[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H12-H18]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important hour tonight because 
we are talking about the security of this country, and we are talking 
about having a secure source of oil and energy into the future. And as 
Americans around the country know, it hasn't been too long, they just 
go out and look at what the gas pump says, and I know when I left 
Bowling Green, my hometown in Ohio this morning, gas was $3.49 a 
gallon. And you know, we only have to go back to January of '09 when 
President Obama took office and gasoline was $1.78. So we've seen a 
dramatic increase in the price of gasoline.
  What we need to do is we need to talk not only about the security but 
where we are getting our oil from, because oil runs our manufacturing 
and it's very, very important. I serve on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. And earlier this year, manufacturing jobs in this country on 
just our committee alone, on Energy and Commerce, we had 1,729,250 
manufacturing jobs on our committee alone, according to National 
Manufacturers. Today, that number has dropped to 1,526,941, or a loss 
of 202,309 jobs in manufacturing.
  And when I'm out talking to my folks in manufacturing, small and 
large, one of the things that really hits them is what the cost of 
energy is and where it's going to be coming from. And when we've got 
the problems over in the Middle East and with Iran, and there is a 
question as to whether we're going to have a secure source in that 
region of the world, it pushes up the price of energy, and it affects 
the jobs in this country.
  But we have a unique opportunity in this country, and the President 
does. And what the President can do is to get this Keystone XL pipeline 
going; and we've urged him in committee, and we're urging him in 
Congress, to make that decision to get this going.
  Let me just go through a few facts, if I may. First of all, a lot of 
people might not realize this, but the Canadians are the largest folks 
up there to the north to provide energy to us in the form of oil. We 
get 13 percent of our current U.S. energy, our oil needs come from 
Canada, and 23 percent of all U.S. petroleum imports come from Canada. 
A lot of people might think they come from over in the Middle East. 
They don't. They come from our friends up north, our good neighbors up 
north. Another statistic that I think is really important to point out 
is that when we send a dollar to Canada for Canadian products, we're 
getting 90 percent back from the Canadians on purchases they make of 
U.S. goods and services.
  So it's a very, very great relationship that we have with the 
Canadians because it's a great relationship, our largest partner to the 
north, and when it comes to trading.
  But Canada is only second to Saudi Arabia for proven recoverable oil 
reserves with over 170 billion barrels in the form of the oil sands--
170 billion barrels. And, again, as the largest supplier of oil to the 
U.S., Canada provides consistency and stability with nearly 2 million 
barrels per day, which is currently more than, again, of the 20 percent 
of U.S. imports. And approximately 56 percent of all Canadian exports 
of oil to the U.S. flow into the northern Midwest region. That's Ohio, 
Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Ninety-four percent of all 
those imports into the region come from Canada, and 76 percent of this 
oil is from the oil sands. Forty percent of all the oil refined in this 
region also comes from that area of the oil sands.
  A report that was issued by the Canadian Energy Research Institute, 
the CERI, states that U.S. jobs supported by Canadian oil sands 
development could grow from 21,000 jobs today to 465,000 jobs by 2035. 
It's also important to note that we are looking at about 20,000 jobs 
right now, and another 100,000 jobs on ancillary if this pipeline gets 
approved and gets moving. So it's incumbent that the President takes 
action so we can get these jobs in the United States; but also, more 
importantly, along with those job is to make sure that we have a secure 
source of oil in this country.
  2,400 American companies in 49 States are involved in development of 
Canadian oil sands. That's important, because it's just not the 
Canadians up there that are doing this. It's American companies, 
American jobs making sure that we have that stable source.
  So when it comes right down to it, we need to have the President act 
immediately and favorably on this to get America moving on jobs, but 
also, at the same time, to make sure that we have a stable and a secure 
source of energy in this country.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) is recognized 
for the remainder of the hour.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, why are many of us on the House floor tonight 
after regular business talking about

[[Page H13]]

the Keystone Pipeline? Because it's a win-win--20,000 immediate 
contracting support jobs for the construction of a 1,700-mile pipeline 
from Alberta, Canada, down to our refineries in south Texas and then 
over to Louisiana. Beginning when this pipeline is finished, it will 
bring about 600,000, 700,000 barrels of oil to the United States from 
our good friend, Canada.

