[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 16 (Wednesday, February 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H362-H368]
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 Colorado (Mr. Gardner) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address
the Chamber tonight to discuss a very important issue, the issue of job
creation, the issue of energy independence, and what we are doing in
the 112th Congress, the Republican majority, to make sure that we're
creating jobs and opportunities for the American people.
According to the Canadian government, Mr. Speaker, over 143,000 jobs
in Colorado depend on our trade relationship with Canada. And whether
people want to admit it or not, crude petroleum is Colorado's top
import from Canada. But we're not unique in that aspect. Colorado is by
no means unique. Many of our jobs and much of our energy depends on our
good relationship with our friendly neighbor to the north. When it
comes to the Keystone pipeline, though, it's been 3 years since an
application was first filed. America knows the Keystone pipeline, a
1,700-mile energy project from our neighbors to the north to the Gulf
of Mexico, one that could create as many as 20,000 direct jobs and
100,000 indirect jobs. The United States as a whole would benefit both
economically and from a national security standpoint if this country
were to be able to move forward with the Keystone pipeline.
And tonight, we have Members of Congress from across this country,
and Members from the East and the West, the North and the South who
will talk about the importance of energy security and the importance of
creating jobs.
So many of the debates we have heard on the Chamber floor, not only
today but in the past few months, have been revolving around the notion
of creating jobs and what we're going to do to get this economy turned
around, an economy that already has over 14 million Americans
unemployed and 46 million Americans living in poverty, a chance to get
people to work and a chance to create jobs.
I will frame this debate tonight with some information that we've
just received. People across this country want the Keystone pipeline to
be built. If you look at the numbers we have here, supporters of the
Keystone pipeline, you can see the support. It's not just Republicans.
It's not just the majority of Democrats. Every sector that we have
talked about in this poll supports the Keystone pipeline
overwhelmingly, 64 percent when you take into account the opinions of
Republicans and Democrats. They know that this project will create
opportunity, opportunity that hasn't existed for far too long.
For over 36 months now, we've seen the unemployment rate in this
Nation exceed 8 percent. It's unacceptable. And the fact that this
administration has decided to punt on jobs is shameful. It's been said
before, a year ago, 2 years ago when the President was talking about
shovel-ready projects, well now apparently the only thing that the
President is willing to use his shovel for is to bury jobs. And that's
why tonight I'm excited for the discussion we will have with the
American people.
So at this time I would like to yield to some of my colleagues who
have joined me on the floor for their take and perspective on the
Keystone pipeline, beginning with my good friend from Alabama, Martha
Roby.
Mrs. ROBY. I very much thank the gentleman from Colorado. I
appreciate you holding this very important leadership hour tonight.
And, of course, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme
disappointment over President Obama's decision to block the Keystone
pipeline by rejecting an application to build and operate the oil
pipeline across the U.S. and Canada border.
{time} 2020
I think every American should be aware of the consequences. More than
100,000 jobs could be created over the life of the project, including
an estimated 20,000 immediate American jobs in construction and
manufacturing.
Oil accounts for 37 percent of U.S. energy demand with 71 percent
directed to fuels used in transportation. That is equally true of a
mother who drives her children to school as it is the businessowner who
operates a fleet of delivery vehicles. When the price of gasoline
increases, Americans hurt. And the price of gasoline increased 81 cents
per gallon in 2011 alone.
I support an all-of-the-above approach to energy, which includes
opening up new areas for American energy exploration, transitioning to
renewable and alternative energy, and using more clean and reliable
nuclear power.
In his State of the Union address, the President stated, ``This
country needs an all out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every
available source of American energy, a strategy that's cleaner, cheaper
and full of new jobs.'' In my opinion, his decision on the Keystone
pipeline is blatantly inconsistent with this very statement.
The door is now open for this Canadian oil to go to China. Canada's
Prime Minister announced his ``profound disappointment with the news.''
While the Chinese Government has ensured its future supply of oil and
other energy resources, the United States has rejected a new source of
energy that was laid at our doorstep. Mr. Speaker, I ask, how does the
fact that China could receive this energy supply not serve our national
interests? Mr. Speaker, I consider President Obama's decision a grave
mistake. And on behalf of the American people who want secure oil and
new manufacturing jobs, I hope that the Congress will continue to push
him to reconsider this error in judgment.
Again, thank you to my friend from Colorado for holding this
important hour tonight on this very important topic to the American
people for job creation.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentlelady for being here tonight and
discussing the impact on her district with the Keystone pipeline. She
brings up a good point when it comes to the price of gas. Reports that
we have say that the discovery of the Canadian oil sands has the
potential to change the current gas-price dynamic. Bringing a massive
amount of oil to market from a politically and economically secure
source can restore market confidence and bring down gas prices.
With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank my colleague for yielding, and it's
great to be here with so many of them who also believe in not only the
Keystone pipeline but that America can attain energy independence and
security.
