[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E55]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, January 9, 2015

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote for the tenth time 
to bypass a process established by law and instead, move to approve an 
oil pipeline that will harm the climate, do nothing to enhance our 
energy security, and create 35 permanent jobs. In the process, the 
legislation before us disregards the Endangered Species Act, the 
National Environmental Policy Act, and the more than 2.5 million 
Americans who submitted comments to the State Department on the 
Keystone XL pipeline proposal.
   Keystone XL is a proposed 2,000-mile pipeline to carry up to 830,000 
barrels per day of tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf 
Coast. Because the pipeline crosses the U.S.-Canadian border, existing 
law requires that a Presidential Permit be obtained to ensure that the 
project is in the interest of the United States. TransCanada, the 
Canadian company planning to build the pipeline, was initially denied a 
Presidential Permit in early 2012. The company then split the project 
into two sections and reapplied for a Presidential Permit for the 
1,200-mile section of pipeline from Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska. 
This section has undergone an environmental review process and the 
State Department is currently reviewing the public comments to 
determine if the project is in the national interest. This bill ends 
that review and deems the project immediately approved.
   As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have 
participated in the hearings on this issue since 2011, and it is clear 
to me that Keystone XL is not in the nation's interest. It will provide 
an export route for one of the dirtiest fuels on earth, putting the 
U.S. at risk of a spill and unleashing billions of tons of future 
greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond the environmental impacts, TransCanada 
has acknowledged that this project will create very few permanent U.S. 
jobs and that most of the oil will be exported overseas rather than 
remaining in the U.S. market. In my view, this is a bad deal for the 
American people and should not be given a special legislative exemption 
in the form of this bill.
   Construction of Keystone XL is also incompatible with our long-term 
climate goals and would put millions of Americans at risk of a 
catastrophic oil spill. Tar sands oil produces up to 40 percent more 
carbon pollution than conventional oil on a life-cycle basis and is 
much harder to clean up in the event of a spill. In Michigan, a 2010 
tar sands oil spill in the Kalamazoo River took over four years to 
clean up at a cost of over $1.2 billion.
   Despite claims from its backers, Keystone XL will not improve U.S. 
energy security or reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. A 
study commissioned by the Department of Energy found that U.S. oil 
imports from Canada will grow at ``almost identical'' rates with or 
without Keystone XL. The State Department's review of the Keystone XL 
proposal estimated that a majority of the oil that travels through the 
pipeline will be exported overseas. In fact, contrary to the company's 
claims in promotional materials, TransCanada has refused to guarantee 
that any of the oil will remain in the U.S. In 2011, I participated in 
an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing where TransCanada's President 
of Energy and Oil pipelines, Alex Pourbaix, acknowledged under 
questioning that his company was not willing to guarantee in law or in 
shipping contracts that oil from Keystone XL will remain in the U.S. 
market. Several attempts to insert language ensuring that a portion of 
the oil remains in the U.S. have been rejected by the House Republican 
leadership.
   Supporters of Keystone XL have widely touted the job-creation 
benefits of this pipeline, but in reality this project will provide 
less than three dozen permanent jobs. The projections in the State 
Department's environmental impact statement, made in consultation with 
TransCanada, reveal that up to 42,100 direct and indirect temporary 
jobs will be supported during construction of the pipeline. I do not 
diminish this factor. However, when construction is completed in less 
than two years, Keystone XL is expected to support only 35 permanent 
jobs.
   Rather than investing in renewable energy technologies and 
infrastructure updates that would benefit millions of Americans, the 
House has chosen as its first order of business in the 114th Congress 
to provide a special deal to a Canadian company, without any guarantee 
that a single drop of the oil will remain in the United States. For 
this reason and the others I've stated, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this legislation and any further attempts to short-circuit the Keystone 
XL review process.

                          ____________________