                              {time}  1920

  Now, just to put that amount in perspective, $700,000, they expect 
that by the time it's fully operational it will be $1 million.
  To put it in context, today we are importing 900,000 barrels from 
Venezuela. We import 1.2 million from Saudi Arabia. So take it which 
way you want, but our friends from Canada, Alberta, just a few hundred 
miles north of our border, will produce enough oil to almost completely 
offset the heavy crude from Venezuela or Saudi Arabian oil. The 
reality, my friends, is that we have enough energy resources in the 
United States and Canada to be free of OPEC oil.
  Now, we talk about 20,000 direct jobs from a $7 billion project that 
is sitting waiting to go. They have their project labor agreement 
sitting. There are union folk ready to go to work. All it has to do is 
be approved, the permit for this, approved by the President. Once he 
says yes, 20,000 people go to work and we put ourselves on a path to 
greater energy security.
  That's one of the reasons why I fought so hard to get onto the Energy 
and Commerce Committee--to set us on a path to energy security where we 
don't have to send our money, U.S. consumers' dollars, to buy the 
energy necessary to propel our economy. But a funny thing happened on 
the road to energy security. The environmentalists said that this is 
heavy crude, and it is going to expel in the process too much 
CO2. They want to stop fossil fuels. So instead of using the 
most energy-efficient refineries in the world that would have the least 
emissions of CO2, I guess the environmental community would 
rather it go to China, where they have few pollution and carbon 
controls on their refineries. And by the way, China just bought half of 
the oil sands just a week ago; they'd be glad to buy the other half if 
we don't. So it's going to be refined.
  The President has until February 21 to say yes or no to this. That 
was by act of Congress, setting that deadline, because the original 
application was filed September of 2008, 3 years and 4 months ago. The 
average is 18 months for a transcontinental pipeline. This 
administration has been dragging its feet because they don't want to 
irritate the environmental community, which has been heightened now 
since we're into an election year. I wish we could have done this 
before we got into 2012, where it could be based on the merits and not 
the politics, but politics is what we're dealing with right now. The 
President said several times in the last few weeks that, geez, because 
Congress has forced my hand on making a decision before February 21, 
that's not enough time, so I may just have to deny it. Well, that's 
complete bull.
  Here's a document. I apologize to the gallery and maybe our C-SPAN 
viewers because the print is rather small, but this is an 
administration document from their agency dated July 25, Executive 
Office of the President, July 25. Let me read the important sentence 
here, the significant sentence in their document, the bill that we had 
then on July 25. They say it's unnecessary because the Department of 
State--who makes the recommendation to the President--has been working 
diligently to complete the permit decision process for the Keystone XL 
pipeline and has publicly committed to reaching a decision before 
December 31, 2011.
  Two other documents from the State Department have said that they 
have all the information they need, they're working diligently, and 
they will have the recommendation to the President by December 31, 
2011, which of course they have not made. And the President says, geez, 
Congress, no reason for you to get involved because we're working 
diligently and we have all the information we need, and we will make a 
decision. Then, just prior to December 31, they're starting to say we 
want more information, or you're putting us in a box where we're going 
to have to say no. Bull. This is all politics. Stop playing politics, 
Mr. President, and put us on a road that we can be energy independent. 
And at a time of high unemployment, where these tradespeople are 
standing around waiting for work, put them back to work now, Mr. 
President.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 5, 2011, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) is recognized for the remainder 
of the hour.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it is important that as soon as we get back 
here today, it is our first day back, that we get back on the focus of 
creating jobs in this country. And not jobs that government says we can 
create, but sustainable jobs that are created by the private sector; 
private capital assuming risk, hoping for a return to get economic 
growth. There's no better opportunity to do that than with the Keystone 
XL pipeline.
  This is what we're talking about. Here's the oil up here in Edmonton. 
There's already a pipeline that goes down into my district actually, 
Patoka, a refinery in Wood River, and a new refinery also in the 
central eastern part of the State of Illinois.
  The Keystone XL would be this blue line, which will bring more crude. 
Why do we need another pipeline, a bigger pipeline? Because there's so 
much crude oil up there in Canada, and they really don't have the 
ability to refine it, they really don't have the ability to market it. 
Let's get this crude to U.S. refineries so that we can then access it 
to our markets.
  The great thing about the folks from the Midwest, as you had Mr. 
Terry, you had Mr. Latta, we already understand the benefits of the 
Keystone pipeline because we're already receiving the product to our 
refineries.
  This is the oil sands. It's just oil that coats sand. And they boil 
it off, they recover the froth, they turn it into a liquid product 
called bitumen. And then it eventually gets turned into synthetic 
crude, and that's what we're talking about.
  The third-largest oil reserves in the world are right here. How do 
you get it? A lot of times you do it through surface mining. Here's an 
example. Now the trucks are actually a little bit bigger in the mining 
operation, they're about seven stories tall--the tires are at least one 
story tall--built by a U.S. company called Caterpillar, located in 
Illinois. And that's where many--50 percent--of all these heavy dump 
trucks go, to mining operations around the world. One of their bigger 
markets right now is right in Canada.
  Robinson Oil Refinery is the other refinery in Illinois. It's 
receiving the oil sands product, moving it into a product to meet to 
the market. So these are real jobs at a real time that will create real 
jobs--20,000 immediately, and as my colleagues have said, ancillary 
jobs.
  You have pumping stations. You need to build the pumps. You've got to 
have the electricians that operate it. So this is something--private 
capital, return on investment, energy security. The President says he 
believes in the free flow of oil when he's trying to address 
Ahmadinejad in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. There's no better free 
flow of oil than permitting the Keystone XL pipeline.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) is 
recognized for the remainder of the hour.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, you are going to be hearing a lot, and 
we're all going to be talking a lot, about the Keystone pipeline. And 
the reason that we're talking a lot about it is that between now and 
February 21, President Obama has a decision to make. President Obama 
has been tasked by this Congress to make a decision by February 21 on 
whether or not to approve the Keystone pipeline.
  Now, the President, frankly, should have approved this project months 
ago when, back in August, the State Department, which was tasked by the 
President to make a recommendation, was getting ready to actually make 
a recommendation to move forward on