When the President came into office, gasoline at the pumps was about
$1.68 a gallon. Today, it's approaching $3.40, and in some places even
higher than that. We face a dichotomy of leadership here in Washington,
D.C. You just heard our colleague from Alabama talk about the
President's State of the Union address, and he talked about an all-of-
the-above approach to energy. Well, the administration's actions and
their words simply don't match.
And there's no more striking example of this than the President's
rejection of the Keystone pipeline, a project that would have created
20,000 immediate jobs, bipartisan support, even the unions are
supportive of that project, upwards of 100,000 jobs as it trickled down
through the life cycle of that project; and yet the President rejected
it. Hardworking taxpayers across America, particularly those in my
district along eastern and southeastern Ohio, are very tired of
Washington taking more and giving less. They want real leadership, they
want real solutions, and they want a return to American exceptionalism.
I remember, and I know many of you do, a time when we grasped the
concept of American exceptionalism. President Kennedy told us back in
the '60s, he said, We're going to go to the Moon in 10 years. We didn't
make it in 10 years; we made it in 7 because he engaged every fabric of
our society--academia, our industrial base, our economic base, our
political will, and even our military was behind this idea of getting
to the Moon. We saw industries crop up around space exploration. We saw
millions of jobs created. We saw young people lining up to get into
institutions where they could major in disciplines that would prepare
them for careers in space exploration.
Think about what would happen if we really had an all-of-the-above
approach to energy similar to that. Think about what would happen if
America had an energy policy that said, starting today, we're going to
draw a line in the sand, and over the next decade, we're going
[[Page H363]]
to set a goal to become energy independent and secure in the United
States. We're no longer going to sit on the sidelines. We're going to
go after the 3 trillion barrels of oil that we already own. We're going
to go after the natural gas we own because we're sitting on the world's
largest deposits of it. We're going to continue to mine coal; and
because we're going to invest in it, we're going to learn how to use it
more environmentally soundly.
We're going to expand our nuclear footprint because guess what? It's
the cleanest, safest form of energy on the planet. We're even going to
look at wind and solar and find out where they fit into the energy
profile. We know they can't solve all the problems, but they have a
niche where they can. But we're not going to sit idly by and do
nothing, and we're going to start by telling our regulatory agencies to
become partners in progress with American businesses, to become rather
than the department of ``no,'' the department of ``let's move the ball
forward'' and get over throwing up arbitrary barriers that are keeping
America from going after its own natural resources.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we had that kind of all-of-the-
above energy policy that had action behind the words, you would again
see America believe in American exceptionalism. You would see young
people lining up to get into institutions to major in disciplines to
prepare them for advances in energy production, distribution, and even
usage. And at the end of the day, we would see and we would find out
that we would learn how to produce, store, and use energy in ways that
we've never even imagined.
Do you know why? Because I do believe in American exceptionalism, and
I know that my colleagues believe in American exceptionalism. I just
don't think that our leaders in Washington and in the White House and
in this administration believe in American exceptionalism.
It was a striking example back last March, last spring, when the
Prime Minister of Australia stood in this very Chamber and gave a
presentation. We were all here. She related a story, and she said, I
remember being a young girl sitting in front of my television and
watching Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin land on the Moon thinking to
myself, wow, Americans can do anything.
She went on to talk about the history of America and Australia and
how we worked together to address the world's problems and how America
had stood by Australia during World War II. She gave many examples. At
the end of her speech, she said, I'm not that young girl today. I'm the
Prime Minister of our country, and I've got a lot more experience under
my belt, but I still believe that Americans can do anything.
I was sitting right over there, and I remember I could feel a
cleansing breath take place in the House Chamber. You could have heard
a pin drop in here. We heard something from a leader of another nation
that we so desperately want to hear from our own leaders.
Mr. Speaker, America is the exception. We are gifted with the ability
to innovate, compete, and solve the world's problems; and we've been
doing it for over 230 years.
{time} 2030
We can become energy independent and secure in this country. We can
return the idea of American exceptionalism to this country. We can put
the American Dream back into play to the over 14 million Americans that
are out of work and the 40-plus million Americans that are
underemployed.
I ask the President and the Senate today to begin to work with us in
the House of Representatives to advance the idea of a real, no-kidding,
all-of-the-above energy policy, one that puts America first above
politics and above campaigning.
I want to thank my colleagues for being here again tonight. Thanks
for giving me an opportunity to share.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
And I'm sure you'd be interested to know this--and I'm sure you
already know this, in fact--that according to testimony that was given
before the Energy and Commerce Committee hearing last year on energy
issues, the impact of Alberta oil sands development on the U.S. State
economy, in your great State of Ohio, 13,200 new jobs could be created
between 2011 and 2015 as the development of the Alberta oil sands moves
forward. And the Keystone pipeline is an important part of that. So, as
I know there are many visits going on to Ohio by this President,
perhaps he can explain to the people who may be unemployed in your
district, 13,200 new jobs good to be created by the development of the
Alberta oil sands, why the Keystone pipeline was vetoed.
