[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 8, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H587]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            H.R. 3548, THE NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY ACCESS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Harper) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in an effort to create American 
jobs and move energy supply from a friendly trading partner to the 
United States gulf coast, the House Energy and Commerce Committee 
favorably reported H.R. 3548 to the full House. H.R. 3548, the North 
American Energy Access Act, would end a waiting game that has lasted 
for over 3 years by pushing forward approval of the Keystone XL 
pipeline.
  In his State of the Union speech 2 weeks ago, the President promised 
to significantly expand production of oil and natural gas from offshore 
and onshore public lands.

                              {time}  1120

  Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, he never mentioned his decision 
to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.
  While the President's comments about expanding oil and gas production 
in the U.S. were welcome news to many, I'm not sure how many people 
took his pledge seriously given his decision on Keystone XL. I am 
hopeful that the President will follow through on expanding production. 
I just wish he would have helped our country reduce our dependence on 
Middle Eastern oil while creating tens of thousands of jobs here in 
America by approving the pipeline application.
  The President's excuse for not approving the pipeline application was 
that he didn't have enough time. Radical environmentalists say that tar 
sands crude is the dirtiest of all, and they talk as if that's 
something foreign, something new. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point your 
attention to a Friday, February 3, 2012 article on the front page of 
the National Journal, an article that I believe shows the fallacies in 
the arguments against the pipeline. The article states that ``despite 
environmental opposition, the Obama administration has approved a 
controversial oil-sands pipeline.''
  The article refers to an oil-sands pipeline approved by the 
administration over 2 years ago. On August 20, 2009, Secretary of State 
Clinton approved a 1,000-mile pipeline with the capacity to carry 
800,000 barrels of oil from Canada's oil sands to Wisconsin. Mr. 
Speaker, if a pipeline that closely mirrors that of the proposed 
Keystone XL was good enough for the President in August of 2009, why is 
the Keystone XL pipeline not good enough for him in an election year? 
If time and the environment were reasons to deny Keystone XL in January 
2012, they should have had the same reasons to deny the Canada-
Wisconsin pipeline in 2009.
  Keystone XL is a shovel-ready construction project that doesn't need 
a stimulus bill to get it started. Estimates show that the project 
could create 20,000 construction jobs immediately and could transport 
more than 1 million barrels of oil per day from Canada and the Bakken 
shale formation in North Dakota and Montana to gulf coast refineries.
  With the ability to transport that amount of friendly oil from our 
largest trading partner and neighbor to the north, Canada, as well as 
domestic oil, and with the ability to create an additional estimated 
100,000 jobs over the lifetime of the pipeline, it's no wonder why the 
American public supports Keystone XL. At a time when unemployment and 
prices at the pump are high and new predictions say gasoline could top 
$4 this year, it's no wonder that the American public was disappointed 
in the President's decision.
  In a recent installment of the United Technologies/National Journal 
Congressional Connection poll, Americans surveyed were asked: 
Supporters of the pipeline say it will ease America's dependence on 
Mideast oil and create jobs. Opponents fear the environmental impact of 
building a pipeline. What about you--do you support or oppose building 
the Keystone XL pipeline? Sixty-four percent of the respondents favored 
the construction of Keystone XL and only 22 percent were opposed.
  Mr. Speaker, Keystone XL makes sense. It means jobs, energy security, 
and satisfaction for the American public. The President made a 
political decision to pander to his extreme environmentalist supporters 
in a campaign year instead of listening to the majority of the American 
public, and that was unfortunate.
  I think that House Republicans are making it well known that the 
fight for Keystone XL is not over. Support in the House to move the 
pipeline forward has been bipartisan, very public, and very well 
received by the American people. As of yesterday, that support has 
produced a bill to push Keystone XL forward. I look forward to 
continuing my commitment to jobs, energy security, and the building of 
the Keystone XL pipeline.

                          ____________________