[[Page H14]]

the Keystone pipeline. And of course what we're talking about is 
creating jobs in America. There will be 20,000 American jobs created if 
the President moves forward with the Keystone pipeline. But also 
American energy security is at stake here.
  The President has continued to punt this issue. In fact, just a few 
months ago, the President tried to push this issue off until after the 
election. Just right after the State Department was getting ready to 
say, Let's go forward with the Keystone pipeline, all of a sudden, some 
of the radical environmental groups came forward. And these radical 
environmental groups, who are against any form of American-created 
energy that doesn't involve wind and solar power--whether it's oil, 
gas, nuclear--they're against all American energy.
  So these radical environmental groups went and had a protest over at 
the White House. And they intimidated this President enough to where 
President Obama said, okay, he's going to push it off until after the 
election, thinking that he could just hide behind radical 
environmentalists and say, Oh, well, we've got to look at the 
environmental issues.
  Well, this has nothing to do with whether or not it's good for the 
environment because, frankly, the State Department looked at the 
environmental issues already. President Obama knows that. The State 
Department looked at these environmental concerns and said they're not 
there. In fact, if the President approved Keystone tomorrow and said 
yes to those American jobs, the Canadian Government and the company 
that would be building the pipeline would still have to comply with the 
environmental laws of every single State that that pipeline would go 
through.
  So it's not a question of whether or not Keystone would comply with 
the environmental laws. They have to comply with all the environmental 
laws. But what is at stake is whether or not we're going to take these 
20,000 jobs in America or whether those jobs are going to be shipped to 
China because China's already said that they want the Keystone oil, 
they want the oil that would be created by these oil sands in Canada.
  So the question is, Are we going to have that oil from Canada sent 
into America, or is that oil going to go to China? And of course what 
that really means is, Are we going to take the 20,000 jobs in America, 
or is President Obama going to send those 20,000 jobs to China? What 
does President Obama have against the creation of 20,000 American jobs?
  The President loves to give all these speeches, talking about the 
middle class. And, Mr. Speaker, when the President talks about the 
middle class, he can't say that he supports the middle class if he 
rejects the Keystone pipeline because he'll be turning down 20,000 
American jobs that will be coming down with over $7 billion of private 
investment that's coming from one of our best partners in the world, 
Canada. Canada is a great trading partner with America.
  If the Keystone pipeline is built in America and we start partnering 
with and taking about 700,000 barrels a day of oil from Canada, that's 
oil that we don't have to get from Middle Eastern countries who don't 
like us. So look at the policy. First of all, if they do this, they 
have to comply with the environmental laws not only in the United 
States but in every State that it goes through. So the environmental 
issues don't exist that the President raises.
  But what is at stake is whether or not we are going to get 20,000 
American jobs and whether or not we're going to get oil from our friend 
Canada or are we going to get oil from Middle Eastern countries who 
don't like us. So that is what this debate is about.
  Between now and February 21, the President has got to decide whether 
or not he's going to say yes to American jobs or is he going to side 
with his radical environmentalist friends who went over to the White 
House and threatened him and all of this kind of foolishness and said 
that they want to send that oil to China.
  The good news is that the President doesn't really have to decide 
whether or not that's going to happen because he can just go look at 
what his own State Department said. The State Department said that they 
think those jobs should stay in America. But the President has got to 
decide whether he is going to side with the radical environmentalists 
or whether he's going to side with American families and workers who 
just want jobs and want American energy security.
  And, frankly, if we've got a choice--because our demand for oil 
hasn't gone down--it's a question of whether or not we want oil from 
Canada who's a friend or from Middle Eastern countries who are not and 
if we want to create 20,000 American jobs. So that is what is at stake 
between now and February 21.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge, first of all, the President to side 
with America in the creation of 20,000 jobs and to approve the Keystone 
pipeline.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I want to go back to something that Mr. Scalise said, 
which I think gets to the heart of the issues that we are talking 
about. And I would like to highlight this with our colleagues.
  Mr. Scalise, who knows this issue so very well because he is from 
Louisiana, he has constituents who work in this industry every day. He 
said, what the President had done was to choose, to make a conscious 
decision to push off making a definitive pronouncement on the Keystone 
pipeline. Mr. Speaker, I think that is so important. And what Mr. 
Scalise is saying gets to the heart of this.
  The President made that decision. Usually--and Mr. Scalise can 
illuminate us on this issue a bit--but it is my understanding that, 
generally, a Presidential permit requires anywhere from 18 to 24 months 
to secure, and that currently the Keystone pipeline is in its 40th 
month of trying to get a permit from this administration, from the 
President; and that if the President has his way on this, he is going 
to push that, and it would be another 12 months.
  Mr. SCALISE. The gentlelady from Tennessee is correct. In fact, when 
you look at the timeline for Keystone--as you said, it's been 40 
months. And the thing here is that the State Department has done the 
review. The President right now is trying to give some indication that 
now February 21 might not be enough time for him when, in fact, he's 
had much longer than the normal process for any review. But he's also 
got the approval from the State Department because there is one other 
big factor here. There is also the fact that China is out there saying 
they want the oil. So as America, through President Obama, is saying 
that he doesn't want to do it or he wants to delay it until after the 
election, where Canada has indicated they can't wait until after the 
election in November, they've got to make a decision. And they want to 
send the oil to the United States of America because we're great 
trading partners.
  But if President Obama keeps saying no, China right now is saying 
they want the oil. So we don't have an unlimited amount of time for the 
President to keep kowtowing to his radical environmentalist friends and 
try to kick the can down the road. A decision needs to be made; and 
February 21 is that date that's currently available, and we're trying 
to push the President to make that decision in the affirmative way and 
say yes to those 20,000 jobs that would be created here.
  With that, I will be happy to yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman's point, I think, is so important to 
make. The President has already taken twice as long as most Presidents 
would take to enter into this decision. So he has already had twice as 
much time. But he is asking for half again as much time to make this 
decision.
  And while he can't make a decision--it's like voting ``present'' when 
you come to the floor to cast a vote, not being able to make a 
decision, being indecisive on this--while that is transpiring, the 
United States is looking at 20,000 direct American jobs and an 
additional 118,000 private sector jobs that would be linked to this 
project, if the information is correct that I have received. So you are 
talking about a total of 138,000 direct and indirect American jobs, 
good-paying jobs that are American products that will produce energy 
that is right here that we would be getting from Canada and bringing in 
about 700,000 barrels of oil a

