[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 25 (Friday, February 13, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE APPROVAL ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 11, 2015

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in opposition to the 
Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act (S. 1). Despite no evidence 
suggesting that Congressional intervention is needed, this is the 
second time this Congress that the Republicans are bringing forward a 
bill to sidestep federal requirements and approve TransCanada's 
application for the Keystone Pipeline. I oppose this legislation and 
support the ongoing federal review of the environmental, safety, and 
economic impacts of this application to determine if this pipeline is 
truly in our national interest.
  The Keystone XL pipeline would transmit oil 1,700 miles from the tar 
sands of Alberta, Canada across the U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico where it 
would be refined and exported to global markets. According to federal 
law, the State Department must complete an environmental review of all 
cross-border projects of this magnitude. The State Department requested 
comments on Keystone XL by February 2, 2015 from the Pentagon, the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Departments of Energy, 
Justice, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, and Homeland Security. The 
EPA released their public comments on this day stating that the recent 
trend of global decline in oil prices should be factored in on whether 
to approve Keystone XL pipeline. The State Department needs the time to 
thoroughly evaluate the EPA and other agencies' comments.
  In Minnesota, this project has the potential to negatively impact our 
economy. The Keystone XL pipeline would divert Canadian oil that now 
flows to refineries in Minnesota and the upper Midwest to the Gulf of 
Mexico. Diverting oil away from Minnesota could result in job losses at 
our refineries. Respected oil economist Philip Verleger wrote an op-ed 
published in the Star Tribune in March 2011 stating that in his expert 
opinion the oil diversion will diminish supply, resulting in an 
increase in the cost of oil and food for Minnesotans and the rest of 
the Midwest. In fact, he states the country as a whole would end up 
paying nearly $5 billion more for oil than we do today if the pipeline 
is built. Other economists have estimated that the pipeline will result 
in the creation of only 50 permanent jobs nationally.
  President Obama has stated that he will veto this legislation because 
S. 1 sidesteps the process for deciding whether a cross-border pipeline 
serves the national interest of the American people. I support the 
President's decision to veto S. 1. The precedent of forgoing our 
national due diligence in order to benefit of a foreign company is 
irresponsible. The American people deserve an adequate review is 
conducted. Trading dubious economic benefits for potentially disastrous 
environmental consequences and higher costs for Minnesota families and 
small businesses is simply not a trade I am willing to make.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Keystone 
XL Pipeline Approval Act and instead bring a bill to the House floor 
that works to strengthen the middle class.

                          ____________________