So I thank the gentleman for being here today.
And with that, I would yield to the gentleman from Arizona for his
perspective.
Mr. QUAYLE. I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Colorado, for
yielding.
Back home in Phoenix, Arizona, in my home district, one of the big
things that we worry about is the cost of gasoline. I went to the pump
the other day and it was about $3.60. It's about twice as much as it
would cost back before President Obama was elected. And if you look at
the statistics, in 2011, the average American household spent a record
$4,155 at the pump. This is equal to 8.4 percent of the median family
income. So this is a huge issue, that we need to continue to find
stable sources of oil so that we can have a secure source of oil and we
can make sure that we have more supply of oil so that we can start to
bring the prices down for gas at the pump.
Back before the President made his decision, I would go around and
talk to people around my district and I would say, What if I told you
that with the swipe of a pen the President and his administration could
create 20,000 immediate jobs and over 100,000 jobs over the long term
and there wouldn't be any taxpayer dollars put at risk or expended;
what do you think we should do? Every single one of the people that I
talked to said this President should sign that as soon as possible and
let's get to work making sure that the Keystone pipeline gets put into
effect and get people back to work.
And then something funny happened. The administration decided to
placate the radical fringe element of their party, and the President
punted to 2013--didn't even make the decision whether a yes or no, just
pushed it down the road. But House Republicans decided that we were
going to give the President a second chance, a second opportunity to do
the right thing, an opportunity to realize that the State Department
had already done an environmental impact study that showed that there
was very little chance for any environmental damage to some of the
sensitive areas where the pipeline would be going. Maybe we could have
the President realize that this is not the time to play politics; this
is the time to get American people back to work. And that's exactly
what the Keystone pipeline would do. And yet, once again, the President
punted.
Now, we can't give him too many more chances. We've already given two
chances for this one already. But when we all sat here at the State of
the Union and we heard him say that we were going to adopt the all-of-
the-above approach, as some of my colleagues mentioned earlier, we
actually realized that that's not really the case, because it seems as
if there are only favored sectors that actually get some attention from
this administration. You have companies like Solyndra.
Solyndra received a $535 million loan guarantee from the government
as well as nearly $15 million in severance money for its employees when
that company went bankrupt. A total of nearly 550 million taxpayer
dollars were squandered. This is a risk that the American taxpayer
should never have taken. And there is very little chance we're going to
get any of that back because our rights were actually put lower than
people who were giving loans after the American taxpayers.
Now, then, we have another company, Ener1, received $118.5 million in
stimulus grants before going belly up just a few moments ago.
According to The Washington Post, Obama's $38.6 billion green job
loan guarantee program has created just 3,545 permanent jobs. That's a
cost of $5 million per job, $5 million per job in a favored sector. You
know how many taxpayer dollars would be spent to create hundreds of
thousands of jobs for
[[Page H364]]
the Keystone pipeline? Zero. And yet the President couldn't sign a
simple sheet of paper to get this done. This is a no-brainer, as many
people have said.
So I hope that the President will reconsider. I hope that the House
Republicans will continue to push this issue because this is something
that we can do right away. It is shovel ready, to borrow a phrase, and
this is something that will make sure that we are looking towards the
future for our energy security.
And I thank the gentleman from Colorado for addressing this important
issue and for starting this conversation tonight.
Mr. GARDNER. The gentleman from Arizona brings up a great point about
Solyndra and the Keystone pipeline. And I think there is a real
question about what kind of an economy we want in this country. Do we
have a Solyndra economy that relies on government funding, government
financing, and then rips off the American taxpayers? Or do we rely on a
Keystone economy that creates private sector jobs, 100,000 private
sector jobs?
The Arizona Republic said in an article, an editorial that they wrote
on January 20 of this year, just a couple days ago:
A lack of urgency regarding energy independence is only one of the
reasons President Obama is being shellacked this week by Republicans
and Democrats alike for his disappointing decision regarding the
Keystone XL transcontinental oil pipeline. The foot-dragging runs
counter to the recommendations of the President's own Council on Jobs
and Competitiveness. President Obama's choice is a bad one. He needs to
reconsider.
That was an editorial, again, from The Arizona Republic.
And with that, I would yield to my colleague and good friend from the
State of New York (Mr. Reed), somebody who has been very active in
natural gas production and certainly a leader in the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. REED. Well, I thank my colleague from Colorado for hosting this
Special Order tonight and for truly engaging in a conversation we need
to have with America.