[[Page H15]]

day so that we could begin to break the ties that are existing with 
OPEC and Middle Eastern oil.
  And I think that it's so important for us to look at this. This is 
not an issue of taking more time or additional time.

                              {time}  1940

  The time is now because we've already spent twice as much time as is 
generally needed to do the due diligence and to check the process and 
to make that decision that will move us toward energy independence.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee. I think it's been 
clear what's been laid out, the decision that should be made by 
President Obama. Unfortunately, he continues to drag his feet, tries to 
punt on this issue; but ultimately a decision's going to have to be 
made if we're going to be able to get those 20,000 jobs here in America 
or whether or not they're going to go to China, who's also asking for 
them.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper) is 
recognized for the remainder of the hour.
  Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  The President has spent a lot of time during the last 3 months 
traveling around the country these many months demanding that Congress 
put aside party differences and pass the bill, referring to his $447 
billion so-called jobs bill. But if the President were to get off the 
campaign trail and focus on the facts, he would realize that House 
Republicans have been advancing a pro-growth agenda that creates jobs 
without expanding the Federal Government's role.
  The House of Representatives has voted numerous times this year in 
the 112th Congress to increase American oil production, which would put 
Americans back to work, reduce our country's dependence upon foreign 
oil, and lower prices at the pump. And I ask you to think back to when 
the President took office. The average price for a gallon of gas in 
this country was $1.83. We can only barely remember such a time. These 
are steps that we can take that can turn that around.
  Those bills that we did pass out of the House would speed up the 
permitting process for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, require the 
Secretary of the Interior to conduct more offshore oil and gas leases, 
direct the Department of the Interior to proceed with exploration and 
production in the areas estimated to contain the most oil and gas, and 
eliminate this administration's bureaucratic delays that have stalled 
offshore energy production in the Outer Continental Shelf.
  Further, the House has voted multiple times to push for a final 
decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline 
application was filed more than 3 years ago, and a final decision on 
whether to let the pipeline go forward is long, long overdue.
  In his first term in office, the President has talked about the need 
for energy independence. Keystone XL could help provide the United 
States with the certainty of almost a million barrels of oil a day; and 
that oil comes from our friends and largest trading partner, Canada, 
not the Middle East.
  At a time when the President has tasked three aircraft carriers and 
strike groups with protecting the Strait of Hormuz, wouldn't approving 
this new source of friendly oil be just good, plain common sense.
  The President has struggled with turning the economy around since 
taking office 3 years ago, and his speeches often center on the subject 
of jobs. If approved today, the Keystone XL project would create 20,000 
construction jobs and an estimated 100,000 indirect jobs during the 
life of its operation for Americans who desperately need them.
  Look at these 20,000 jobs that are there that are held up. You know, 
I think back to my late father. His first job as a petroleum engineer 
was in Tinsley Field in Yazoo County, Mississippi. Those jobs matter to 
families. It's time to move forward and approve this.
  Instead of issuing the necessary permits to begin construction of the 
pipeline and putting American families and Americans to work, the 
administration is in the third year, almost 4 years now, of dragging 
its feet through bureaucratic delays and indecision. It can only be for 
political reasons.
  Pro-business groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Chamber of 
Commerce are supporting Keystone XL to give a much needed boost to the 
economy. Even pro-labor groups are supporting Keystone XL because they 
know it will create jobs. Americans across the country are asking this 
President to approve this project. They realize its importance, and 
