dakota and U.S. refineries or 700,000 barrels of oil to some other
place around the world that will benefit from it and, just as important
if not more important, 700,000 barrels of oil the United States will
have to import from some other country around the world that perhaps is
not nearly as friendly as our neighbors to the north.
This is not complicated. This is a pretty straightforward issue and
one where I don't think there is anything but support from the States
that are impacted by this, anything but support from the leadership,
political leadership at the State level and local levels. I am not
suggesting there is--there is no project that has unanimous support.
There are people who oppose this as there are people who oppose almost
anything that happens in this country. But the huge majority of people
I think in the States that are impacted see this for what it is--a
positive, forward-looking project that would address so many of the
important priorities for this country right now: economic growth, job
creation, energy security, national security, addressing some of the
needs the State and local governments have for additional revenue. All
these issues are addressed with regard to this project.
It is mystifying as to why the President of the United States and his
administration would put this decision off until 18 months from now
after the next election, other than purely and simply political reasons
and motivations. That is wrong for the American people. It is wrong for
this project. It is wrong for jobs. It is wrong for the economy. I hope
this body, the Senate, will take steps to rectify that by putting a
date certain out there by which this project is at least acted on, at
least decided, at least permitted or not permitted--hopefully
permitted--so these jobs can be created and we can get this economic
activity underway in these many States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Wyoming.
____________________