[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H213-H216]
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 Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I have got energy on my mind tonight too. 
It's a wonder, or I should say it's not a wonder, that everybody who 
comes to the floor of the House has this common theme, Mr. Speaker, 
that we have an economy that's in trouble, we have a regulatory network 
that is going out of control. And we have energy needs in this country 
that feed, that feed the economic heart of this country, and we're 
struggling to find that food.
  Mr. Speaker, I have here, you can't see it, but it's an editorial 
from The Washington Post. It's January 19 of this year. Now, you know, 
Mr. Speaker, and as folks do who have a chance to read The Washington 
Post, it is one of the most liberal newspapers in this entire Nation. 
Now there are a few, San Francisco Chronicle or others, that might able 
to compete, but one of the most liberal newspapers in this country.
  And they put an editorial in their newspaper speaking on behalf of 
the newspaper editorial board on January 19, the day after President 
Obama announced his decision to block the Keystone pipeline, and this 
is what it said. It's entitled, ``A Kink in the Pipeline,'' and the 
headline reads--you won't be able to see this on the screen, Mr. 
Speaker--but it says, Approving the Keystone XL project should have 
been an easy call for the administration. Approving the Keystone XL 
project should have been an easy call for the administration.
  This is from one of the most liberal newspapers in the country, Mr. 
Speaker, saying why, Mr. President, why did you choose to stand in the 
way, and they've got some ideas. The Washington Post has some ideas 
about that. The editorial begins like this: On Tuesday, President 
Obama's jobs council reminded the Nation that it is hooked on fossil 
fuels and will be for a long time. The council said this--it's going to 
require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and 
for states to construct pathways, pipelines, transmission, and 
distribution to deliver electricity and fuel.
  But that's what it's going to take, Mr. Speaker, to get the economy 
back on track. It's going to require that the United States optimize 
all of its natural resources.
  It added that the regulatory and permitting obstacles that threaten 
the development of some energy projects negatively impact jobs and 
weaken our energy infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, you wonder why it is 
that I have to read this. You would say, Rob, that's common sense. 
Don't folks know that in the great State of Georgia?
  I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, they do know that in the great State 
of Georgia. Where they don't know it is here in Washington, D.C., in 
this regulatory environment where if folks see a problem, they throw 
more rulemaking at it. The President's jobs council sees a problem. 
It's a problem--there's not enough energy infrastructure. Is the United 
States not maximizing its energy production?

[[Page H214]]

  Here's what the jobs council says, Mr. Speaker. It added, the 
regulatory permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of 
some energy projects, negatively impact jobs, and weaken our energy 
infrastructure need to be addressed immediately. And this is what The 
Washington Post says. Mr. Obama's jobs council could have started out 
by calling, well, the Obama administration to help in this effort.
  On Wednesday the State Department announced that it had recommended 
rejecting the application of the TransCanada Corporation to build the 
pipeline, rejecting it. The President's jobs council, Mr. Speaker, says 
we need to maximize every energy opportunity that we have. If we are to 
see our economy succeed, we must access every bit of energy that we can 
domestically. We must find transportation mechanisms for it, pipelines, 
transmission facilities. And the White House says no, no.