they deserve to be answered.
  The Keystone XL pipeline is just one example of how House Republicans 
have been working to promote job creation without the need for stimulus 
money. Today it is the most pressing. Every day that the President 
kicks the can down the road is another day without the jobs, and 
another day without the relief from Middle Eastern oil, and another day 
that Americans should be asking this administration and this White 
House, Where are the jobs?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) is 
recognized for the remainder of the hour.
  Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address 
the House on the issue of the Keystone XL pipeline.
  There are pipe dreams and pipelines out there that people talk about. 
Apparently, when it comes to jobs, maybe the pipeline is apparently a 
pipe dream.
  We have an opportunity, in this country, to secure our energy future 
with North American energy, to create American jobs on a project that 
is a 1,700-mile-long pipeline.
  You know, I hear all the time from constituents in Colorado about: 
Hey, what's the deal with this pipeline? Why can't we get forward 
moving creating jobs, American energy independence using North 
America's great resources to help our country create jobs and a more 
secure energy future? And the conversation then really revolves around 
commonsense ideas.
  Here's a President who, the President has said in the past that we 
need to support shovel-ready projects, that the stimulus bill that 
passed in 2009 was all about shovel-ready projects. And if you go back 
to last summer, I believe the President had said, well, I guess shovel-
ready wasn't as shovel-ready as we thought it was.
  Well, here's a shovel-ready project. Here is a pipeline, a privately 
funded pipeline that's ready to be built, 1,700 miles, 20,000 American 
jobs. We could get started on that today.
  It's been years since this pipeline was actually first--the permit 
process first started, and yet here we are waiting once again. This 
isn't a surprise to anybody. It shouldn't shock anybody that the issue 
of the pipeline came up.
  The bill that we passed in December said you've got to make a 
decision. The President has said he would make a decision, and yet we 
still have no decision.
  I find it difficult to understand what is really the tough part of 
this decision. We can create jobs right now with a truly shovel-ready 
project.
  Earlier this year, back in February, actually, back in February of 
last year, we had testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee 
that talked about the development of the Alberta oil sands and what it 
would mean to jobs in the United States. Now, the Keystone pipeline is 
part of that. According to the testimony we received in that committee, 
between 2011 and 2015, 6,000 jobs could be created in Colorado, alone, 
because of the development of the Alberta oil sands.
  The Fourth Congressional District of Colorado that I represent has 
two counties. When you look at the true unemployment rates, the 
unemployment rates that take into account people who have just given up 
work--who've given up looking for work, who have just decided that they 
can't find work so they've stopped looking, two counties in my district 
have over 19 percent unemployment when you look at it through the lens 
of people who have stopped looking for work.
  A project like the Keystone pipeline, 20,000 direct jobs, 100,000 
jobs indirectly created, development of the Alberta oil sands creating 
6,000 jobs in Colorado over the next 3 years, next 4 years,

[[Page H16]]

these are good-paying American jobs with North American energy that we 
could be putting to the benefit of this country.
  We know there are willing partners out there. We know there are other 
people who have said: Go ahead, we'll take the business; we'll partner 
with you; we're not afraid. China has more than once said that this is 
something that they would look at.
  Canada has made it very clear that they won't just stop if we say no. 
Shovel-ready projects. Here it is, our opportunity to create American 
jobs.
  Three years ago the application was filed to build the pipeline. Most 
Americans at town meetings that I attend, they all know about this 
pipeline. They know where it's going. They know what's happening with 
it.
  It's been our goal in this 112th Congress to look out for the 
economy, to advance projects that make sense when it comes to American 
energy and North American energy and American job creation.