And I would like to associate myself with the words of the gentleman
from Ohio, when Mr. Johnson spoke so eloquently about the need for a
comprehensive energy policy, an all-of-the-above approach to getting us
off of foreign sources of energy once and for all. I think Mr. Johnson
really hit the nail on the head with his description of the American
Dream, or exceptionalism, and the ability that in America we develop a
plan; when we have a vision, we can accomplish anything.
And I don't know if you noticed, Mr. Gardner, I'm over here on the
other side of the Chamber tonight. You know, I'm an individual who is
proud to be a member of the Republican Party, and many of the times I'm
standing on that side of the Chamber. But I am willing to come over on
this side of the Chamber to speak tonight to say to my fellow
colleagues across the aisle that my hand is open for us to join
together on this issue and many issues that face Americans back at
home, and this issue in particular because it impacts all of us, all
300 million people across America; because when we can commit
ourselves, as the President did at the State of the Union, to
developing a comprehensive energy policy of all of the above, I am
confident that we can achieve that energy independence.
And tonight's discussion on the Keystone pipeline is an example of an
administration and of folks engaging in old-school politics rather than
focusing on good, sound policy that is going to achieve that dream of
energy independence because, as my colleagues have articulated, this
project has been fully vetted, years of environmental studies and
reviews. The primary agency, FERC, who had the responsibility to
oversee the project, came to the conclusion that there were no
significant environmental impacts that were associated with this
project.
{time} 2040
And it was on the verge of approval at the Department of State whose,
if I remember correctly, primary mission is to deal with diplomatic
issues. Because this pipe crosses an international border, the
President used the final act from an agency who is focused on
diplomatic issues to reach in and, for political purposes, say no.
I applaud the gentleman from Arizona, and I associate myself with his
words, that we have given another chance to the President to do what is
right in our and my opinion. This is a project that is ready to go. It
will put 20,000 people back to work, and that's what we've been talking
about here for months is improving this economy: jobs, jobs, jobs. And
with the stroke of a pen, the President said no to 20,000 jobs and
100,000 jobs on top of that. And he put an obstacle in the barrier of
his own State of the Union message that we are going to accomplish
energy independence with an all-of-the-above approach by taking action
a week before and saying, for political purposes, we're not going to be
able to achieve that goal.
That has to stop, ladies and gentlemen. I'm proud to be part of this
freshman class that has come in November 2010, and I fundamentally
believe that we are changing the conversation in Washington to focusing
on policy over politics. And this is an example, under this pipeline
project, that is going to be directly related to that change in
conversation in Washington because it's a commonsense type of approach
to the job.
It's about focusing on people, getting them back to work, committing
ourselves to a vision of energy independence, which is so critical to
our future, and also so critical to our future in the manufacturing
sector, because if we can get energy from domestic supplies here, and
we can secure those energy sources long term, we're going to have lower
utility rates, manufacturers are going to invest in America again, and
we're going to start building things again. That has to be the
cornerstone of what we're talking about. And the Keystone pipeline is
but an example of that.
One last point I would like to address. We here in Washington can
impact people every day, and this is an example of that impact in a
positive way, because if we put the Keystone pipeline online, every
time an American goes to the pump to fill up his gas tank or her gas
tank, you will see the immediate results of it in a lower price, unless
we continue down the policy that the President has committed us to in
not constructing this pipeline. Every penny counts in this economy.
So I'm proud to be down here on the floor tonight to talk about this
key issue and also the bigger issue of making sure that we stay focused
on the American Dream of energy independence.
And with that, I wholeheartedly join my colleagues tonight.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from New York and, again, thank
you for your constant leadership on our national energy security. And
we do harken back to the time just a few weeks ago when the President
gave his State of the Union address, addressed this Chamber, the joint
session of Congress. And it reminded me when he said, I'm for an all-
of-the-above energy policy, and then vetoed, basically with the stroke
of a pen, as you said, the Keystone pipeline. It reminded me of
something that Yogi Berra might say. Yogi Berra might say, I'm for all-
of-the-above energy as long as it's not all of the above. That seems to
be what we're hearing. And with the killing, with one single signing,
of 100,000 jobs, I think it shows where the real intent in terms of job
creation some people would have this Chamber try to follow.
You mentioned the Department of State. A week ago, last week, we had
Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary of State from the Department of
State, testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee and admitted
that when it comes to the EIS, the no-pipeline alternative, there was
an alternative considered under the EIS, the Environmental Impact
Statement. One of the options they considered was no pipeline, no
pipeline at all. In testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee,
it was admitted that that was not the preferable alternative. That was
not the preferable alternative under the Environmental Impact
Statement. So even the Department of State admits that the EIS on the
pipeline envisions the construction of a pipeline. And yet the
President said no.