  The editorial goes on. Environmentalists have fought the Keystone 
pipeline furiously, and in November, the State Department tried to put 
off the politically dangerous issue until after next year's election.
  Mr. Speaker, you came here for the same reason that I came here, and 
that is to take on the politically dangerous issues. We didn't run for 
Congress so that we could dodge the tough questions. We came to 
Congress so we could speak out on the tough questions. We came to 
Congress because we represent folks back home who view these issues 
with the common sense that America always does.
  If you have an energy crisis, what do you need? You need more energy. 
Do you need energy efficiency? Of course. Do you need energy 
conservation? Of course.
  But we have resources, Mr. Speaker, in this country. We have been so 
blessed. God has blessed this Nation with energy resources, and we have 
to harvest them.
  The State Department wants to put the decision off because it's 
politically dangerous. When do they want to put it off to, Mr. Speaker? 
Until after the next election. So it's unconscionable. The Washington 
Post makes that point and goes on.
  Listen to the cynicism that's here, Mr. Speaker. This is what it's 
come to in Washington, D.C. The Washington Post says this: We almost 
hope this was a political call because on the substance there should be 
no question. The Washington Post says, we hope it was the President 
just playing politics, Mr. Speaker. We hope it was the President just 
playing to the radical, leftist wing of its party. We hope that it was 
because if he's looking at the substance, if he's looking at the same 
facts that we are, it should have been no question, an easy call.
  Hear this, Mr. Speaker. Without the pipeline, Canada will still 
export its oil. And with the long-term transglobal market, it's far too 
valuable to keep in the ground. But it would go to China, Mr. Speaker.
  You're from a part of the world like I am, Mr. Speaker, where we care 
about the environment. We're hunters, we're fishermen, we're farmers. 
No one plays outside more than you and I do, Mr. Speaker. No one works 
outside more than you and I do.
  We care about our communities, and you tell me which community is 
going to treat the world's environment the best, Mr. Speaker. Is it 
going to be your community back home? Is it going to be my community 
back home? Or is it going to be the industrial machine that is mainland 
China? Mr. Speaker, we can either bring this oil from Canada to America 
and use it responsibly, or we can ship that oil from Canada to China, 
where it would surely go, so says the Washington Post.
  We go on: Environmentalists and Nebraska politicians say the route 
the TransCanada pipeline proposed might threaten the State's 
ecologically sensitive areas. And in consultation with Nebraskan 
officials, they decide to proceed, even though the government announces 
last year, concluded that the original path would have had limited 
adverse environmental impact. Hear that. Here it is, a private pipeline 
going to go through America, Mr. Speaker, going to try to feed 
America's energy needs so we don't have to import oil from folks who 
hate us overseas. Folks said we have some concerns about the original 
pipeline path. The Federal Government does a study, they say we don't 
see any problem. We see very limited environmental impact, but if it's 
a concern to you, we'll move it. Willing to move it.
  Environmentalists go on to argue that some of the fuel in U.S. 
refineries that produce China's bitumin might be exported elsewhere.

                              {time}  2110

  Don't bring the oil to America, Mr. Speaker. Why? Because it might 
get refined in American refineries by American companies, using 
American workers, and we might sell that to another nation at a profit. 
For whom? For Americans.
  Don't do it. Don't do it, Mr. Speaker. In this tough economy, don't 
you bring those products back to America. Don't you bring them to 
American factories. Don't you put American workers back to work. Why? 
Because we might export it to a foreign land to make a profit.
  Mr. Speaker, that's what we need to be doing, and The Washington Post 
knows it to be true.
  Here's how The Washington Post concludes, Mr. Speaker: There are far 
fairer, far more rational ways to discourage oil use in America, the 
first of which is establishing higher gasoline taxes. Environmentalists 
should fight for policies that might actually do substantial good 
instead of tilting against Keystone XL, and President Obama should have 
the courage to say so.
  Those are not my words, Mr. Speaker. That comes from The Washington 
Post editorial board. President Obama should have the courage to say 
so. He should have the courage to stand up to the radical left. He 
should have the courage to stand up for American job creators. He 
should have the courage to stand up for American, North American, 
energy independence.
  The headline, Washington Post, Mr. Speaker: Approving the Keystone XL 
project should have been an easy call for the administration. The 
Washington Post, Mr. Speaker. We hope it was a political call because 
on the substance, there should have been no question. And if you 
believe it happened for environmental reasons, Mr. Speaker, instead of 
political reasons, there are far fairer, far more rational ways to 
discourage oil use. President Obama should have had the courage to say 
so.
  We're not done with this issue in the House, Mr. Speaker. You know, 
we're going to continue to bring this issue back because we know where 
the American people stand on it. They stand for energy independence. 
They stand for American jobs. They stand for American manufacturing, 
and we can achieve those goals with that all-of-the-above energy policy 
that harnesses all of the God-given bounty that America has and puts it 
to work for the American worker.
  Mr. Speaker, let me go on to the President's State of the Union 
address. He rejected the Keystone pipeline a week before the State of 
the Union. Here's what he said in the State of the Union: It's time to 
double down on a clean energy industry that never has been more 
promising.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to do something today about 
rising energy costs. We have an opportunity to do something today with 
the Keystone pipeline. We can put 20,000 workers to work today. We can 
bring $70 million worth of oil into this country a day. We can do that 
with Keystone pipeline. The President says no, I'm canceling Keystone 
pipeline. I'm going to double down on clean energy because it's never 
been more promising.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe in clean energy. I believe in clean energy. 
What I believe in even more, though, is energy independence, and we 
can't get to energy independence with the clean energy resources that 
we have today. We have to use the resources that we have here in this 
country. And once we achieve energy independence, Mr. Speaker, the 
entire conversation in America will change. The entire conversation 
will change from how much to from where, and we can do the doubling 
down on green energy. But the President wants to double down on green 
energy today. Why? Because it's been his calculation in his 3 years in 
office, Mr. Speaker, that the environment has never been more 
promising.
  Let's see.
  The President's promising environment, Mr. Speaker: Solyndra, 
bankrupt. Loans guaranteed by the taxpayer, $535 million; a half-
billion dollars, Mr. Speaker, sent out the door