                              {time}  1950

  That ought to be the goal of every single one of us in this Congress. 
Every action we take should be looked at through the same lens that we 
look at the Keystone pipeline--creating jobs.
  I'm continuously awed at the energy resources that we have in North 
America and how simple it would be to advance policies that would make 
us more energy independent, and yet we still can't move forward because 
no decision has been made.
  I'm baffled at how difficult this administration has made it when it 
comes to weaning ourselves off of overseas oil while at the same time 
creating more jobs right here at home.
  The administration has done everything it can to stand in the way of 
a project that can help Americans get back to work, a $7 billion 
private sector infrastructure project, when construction jobs around 
Colorado, around this country have been some of the hardest hit by the 
recession. This project provides a lifeline to thousands of 
construction workers seeking ways to get back on their feet.
  But the inaction of this administration has led us down a path of 
insecurity and dependence on other countries that have great animosity 
towards us. It's simply unacceptable. Not only do we have the resources 
in our own backyard in North America, but we have the ability to 
utilize friendly and willing neighbors like Canada to import that oil.
  Mr. Speaker, our unemployment rate as a Nation has hovered around 9 
percent for far too long. There's no reason that the Federal Government 
should not be supporting a private sector solution done with private 
capital at a time like this. With rising gas prices, the threat of the 
Strait of Hormuz being blocked, and unemployment hovering so high, we 
simply cannot afford not to act.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has had plenty of time to make a decision. 
The studies have been submitted. The conversations have taken place. 
The debate has occurred. But what's winning this debate is the fact 
that the American people understand how many jobs would be created with 
the North American Energy Project.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time and thank you for the opportunity 
tonight.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo) is recognized 
for the remainder of the hour.
  Mr. POMPEO. In 36 days, the President will have an opportunity to do 
a great thing for America. He'll have an opportunity to allow private 
industry with private funds to build a pipeline to carry petroleum all 
across the country to lower the price for consumers driving their cars, 
for manufacturers who use these products, and to do so in a way that is 
environmentally friendly.
  It is indeed my hope that the President will take this opportunity to 
do just that.
  Today we've got oil at over $100 a barrel. It was not all that long 
ago in the history of our country that we stared at North American 
energy production and wondered: Will we have enough natural gas, will 
we have enough oil here domestically so that we don't have to depend on 
the Middle East?
  I remember when I was much younger sitting in a car with lines of 
cars waiting to get gasoline. We could only get gas on even days 
because that was the license plate that we had on our car.
  Today, technology and innovation, American-style, has led us to a 
place where we have got an abundance of energy. All we're asking is 
that we permit a pipeline to carry their product safely all across the 
country so we can get that energy to the places we need it at prices 
Americans can afford.
  We know, too, that we suffer much like we did back in the late 1970s. 
At the same time we had this perceived shortage of fossil fuels, we 
also had enormously high unemployment. We had a misery index in the low 
twenties. Today, we have a similar phenomenon. We've got far too many 
people out of work. Unemployment is officially at 8\1/2\ percent. But 
if you go around Kansas' Fourth Congressional District, you know that 
it's much higher in the place that matters, the place that folks would 
really rather work more hours, would rather work for higher pay, or, 
frankly, we've got a lot of folks who've just found the workplace so 
unappealing to them in terms of their job prospects that they've given 
up. Yet here we sit with a project that everyone agrees will create 
20,000 jobs.
  Most of those jobs are with trade unions--folks that are building and 
welding and riveting and who will make this pipeline safe and secure. 
And yet we've got a President that continues to reject this as an 
option for our country.
  We need this capacity. We have found oil in North Dakota. We are 
finding oil in south central Kansas. We've got to make sure that this 
product can get to the markets, the places that it needs to be. This 
pipeline would do that.