And so I thank the gentleman from New York and the thousands of
people
[[Page H365]]
that could be employed by the development of the Alberta oil sands. And
I know the next gentleman, Mr. Conaway from Texas, that will be
addressing the Chamber, I don't know if he has this statistic right in
front of him, but according to testimony, again, before committee, 170
firms supply the Canadian oil sands from Texas, 170 firms that supply
the Canadian old sands.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for allowing me to
join in; and although I'm not a part of the freshman class, I hope they
won't toss me out of the Chamber as a result of that indiscretion.
I wanted to walk us through kind of the process by which TransCanada
has gone through trying to laboriously apply and comply with all of the
rules, regulations, and hoops that anybody who tries to do a project of
this scope has to go through.
They began in September of 2008 when they filed their application for
a permit to build this pipeline. As has been mentioned, the State
Department would not be involved in this at all except for the fact
that this pipeline crosses an international border. If this were just
within the United States, the State Department and the President would
be out of the loop in this instance. But because this is an
international problem, then the State Department gets a whack at this
deal.
In April 2010, the State Department issued their draft Environmental
Impact Study. Then, a couple of months later, in June of 2010, EPA
weighed in with the results of their technical review and said that the
draft Environmental Impact Study was deficient and didn't provide the
scope and the detail, if necessary, for decision-makers to make their
mind up. Bureaucratic nonsense for stopping things from going forward,
so that it allows one group of folks in the administration to brag on
how hard we're pushing on this issue, while all the time they've got a
backstop at the EPA that knows that they're not going to move anything
forward.
And then October 2010, State Department issued a supplemental draft
Environmental Impact Study. Only in America can you come up with these
kinds of titles to simply laying a pipeline across this country. Again
the EPA weighed in and said, no, no, no, this supplemental one is
deficient, and you've got to continue to give us information; although,
when asked a little later on that month, Secretary of State Clinton was
asked at a press conference, kind of where are we with respect to the
pipeline approval process, she commented that we're inclined to say
``yes'' to the pipeline.
And then in April 2011, the EPA again said in a filing that the
supplemental draft Environmental Impact Study was deficient.
Finally, by August of 2011, the State Department issued its final
Environmental Impact Study, allowing for a 30-day public comment and a
90-day agency comment. And of course it was during this agency comment
period that the State Department decided that a new route was
necessary, that the original route that was planned and the
alternatives going across the Ogallala, the 13 alternatives that were
assessed, that this one really was the best, that somehow a new route
was necessary and that gave rise to the charade that we saw played out
where the President decided he was going to wait until after the
election, and then Congress weighed in and said, no, you need to make
that decision sooner.
The State Department's decision to go or no go on it has to be based
on a finding that the pipeline is not in our national interest.
Transporting this oil of almost 1.4 million barrels of crude and
bitunium across this country to U.S. refineries would have to not be in
the United States' best interest. And, in fact, that's what the State
Department found. After we passed the law requiring the President to
make a decision, the State Department suddenly decided that building
this pipeline was no longer in the national interest and allowed the
President then to say what he said. The President's wrongheadedness on
this issue couldn't be more self-evident on its face.
I want to talk real quickly about the safety issue. You hear a lot
about that. I come from west Texas--Midland, Odessa, San Angelo. There
are thousands and thousands of miles of pipeline crisscrossing my part
of the State. In fact, there are three oil pipelines that run through
the front yards of the people who live across the street from me. And
we've lived there for almost 15 years now, not a bit of trouble with
the pipelines. And they're inspected all the time, both inside and out
and observed from the air, and this type of stuff. So pipeline safety
is not an issue.
{time} 2050
Drilling safety, by the way, I just wanted to pitch this in real
quickly. When I left my home yesterday morning at 5:45 to come here, as
I was closing the garage door, I could see the lights on the crown of a
drilling rig less than a half mile from my house that's in operation.
It's been in operation for about 4 or 5 months now drilling wells that
are actually that close to my house, and it's being drilled inside the
city limits of Midland, Texas.
So when we talk about not in my backyard or all of the other kinds of
reasons why people don't want oil and gas production around them, I
come from a part of the State where it's a badge of honor, and, in
fact, it's helpful on the 20th of the month each month when the royalty
checks show up. So this industry has a great record of being able to
operate soundly not only in the drilling and exploration phases, but
also in the production and transportation issues across.
Let me give you one quick thing, and I'll close. The Wall Street
Journal, on the 19th, had made a pretty good statement. It said:
The central conflict of the Obama Presidency has been
between the jobs and growth crisis he inherited and the
President's hell-for-leather pursuit of his larger social
policy ambitions. The tragedy is that the economic recovery
has been so lackluster because the second impulse keeps
winning. Yesterday came proof positive with the White House's
repudiation of the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada's $7
billion shovel-ready project that will support tens of
thousands of jobs if only it could get the requisite U.S.
permits. Those jobs, apparently, can wait.
And a couple of paragraphs later, very succinctly, said, ``This is,
to put it politely, a crock.''