[[Page H215]]

through crony capitalism and this administration. Down the drain, 
Solyndra, bankrupt.
  What about Ener1? Guaranteed loans by the taxpayer, $118 million. 
How'd that project work out? Bankrupt. That's okay, Mr. Speaker. Maybe 
there are some successes.
  What about Beacon Power? No, $43 million from taxpayers, Mr. Speaker. 
How'd that project work out? Bankrupt.
  President Obama says the environment has never been more promising. 
If he's looking at the same financials you and I are looking at, Mr. 
Speaker, he sees bankrupt project after bankrupt project after bankrupt 
project. And we're doing this why? We're sending out government 
dollars, why? These taxpayer dollars, why, Mr. Speaker? A half-billion 
to Solyndra; $100 million to Ener1; $43 million to Beacon Power. We're 
sending those out why? Because we have energy needs in this country 
that cannot be satisfied because the President has stopped the Keystone 
XL pipeline, which was going to be built with what? Half a billion 
dollars in government loans? No, with private sector initiatives, 
private sector initiatives, to bring fuel that we know that we can use 
today to refineries where we know we can process it, whether we use it 
here or whether we export it abroad.
  The President thinks there has never been a better time than now, Mr. 
Speaker, to double down on the green energy projects funded by the 
taxpayer.
  We see here, Mr. Speaker, those have all been busts. And it's not 
that we can't do green energy, Mr. Speaker, it's that we have to let 
the marketplace choose those things. Crony capitalism doesn't work. 
Government picking winners and losers doesn't work. You know who picks 
winners and losers? The American consumer. You know who picks winners 
and losers well? The American marketplace, not the American government. 
We've got to take that power out of Washington, D.C., and return it to 
industry, and we will succeed.
  The President knows this in his heart. Listen to what he says, Mr. 
Speaker: ``We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 
100 years, and my administration will take every possible action to 
safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 
600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.''

  Do you know when he said that, Mr. Speaker? That was in his State of 
the Union speech. That was right here. Right here from where we are 
tonight, Mr. Speaker. He spoke these words just a week ago. He knows we 
have a supply of natural gas that can fuel this country for 100 years, 
that will support 600,000 new American jobs.
  Well, golly, I bet we're going to go right after that today. We're 
going to start right now. Why, Mr. Speaker, because it's 84 trillion 
cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas. Who has that? Is it Saudi 
Arabia? No, it's America. Is it Iran or Iraq? No, it's America. Is it 
Venezuela and Hugo Chavez? No, it's America. We have 84 trillion cubic 
feet of undiscovered natural gas, 3.4 billion barrels of undiscovered 
natural gas liquids. These are the fuels, Mr. Speaker, that will fuel 
the American economy for the next decade.
  The President knows it. The President says we can fuel 100 years of 
America; 600,000 jobs in America. We know where it is. Let's talk about 
how we're going to get it, Mr. Speaker.
  The good news about America, and I say this, Mr. Speaker, as I know 
you say to all of your constituents who are struggling: The good news 
about America is there is nothing wrong with America that we didn't do 
to ourselves. There's nothing. There is no worker who produces more 
than the American worker. There is no system of government that's more 
responsive to the people than ours. There is no engine of economic 
growth more powerful than the American entrepreneurial system. The 
President, though, knows that we have these resources. The question is, 
is he going to let Americans get them?
  Here's where they are, off the coast: The Outer Continental Shelf: 
2.28 trillion cubic feet in Washington and Oregon; 3.5 trillion cubic 
feet in northern California; 2.49 in central California; 7.76 in 
southern California.
  It continues here along the east coast. In my home State of Georgia, 
Mr. Speaker, 2.4 trillion off the coast. Here in the Mid-Atlantic, 
right off the coast of Washington, D.C., 19.36 trillion cubic feet.
  In the Gulf of Mexico, 16 trillion cubic feet.
  We know, Mr. Speaker, this is the assessment of undiscovered but 
technically recoverable oil and gas resources on the Nation's Outer 
Continental Shelf. This comes from the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management. We know where these resources are.
  And they're not just there, Mr. Speaker. They are where Americans 
often turn for energy resources, in Alaska. In Alaska, 76 trillion 
cubic feet. Over in the Beaufort Sea, 27 trillion cubic feet. All 
around the coast of Alaska, Mr. Speaker, you see opportunity after 
opportunity after opportunity. Again, not to send money to folks who 
hate us, not to send American dollars to overseas enemies because of 
the hook that they have in us because of our oil needs.