  Now, I can't figure out, for the life of me, why this pipeline has 
become the cause celebre of the left. We have tens of thousands of 
miles of pipelines all across this country. This product is transported 
safely. It is highly regulated. Indeed, this year, in a year when there 
was lots of bickering between the parties, we passed a piece of 
pipeline safety legislation which will continue to further improve the 
way we transport fossil fuels around our country. This pipeline can be 
done safely, too.
  The objection that there are risks to groundwater and to 
environmental harm is greatly overblown. Industrial accidents certainly 
happen, but we know, to make America move forward, we've got to do it 
in a way that is responsible and safe. Everything about the way this 
pipeline has been engineered and developed meets that mark.
  This President has shared this notion of energy independence as we 
all do. We see the need for it. Yet he's taken an approach that is so 
different from what we are trying to do with the Keystone XL pipeline. 
This approach has private citizens meeting real demand in the real 
marketplace, folks who want products.
  The President's approach has been very different. He has spent 
hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to subsidize 
energy sources that America does not want. It's not that America 
wouldn't like solar energy or wind energy. It's simply that today they 
can't be provided in a cost-effective manner, so we force taxpayers to 
subsidize those energies to try and bring them to market. We've seen 
what happens when you do that. You get things that happen like 
Solyndra. We don't need to do that. The energy is available.
  The risk will be taken by private industry. They'll provide the 
capital. They'll provide the hard work. They'll provide the innovation. 
They'll provide energy for America at a time we so desperately need it.
  I just returned to Washington, D.C., today. I was in the airport in 
Wichita, Kansas. I talked with half a dozen folks. Each of them talked 
about jobs being the most pressing issue that they wanted me to take 
care of when I came back to Washington, D.C.
  I spent a lot of time over the break, as well, talking with folks who 
provide energy. We have lots of independent drillers and E&P companies 
and folks who provide field services to the oil patch in Kansas and in 
Oklahoma and Nebraska, all around. We need these products. Consumers 
need these products. I hope that the President, 36 days from now, will 
decide that he agrees, affordable American energy coming from North 
America, provided safely, so that the Keystone XL pipeline can move 
forward.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford) is 
recognized for the remainder of the hour.

[[Page H17]]

  Mr. LANKFORD. I will tell you, living in Oklahoma City, and if you 
come through Oklahoma at all, you'll drive around and you'll see our 
beautiful land, and you'll drink our beautiful water and breath our 
beautiful air; but you'll also realize that there are thousands of 
miles of pipeline underneath your feet, because, you see, Oklahoma is 
the center of pipeline movement through a lot of the United States.
  In fact, just north and east of my house in Oklahoma City is a small 
town called Cushing, Oklahoma. And if you know anything about pipeline 
and about oil, you know about Cushing, Oklahoma, because there's a 
large storage facility there for a lot of petroleum products, and it is 
the hub for everything that moves as far as oil and all pipelines 
running through the Midwest. Cushing, Oklahoma, is part of that 
connection for the Keystone pipeline.
  When you talk to people in Oklahoma about pipelines, we're very 
familiar with what they are, how they move energy, and how important 
they are to our economy.
  Let me just touch base on a couple of things, though.
  While we're talking about Keystone, it's interesting to me in several 
ways. One is I'm 43 years old, and for my entire life, I've heard 
people say in politics we need to have a national energy policy. We 
need to be dependent on energy from our soil or from our nearest 
neighbors, Canada and Mexico. We need to have a North American focus of 
energy, and I would have to say I completely agree. But we've never had 
a time in our life when we are closer to that than right now.
  The rising alternative of fuel options, whether it be solar and wind, 
and I hope all of them come to be, we're still decades away from them 
being able to be fully established and out there. We're very dependent 
on oil, gas, and coal.