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
I will show a map. Mr. Conaway, the gentleman from Texas, referred to
a pipeline. The only reason we had the Department of State involved is
because it crosses a national boundary. So you can see the pipeline
right here where it extends. I already have some pipelines, and I know
the gentleman, Pete Olson from Texas, will be addressing the Chamber
shortly and share even more about this route and the different
pipelines that we're dealing with.
But again, here it is. Right here. That's the only reason the State
Department is involved. The only reason that they had a hook to get
involved, and, as you can see, the hook was yanked and jobs were
killed.
I would like to follow up as well with an editorial from The Detroit
News, The Detroit News on the 20th of January. Detroit, Michigan,
particularly hard hit by economic tough times over the past several
years. This is the editorial:
President Barack Obama is willing to wait and wait and wait
for 20,000 desperately needed jobs. For someone whose
operating slogan is ``We can't wait,'' it's curious that
President Obama is willing to wait and wait and wait for the
Keystone XL pipeline project and the 20,000 desperately
needed jobs it promises. If the ``can't wait'' President
keeps dragging his feet, he will hand the Chinese yet one
more competitive advantage over the United States.
That's the Detroit News, January 20. Again, just a couple weeks ago.
I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) has been very involved in
the Energy and Commerce Committee. He's been standing up for his State,
energy security jobs that would be created. And I'm sure he knew this
already, but in Texas alone, the development of the Alberta oil sands
could create as many as 27,000 jobs over the next 4 years.
With that, I would yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from Colorado and my brother on the
Energy and Commerce Committee. They say that imitation is the sincerest
form of flattery. I've got the same chart that you have.
I want to focus my discussion tonight on national security. I want to
make sure that the American public understands the truth. I mean,
there's been
[[Page H366]]
many, many, many misstatements from the administration about the
safety, national security implications, jobs of the Keystone XL
pipeline.
While every American can have their own opinion, no American can have
their own version of the facts. That's why we're here tonight, to give
the American people the facts.
This is the Keystone pipeline, as my colleague alluded to. There are
actually two Keystone pipelines. The first one, the little orange line
here, that's the Keystone pipeline, the plain Keystone pipeline.
Actually, oil is flowing through that pipeline right now, the Steel
City, Kansas-Nebraska border into St. Louis and into Patoka, Illinois.
That is happening right now as we speak today.
The thing that's been controversial is the dotted line, the Keystone
XL pipeline, which follows a similar path, ends up in the Gulf States,
in my home area of Houston, Texas, the Port of Houston, and the Port of
Beaumont and the Port of Port Arthur.
The real problem, as I follow my colleagues, I want to point out
three points:
Little slivers right there, no one knows what it is. It's just an
imaginary line. Those two cross these points. Those pipelines cross
from Canada into the United States. That's the only reason why the
State Department is involved in this process. Some imaginary line
between our two countries, and the State Department has the approval
authority.
Again, I talked about the two ports down there in the gulf coast in
Texas. Those refineries on those ports are the safest, most advanced,
most efficient refineries in the entire world. That oil will be
processed quickly, efficiently, in an environmentally friendly manner.
We've just got to get it there.
This part right here, the State of Nebraska is the problem. I will go
into that a little bit further.
As the American people can see, this is a map of the central part of
the United States where the Keystone pipeline comes through; and just
to get you oriented here, the yellow line that's hard to see, that's
the Keystone pipeline, the one that's existing right now, the one that
actually oil is flowing to Illinois as we speak.
The dark green line here is a proposed path for the Keystone XL
pipeline. And the reason the administration has given for not approving
this pipeline is because of this big pink area, and that's the Ogallala
Aquifer that runs through most of Nebraska and, as you can see, goes
into my home State of Texas.
All of these other lines here, all of these little arteries, all of
these little spinoffs, these dark lines, you know what those are? Those
are pipelines, pipelines that go in all through that aquifer.
The Keystone XL pipeline is designed to be the safest pipeline in the
entire world, much safer than all of these other pipelines that may
have been there for 50 years. The Keystone XL pipeline is going to be
put in deeper so it doesn't have the risk of some of the things most
pipelines have where the integrity gets compromised because somebody on
the surface drills into it. They're putting the pipeline down deeper to
avoid that. It's got all of these modern systems that monitor the
pipeline's status at a fixed interval so if there is some sort of
problem on it, it will shut down almost automatically and prevent
further spills into the Nebraska aquifer.
All of these pipelines are there. Keystone is the safest one, and yet
the administration didn't approve it.
We all know the numbers: 20,000 shovel-ready jobs right now; 830,000
barrels of oil flowing a day down the port in the southeast Texas
ports; energy security, national security.
Now I'm going to turn to focus a little bit on national security.
As the American people know, the Middle East is as unstable as it has
been in most of our lifetime. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia all have new
governments. Syria is on the verge of collapse; Yemen, as well. On top
of all of that, we have Iran. Iran that is actively pursuing a nuclear
weapon.