                              {time}  2120

  Mr. Speaker, we have the ability to meet these needs with American 
production harvested by whom? American workers. Done through what? 
American companies. Whose dollars go where? To the American way of 
life. We can do those things. It's a national security issue, and it's 
an economic issue. The question is, Why aren't we, Mr. Speaker? And 
that is a political issue. You saw it in The Washington Post. The 
Washington Post said we hope the decision to cancel the Keystone XL 
pipeline was just a political issue because of the facts, there's no 
reason not to move forward. It must just be a political issue. Well, we 
saw that the President, in the State of the Union speech, said, I want 
to go after it all. I know that we've got 100 years of energy in 
natural gas. We can fuel 600,000 American jobs.
  Well, what do the politicians say? Let's look just here in Alaska. 
Lisa Murkowski said, Americans can benefit from the tremendous 
resources in Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf. She votes ``yes.'' 
Congressman Don Young here in the House said that the OCS would provide 
1.2 million new jobs. Why are we continuing to send our hard-earned 
money overseas? Don Young votes ``yes.'' The other Senator from Alaska 
says, My message to the President is that as America's energy 
storehouse, our State of Alaska can and should responsibly supply a 
significant portion of our country's energy needs. That's three for 
three, Mr. Speaker. Every Federal elected official from the State of 
Alaska says we've got energy here, and we want to harvest energy here 
to help fuel America, to help fuel America. We're in. We're in.
  Mr. Speaker, do you know who's not in? President Barack Obama. He 
said all the right things in the State of the Union speech, Mr. 
Speaker. As the words were coming out of his mouth, I thought, I'm with 
you, I'm with you, time after time thinking that's the right thing to 
do. Now, sadly, I thought the same thing a year ago when so many of 
those same things were said. I said, I'm with you, it's the right thing 
to do.
  We talked about abolishing corporate tax rates in this country so 
that we'll be able to bring more American companies here so we can 
create more jobs. I said, I'm with you. I voted for a budget here in 
the House last year that would do just that. I introduced a bill here 
in the House, a Fair Tax, that would do just that; and I got no support 
at all, Mr. Speaker, from the White House--not on our budget, not on 
the Fair Tax, not on any corporate tax reform bill whatsoever.
  We had that Joint Select Committee at the end of the year, Mr. 
Speaker. They could have done anything--anything--to reform our 
economy, to get our fiscal house in order and to put American job 
creation back on track. They could have done anything. It was 
guaranteed to come to the floor of the House for a vote, and they 
produced nothing at all. And the President supported that effort not at 
all.
  Here we are on the Outer Continental Shelf, 1.76 billion acres, Mr. 
Speaker, 1.76 billion acres--38 million open for exploration, 97 
percent off limits. Do I need to go back, Mr. Speaker, to what the 
President said? We have a supply of natural gas that can last America 
nearly 100 years. My administration will take every possible action to 
safely develop this energy. Experts believe,

[[Page H216]]

