[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 17 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARTHA ROBY

                               of alabama

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, February 2, 2012

  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment 
over President Obama's decision to block the Keystone XL Pipeline by 
rejecting an application to build and operate the oil pipeline across 
the U.S. and Canada border.
  This is a major decision, and I think every American should be aware 
of the consequences. The Keystone Pipeline represents an opportunity to 
both increase supply of much-needed natural resources in our country 
and create tens-of-thousands of American jobs. Because the project 
crosses the U.S. border, a permit is required from President Obama's 
State Department.
  Without that permit, we will not see the potential benefits--in terms 
of stabilized energy supplies or new jobs--that would result from the 
Pipeline.
  The Keystone Pipeline project would have the capacity to deliver up 
to 900,000 barrels of crude oil per day and would include more than 
1,700 miles of pipeline. Estimates from TransCanada, the company that 
applied to construct the pipeline, projects 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.
  Mr. Speaker, our energy policy is vitally important to our national 
security and our economic security. Oil accounts for 37 percent of U.S. 
energy demand, with 71 percent directed to fuels used in 
transportation. That is equally true of the mother who drives her 
children to school as it is of the business owner who operates a fleet 
of delivery vehicles. When the price of gasoline increases, Americans 
are hurt--and the price of gasoline increased 81 cents per gallon in 
2011 alone.
  That is why I support our ``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 that ``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 inconsistent with that statement.
  I believe the Keystone Pipeline project has the potential to 
strengthen America's economy, reduce our dependence on oil from 
potentially hostile regions of the world, and create jobs. I voted in 
favor of the North American-Made Energy Security Act (H.R. 1938), 
legislation directing the President to issue a final order granting or 
denying the Keystone Pipeline permit by November 1, 2011.
  Additionally, Congress passed H.R. 3765, the Temporary Payroll Tax 
Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-78) that was enacted into law on 
December 23, 2011. This Act, signed by the President, required the 
State Department to grant a permit within 60 days unless the President 
determined that the pipeline would not serve the national interest. I 
also voted in favor of this legislation.
  Unfortunately, President Obama announced on January 17, 2011 that the 
administration will block the pipeline by denying the application 
permit. It has been more than three years since the application to 
build the Keystone XL pipeline was originally filed. The President had 
an opportunity to help create American jobs and reduce America's 
reliance on unstable foreign sources of oil, and he rejected it. The 
State Department announced that it did not have sufficient time to 
obtain the information necessary to determine if the project would 
serve the national interest. In truth, this project has been studied 
for many years. I ask, how does reducing reliance on Middle East oil 
while creating thousands of jobs not serve the national interest?
  The door is now open for Canadian oil to go to China. Canada's Prime 
Minister, Stephen Harper, announced his ``profound disappointment with 
the news.'' The Prime Minister expressed that he had hoped the project 
would continue, given the significant contribution it would make to the 
United States and Canada. 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 will receive this energy 
supply not serve our national interest?
  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 Congress will continue to push him to 
reconsider this error in judgment.

                          ____________________