The world seems to be growing in its appreciation of the threat that
a nuclear power in Iran has to our whole world security. We in Congress
here passed a bill imposing sanctions on the Iran national bank. The
European Union passed sanctions on Iran just this past week preventing
them from purchasing any oil from Iran. But the Iranians responded in
just the way we thought--with lots of swagger, with lots of bravado.
What'd they do? They talked about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz.
{time} 2100
The Iranians shut down this waterway. This choke point is a very real
threat to our world's economic stability and growth.
I may be the only Member of Congress who has flown missions as a
pilot in the United States Navy, as a naval aviator, through the Strait
of Hormuz. It's narrow. It's about 25 miles at its narrowest point. In
my hometown, that's basically the distance between Houston and
Galveston. It's shallow, 200 feet. A football field is longer than the
Strait of Hormuz is deep.
As you can see, the sea links, where the tankers all cruise through,
are very close to Iran. They're not out in the middle of the strait.
This little island over here, Abu Musa, is an Iranian island, so all of
the traffic going through that strait has to pass basically through
Iran on one side and Iran on the other side.
I'm not worried about my Navy having access through those straits.
They can handle any situation the Iranians throw up. What I fear and am
concerned about is all the tanker traffic that is currently going
through those straits. Thirty percent of the world's oil goes through
those straits to Europe, to our country, to Asia. If those straits are
shut down for any given period of time, our world will go into an
economic collapse.
We've seen this in the past. When I was a young man and started
driving in the late seventies--16 years old--it was this country,
again, that was the problem. The Shah of Iran fell. The Mullahs, who
are in power right now, took over. We supported the Shah, and all the
Arab nations involved in OPEC put an embargo on the United States.
Overnight, we lost all this oil flowing through the strait.
What happened?
My colleague from Colorado talked about gas prices going up. They
doubled in about a week's period. I mean, I remember because my job as
the new guy with a license--and I loved doing it because I was driving,
man--was to get in the car and go down. It depended on what the last
digit was on your license plate. If it were an odd or even day, you
could go get in the gas line. On some days it was 30 minutes, and on
some days an hour and a half. But my job was to get in that line and
sit there and wait until I got up there and could pump gas in the car.
Again, gas prices went from 25 cents a gallon, which we can't imagine
today, to 50 cents overnight. If those straits were to shut down
tomorrow with gas prices going up as they are right now, which is
approaching $4 all the way across the country, we could see almost $10
a gallon overnight--$10 a gallon. So we can't diminish this threat that
the straits will shut down.
How do we fix this? How do we address it?
It's simple. We develop energy sources right here in North America.
The administration and State Department have proven in the past that
they will approve a pipeline based on the considerations I talked
about. Let me give you an example of that.
There are lots of pipelines coming from Canada to our country. Just
to get the listeners oriented again, the dark blue line here is the
Keystone XL pipeline. Well, actually, the dotted line is the Keystone
XL coming down here. The blue line is the Keystone XL pipeline. The
pipeline I want to talk about is the Alberta Clipper pipeline. The
Alberta Clipper pipeline is the yellow one coming here, right here to
the point there, which I believe is Lake Superior, but it's right there
in the northern part of Minnesota. When that was approved a couple of
years ago, here is what the State Department said. This is their Record
of Decision and National Interest Determination:
The Department of State has determined, through a review of the
Alberta Clipper project application, that the Alberta Clipper project
would serve the national interests in a time of considerable political
tension in other major oil-producing regions and countries by providing
additional access to an approximate, stable, secure supply of
[[Page H367]]
crude oil with minimum transportation requirements from a reliable ally
and trading partner of the United States with which we have free trade
agreements and further augments the security of this energy supply.
If that were true 3 years ago for this pipeline, isn't it more true
today for the Keystone XL pipeline? Why doesn't the President approve
the pipeline immediately and give our country energy security and more
national security?
I know why the President did it. It's very clear. I mean, when it
first started coming out, all the wings of the administration were
saying, Well, we can't make a decision until sometime in 2013. The
American people know what happens between now and 2013. There is a
Presidential election. The American people need a leader. They need
someone who will step up and do what's right for the country and do
what's right for our security.
I would like to close by using a quote from the Father of the United
States Navy--my Navy--Admiral John Paul Jones. He was in a battle with
the British ship Superior, with more speed, more guns. His ship was
getting blown up pretty good.
The British captain, the guy with those little megaphones, yelled
over to Admiral John Paul Jones and asked, ``Sir, will you surrender?''
Admiral John Paul Jones said those immortal words that every sailor
knows. He yelled back, ``Sir, I have not yet begun to fight.''
The American people should know that House Republicans have not yet
begun to fight for the Keystone XL pipeline.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman for his leadership tonight.