he says, this will support more than 600,000 American jobs by the end 
of the decade--97 percent off limits.
  Now, good news, Mr. Speaker. The Department of the Interior controls 
so many of these resources. They put out a 5-year plan. They talk about 
when it is we're going to be able to open up these areas. I'll just 
take you back to Alaska, Mr. Speaker, Alaska where so much of America's 
energy production comes from. Right here in the Beaufort Sea, 27.64 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Department of the Interior 
under the Obama administration, Mr. Speaker, said we're going to let 
you start leasing up there in 2015--2015.
  I looked at my watch before I came down here, Mr. Speaker. It's 2012 
and just barely into that--2012. You heard in the State of the Union 
speech: we have a supply of natural gas that can last America 100 
years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely 
develop this energy because it can provide 600,000 American jobs. We 
know where the energy is, Mr. Speaker. The President's agency in charge 
says, just wait another 3 years, we'll let you in. Right here in this 
Chamber, Mr. Speaker, the President said he would do everything--
everything--in his power. I'm asking you, Mr. Speaker, has he done 
anything? Has he done anything?
  There is nothing wrong with America that we didn't do to ourselves. 
God blessed us with these resources. It's man's law that won't let us 
get them out of the ground. Our friends in Canada, Mr. Speaker, want to 
open up a pipeline to bring hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil 
into America every day, the market price of which is $70 million a day. 
Mr. Speaker, we're using the oil anyway in our cars, our factories, 
plastics--all of our products. We're already using the oil. The 
question is where do we get it? And today we send that same $70 million 
to Iraq, to Venezuela, and to Oman.
  Mr. Speaker, we could have energy independence in this Nation if we 
applied ourselves to it, and it would change our foreign policy 
forever. If not in this Nation, Mr. Speaker, we could have energy 
independence on this continent. Our friends in Mexico, our friends in 
Canada, and we could collectively have energy independence. Why don't 
we? Why don't we, Mr. Speaker? And the answer is, as The Washington 
Post said, because in terms of leadership in this Nation, we lack the 
courage.
  I just want to make that clear, Mr. Speaker. Let's go back to an 
issue that's going to come up over and over and over again until the 
President gets it right. It's the Keystone pipeline. When I say we lack 
the courage, Mr. Speaker, you and I both voted to move this Keystone 
project along. The AFL-CIO has endorsed moving this project along. It's 
not a Republican-Democratic issue, Mr. Speaker. It is an American jobs 
versus radical leftist agenda issue. The Washington Post, the most 
liberal newspaper in the area, one of the most liberal in the country, 
Mr. Speaker, said on its face there is no question that approving the 
Keystone XL project should have been an easy call for the 
administration. The courage that we're asking for from the President, 
Mr. Speaker, is to stand up to the most radical, most leftist, and most 
anti-jobs segment of his party. That's the ask.

  When The Washington Post here says President Obama should have had 
the courage to say so, they weren't saying, shake up the apple cart, 
Mr. Speaker. They weren't saying, take some dangerous untrodden path 
through the woods. They were saying, approve the project that on its 
face there could be no question about. Approve the project that our 
friends in Canada have already endorsed; approve the project that 
brings North American oil to America instead of shipping it to China; 
approve the project that saves $70 million a day keeping it in North 
America instead of shipping it to the Middle East; approve the project 
that will improve 20,000 jobs today and more going forward; approve the 
project, as the President said, through our natural gas resources and 
through our oil resources that could support 600,000 new jobs by the 
end of the decade.
  Who is the beneficiary, Mr. Speaker? You have the same town hall 
meetings I do. Who is the beneficiary of lower fuel prices?

                              {time}  2130

  Is it ExxonMobil? No. Is it the big plastics plant? Well, I'm sure 
they'll do better, but that's not who it is. The big beneficiary, Mr. 
Speaker, of lower oil prices are American families. The big 
beneficiary, when American energy prices drop, are American workers. 
The big beneficiary, when we make these easy decisions to look to 
America's energy resources first, the beneficiary is the American 
economy. Should have been an easy call, Mr. Speaker. Should have been 
an easy call. I know you believe that. I believe that. The Washington 
Post believes that.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know how we'll find that true voice in the 
President's State of the Union speech. You know, there's so much 
double-speak in this town. It's sometimes tough to know what folks are 
actually saying. Rather than guess at what folks are actually saying, I 
blew it up in big words and put it right here because I wanted to be 
able to see it; I wanted to be able to remember it. Here's what the 
President says: ``We have a supply of natural gas that can last America 
nearly 100 years. And my administration will take every possible action 
to safely develop this energy because experts believe this will support 
more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.''
  Mr. Speaker, it's up to you and me. We have to hold the President 
accountable for these words. You cannot say these words when you're 
speaking to the American people in the State of the Union. You cannot 
say these words when you speak to the House and Senate here in joint 
session in the State of the Union. You cannot say these words while 
canceling the largest opportunity we have for energy independence in 
this country. You cannot say these words when you're actually focusing 
your energy, your efforts, taxpayer money on these projects that we've 
proven time and time again don't work. You cannot say these words, Mr. 
Speaker, when you know we have 1.76 billion acres that we could 
explore, but only 38 million are open for exploration, meaning 97 
percent are off limits.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate does not end tonight. This debate begins 
tonight. You, me, and the American people, we can make a difference; 
and we owe it to the American people to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time.

                          ____________________