                              {time}  2000

  But we're finding new reserves in North America of oil, gas, and coal 
that are solving a lot of the energy issues that we currently have 
right now. Many people don't know that in the last quarter of 2011, 58 
percent of the oil consumed in the United States was found domestically 
in the United States--58 percent. You go back just 20 years ago, 60 
percent of all oil was coming from overseas; now almost 60 percent of 
all oil is in the United States, coming from the United States.
  We are making progress. Hydraulic fracking, horizontal drilling, 
finding new well sites, great new technology in geology, all the ways 
that we're finding these new sources of energy, doing it cleaner and 
doing it less expensive than we've ever done it before. That's a good 
thing for us. We are now close to providing our own energy sources.
  The second-largest reserve of oil in the world is now from this area 
where the Keystone Pipeline originates in Canada, the second-largest 
oil reserve in the world. This is a key time for us now, getting better 
technology in the United States to be able to use our own energy to now 
partner up with Canada and continue drawing even more energy from 
Canada from this huge reserve that is there. We need to continue to 
draw from them in that sense.
  Now you would think this would be a simple thing--focus on our own 
national security. Why wouldn't we continue to focus on it and say we 
are this close to being energy independent, and we are not dependent on 
energy from the Middle East. Why wouldn't we continue to take the steps 
on that?
  In addition to that, why wouldn't we continue to expand on our 
pipelines? You see, this is not the first time for Keystone to do a 
pipeline coming from Canada to the United States--it was just a very 
few years ago. In fact, that Keystone that they did a few years ago 
took 24 months to permit. From the exact same area to the same area, 24 
months for the total permitting process. That pipeline is functional 
and active and running right now.
  They want to double up the capacity. So you would think this would be 
a slam dunk. Let's just add a second line there. They run through the 
permit process to the same system, but instead of 24 months this time, 
we're now at 42 months of permitting and still climbing.
  Where the same pipeline crossing over the border, drawing oil from 
the exact same area, took 24 months a few years ago, now that pipeline 
takes 42 months and climbing. We're not sure how much longer it's going 
to take. In addition to that, Keystone is running there, that's one 
company.
  There's also another company, Enbridge, which draws oil from that 
exact same area in Canada and takes it through the United States. That 
pipeline is also currently running and hasn't had any issues with 
permitting and through the process of construction that it did years 
ago.
  You see, this is not some new oil discovery that's up there that 
we've never tapped into. The United States uses that oil and has used 
that oil for a long time. It is a reserve that is from a reliable 
neighbor next door in Canada that's consistent, that we're not having 
to deal with issues in the Strait of Hormuz and wondering about the 
flow of oil coming from the Middle East.
  We're dealing with the United States, now 58 percent of our oil usage 
coming from our own home country, and we're dealing with reliable 
neighbors dealing with our pipelines, like Canada and Mexico. It's the 
right thing to do for our national security. It's the right thing to do 
for jobs. We're talking about immediately, private jobs. No government 
participation other than the permitting being finished. Private money 
begins to sink in the billions of dollars to be able to run almost 
1,700 miles of pipeline.
  We're talking pipefitters, which are based often in Oklahoma, by the 
way, union jobs, right-to-work areas and other job areas. You're 
dealing with steel manufacturers for that pipe, pipe manufactured, most 
of it done in Arkansas. People digging the ditches, running the 
tractors, driving the trucks. All of the different areas that are 
attached to that, thousands of jobs that begin immediately across the 
entire central part of the United States and many manufacturing areas.
  We need to be able to open that up and let those jobs run and let's 
get those going on that. And then the third thing on this, not only 
national security and jobs, but just basic common sense. That oil will 
be sold somewhere. It's not a matter that we can argue and complain 
about it and say that Canada is not going to use their own resources. 
When the second-largest discovery of oil in the world is underneath 
your feet, they're going to sell that oil.
  So just shutting it down and saying Americans aren't going to take 
it, we're going to let them sell it off, and they'll send it west over 
into Asia, and that will make things a lot better, doesn't make common 
sense, number one.
  Number two is we should provide as much national security as we can 
for this. That's basic common sense with reliable neighbors.
  Number three in the common sense is this basic simple thing: It's new 
pipeline. Now we can argue about pipeline safety, and there are areas 
we need to work on pipeline safety, and we in this Congress as 
Republicans and Democrats together have passed pipeline safety 
initiatives, and we should do that. This will be the newest pipeline in 
the country. It will have the highest standards for safety, it will 
have the highest level of technology and of monitoring of any pipeline 
in the country. It is the best possible way to do it.
  The alternative is to be able to put it on trucks and trains, which 
have a higher incidence for accidents. This is the safest way to be 
able to do this. And as I mentioned before, it's not as if we're not 
already drawing this oil already. This just increases our capacity and 
increases our ability to not be dependent on Venezuela and OPEC 
countries for our oil.
  There are pipelines from Enbridge and Keystone running from that 
exact same area all the way down to the gulf already. We need to 
continue to increase our capacity so that we are providing for our own 
energy long term.
  I would submit to this Congress, and I would submit to the President 
and ask for his prompt approval, even early would be great, of approval 
of this to be able to move forward and say let's get this off our back, 
let's get the jobs going, let's continue to move forward with our 
national security, providing for our own energy, and let's continue to 
work through this process so that we don't have to deal with issues 
like this again.
  Far be it from us, in the days to come, that manufacturers would say 
I

[[Page H18]]

don't want to do manufacturing and construction in the United States 
because I'm afraid the President will slow down a jobs project. I'm 
afraid Congress will slow down a jobs project. I'm afraid that that 
country is not open for business. We should do it better than the rest 
of the world. We can and we do.
  This is a simple project. Approve the Keystone Pipeline. It's been 
approved through these States, and Nebraska is working through its 
system of its approval process. We need just to approve that 50 feet 
crossing the border from Canada to the United States, and let's get 
this project going.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________