Before he leaves the Chamber and before I yield to the gentleman from
South Carolina, I think it's, again, important to talk about something
that you mentioned in the very beginning of your comments. The only
reason the State Department was involved is that it crossed the border.
The only reason they were allowed to kill 100,000 American jobs is
because it crossed the border.
If the pipeline were built from Fargo, North Dakota, to Houston,
Texas, would they have been involved?
Mr. OLSON. No, sir.
Mr. GARDNER. Again, to the American people, we've heard asked often
by Members of this body: Where are the jobs? I think we need to start
asking: Why not these jobs?
I thank the gentleman from Texas.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, who has been
very active in the fight for jobs in his home State and across this
country.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman from
Colorado for allowing me to have a little time to talk about this.
Canada is our largest and best trading partner. A good friend of mine
was an ambassador to Canada, and I had the opportunity up there to talk
with him about this issue and why it's important to the United States.
Why Keystone XL pipeline? How about the refining capacity we've got in
the gulf? How about the refining jobs that would be provided in a very
hard-hit, post-Horizon gulf State economy?
The gentleman from Texas was very clear. They understand in Texas, as
they do in North Dakota, that energy is a segue to job creation. If you
look at the unemployment rate in Texas or in North Dakota, North Dakota
has 3 percent unemployment. If you're looking for a job in this
country, America, go to North Dakota. There are good-paying energy jobs
right there today, and if we can get Keystone XL pipeline to be a
reality, we'll have good-paying, long-term jobs in the refineries in
Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and in all the places that
we're going.
What I would like to talk about are the President's own words. He
said in his statement--and this is from the White House's Web site--
that the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional
Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact.
Now, how long has this been going on that they've been doing the
environmental impact assessment that you talked so brilliantly about? I
came to Congress last year. This was going on well before I came here.
A rushed assessment? Under the Obama administration, with an $800
billion stimulus package and an unprecedented growth in government,
don't you think that we had the personnel in the Department of Energy
to deal with this and to do the assessment in a timely manner in order
to approve a pipeline that would provide, not only American energy
independence, but North American energy independence? This would be
buying oil and natural gas from our largest and best trading partner,
our friends in Canada, and providing good-paying jobs in America.
I want America to listen to what the President also said in his own
statement. He said that he was disappointed that Republicans focused on
this decision. We should focus on this decision. This is about American
energy independence, and it's about jobs. Yet he goes on to say, But it
does not change my mind, and this administration's commitment to
American-made energy that creates jobs--and listen closely--and reduces
our dependence on oil. Period. It's not reducing our dependence on
foreign oil; it's not reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and
on oil from countries that oftentimes don't like us very much. It's the
lessening of our dependence on oil. Period.
That is the dynamic that is driving this administration's policies,
and America needs to know that. These resources don't belong to
President Obama. They belong to the American people, and it's time we
step up to the plate and we use energy as a segue to job creation in
this country. We trade with trading partners that like us, friendly
trading partners within our own hemisphere. It's North American energy
independence, and the Keystone XL pipeline is the answer to putting
Americans back to work.
{time} 2110
Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, the gentleman from South Carolina, getting to
the passion which so many Members have tonight throughout this fight to
create American jobs.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) who has also
been a leader when it comes to energy security and American energy
production.
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Thank you very much. I appreciate these few
minutes to speak.
You know, I have been sitting here listening to everybody speak, and
very, very good points have been made by so many of the speakers. And
it does come down to a couple, simple things. It was a tough decision
for the President, not because he didn't have the ability to make that
decision, and not because he didn't have the ability and the materials
to make that decision. As you know, in our hearing last week
Congressman Lee Terry brought in stacks and stacks of studies that have
been done on this pipeline.
But I think of it in terms of my daughter, Abby, who's a sixth-grader
back home. Abby doesn't like to do her homework. She would much rather
be talking to her friends or watching TV.
President Obama apparently doesn't like to do his homework either. He
would much rather be speaking to friends that tell him how great he is
or being on TV.
The bottom line is the same: I have to tell Abby from time to time,
Abby, go do your homework. Read your materials.
The American people need to tell President Obama on Keystone
pipeline, why can't you read the materials? It's all there for you.
Quit making speeches about jobs and take action after you have done
your homework. Do it and do it now, and bring us the jobs you keep
talking about. Get off the telephone, get off the speaking circuit, and
put your nose to the grindstone and get the job done.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman for his time tonight, and again,
as we wrap up our discussion, we will just highlight the support the
Keystone pipeline has across this country. Again, you can see the
people who believe that job creation, American energy security matters.
It matters because we can create jobs now. We have an opportunity to
develop our North American resources, to reduce our reliance on
overseas oil.
The question that these supporters ought to be asking tonight is
whether or not they want to give up this project to China. I don't
think they want China to win. And yet that's the decision this
administration has made--100,000 jobs, American energy security.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H368]]
____________________