[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20122-20123]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to speak today in support 
of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline is one of the largest shovel-ready 
infrastructure projects in the United States. It would bring oil from 
North Dakota and from Canada to refineries along the gulf coast and in 
the Midwest. The pipeline would strengthen America's energy security 
and create tens of thousands of new jobs. These are good-paying jobs. 
But don't take my word for it, just consider what representatives of 
organized labor have had to say.
  The president of the Building and Construction Trades Department of 
the AFL-CIO said:

       [A]ny discussion of the Keystone XL project begins and ends 
     with one word: JOBS.

  He went on to say:

       Throughout America's Heartland, the Keystone Pipeline 
     represents the prospect for 20,000 immediate jobs . . . 
     without one single dollar of government assistance.

  The general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
said:

       The Keystone Pipeline project will offer working men and 
     women a real chance to earn a good wage and support their 
     families in this difficult economic climate.

  Consider the remarks of the general president of the Laborers' 
International Union of North America. He said:

       This project . . . is not just a pipeline, but . . . a 
     lifeline for thousands of desperate working men and women.

  House Democrats also recognize the importance of this Keystone XL 
Pipeline. This summer, 47 House Democrats voted in favor of the bill to 
require a decision on the pipeline by November 1. On October 19, 22 
House Democrats wrote a letter to the President. This is what they told 
President Obama:

       America . . . cannot afford to say no to this privately 
     funded . . . jobs-creating infrastructure project.

  They went on to say:

       It is in our national interest to have a Presidential 
     Permit issued for the Keystone XL Pipeline as soon as 
     possible.

  Senate Democrats also support the Keystone XL Pipeline. Senator 
Baucus of Montana said:

       We need to put Montanans back to work and cannot afford 
     further delays to the Keystone XL Pipeline.

  Senator Tester, also from Montana, said:

       The Keystone Pipeline will create Montana jobs and it 
     should not have to wait 14 months for an up-or-down decision.

  Senator Manchin of West Virginia said:

       I'm for the Keystone Pipeline . . . all the trade unions, 
     everyone's for it. It creates thousands of jobs.

  Senator Begich and Senator Landrieu have also written in support of 
the pipeline.

[[Page 20123]]

  Until recently, President Obama suggested that he too believed the 
pipeline to be in the interests of the United States. On April 6, the 
President held a townhall event in Pennsylvania. There, he received a 
question about Canadian oil sands production. In response, the 
President of the United States discussed the Keystone XL Pipeline. This 
is what he said:

       . . . importing oil from countries that are stable and 
     friendly is a good thing. . . .

  Let me repeat. The President of the United States said:

       . . . importing oil from countries that are stable and 
     friendly is a good thing. . . .

  However, on November 10, the President reversed course, and he showed 
a different side. After protests from environmentalists, the President 
decided to punt his decision on the pipeline until after the 2012 
Presidential election.
  Many in the press say the President delayed his decision so that 
environmental activists would turn out on election day to support him. 
If true, the President's decision to delay the approval of the pipeline 
was not only political, it was also cynical--cynical because these 
environmental activists believe they can shut down Canadian oil sands 
production. They believe they can shut down the production by stopping 
construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. It simply is not true, and 
the President knows it. But maybe the President does not want to be 
honest with these environmental activists. Maybe he just doesn't want 
to disappoint them. He doesn't want his political base to stay home on 
election day.
  But don't take it from me; consider what Austan Goolsbee had to say. 
Many Members of this Chamber know he is the former Chairman of the 
White House Council of Economic Advisers, this White House Council--
President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. This is what he said:

       It is a bit naive to think that the tar sands would not be 
     developed if they don't build that pipeline.
       Eventually, it's going to be built. It may go to the 
     Pacific, it may go through Nebraska, but it is going to be 
     built somewhere.

  Again, Mr. Goolsbee was President Obama's top economic adviser.
  Why are the Canadian oil sands going to be developed? Because the oil 
sands are a huge national asset for Canada, and Canada will not allow 
that asset to be stranded.
  Let's consider the findings of the Canadian Research Institute. This 
is an independent, not-for-profit research entity that was established 
in 1975. Its mission is to provide relevant, independent, and objective 
economic research on energy and environmental issues.
  This June, they released a report. It was entitled ``Economic Impacts 
of Staged Development of Oil Sands Projects in Alberta from 2010 to 
2035''--a 25-year future look. This report looked at a variety of 
scenarios, including one in which no new pipeline capacity is built. 
Under that scenario, the institute estimated that the total impact on 
Canada's GDP would be about $2.3 trillion over those 25 years. It also 
estimated that the compensation for Canadian employees will reach 
almost $650 billion over this same period. It estimated that the 
direct, indirect, and induced employment in Canada will grow from 
390,000 jobs to a peak of 490,000 jobs in 2020, just 9 years from now. 
It also estimated that the royalties to Alberta will go from 
approximately $3.6 billion in 2010 to a peak of $22.6 billion in 2020--
in 10 years, from $3.6 billion to $22.6 billion in royalties to 
Alberta.
  Again, the Canadian Energy Research Institute made all of these 
estimates assuming that no additional pipeline capacity will be built. 
What do these estimates mean? They mean Canada will continue to develop 
its oil resources whether or not Keystone XL Pipeline or any other 
pipeline is built. It means the environmental activists trying to shut 
down oil sands production are naive at best.
  It also means that the President, President Obama, is once again 
failing to lead, that he once again is failing to be forthright with 
the American people, and that he is unwilling and failing to make 
difficult decisions. The President is showing that he thinks his job is 
really the only job that matters.
  Of course we all know Canada will not sit idly by. Canada will add 
additional pipeline capacity whether or not Keystone XL Pipeline is 
built.
  Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has said that the decision 
to delay approval of Keystone XL Pipeline demonstrates ``the necessity 
of making sure that we're able to access Asian markets for our energy 
products.'' That is what the Canadian Prime Minister had to say. He was 
just in Washington last week. Alberta's Premier, Alison Redford, said 
that the decision to delay approval of the pipeline ``is a clear 
reminder about the strategic importance of diversifying our export 
markets.'' ``A clear reminder about the strategic importance of 
diversifying our export markets.'' In other words, Canada has a 
tremendous amount of oil, and Canada will ensure that its oil is 
brought to market. It may go to the United States, it may go to China, 
it may go to another country, but Canada's oil will be brought to 
market.
  Thus, the question for President Obama is very simple, very 
straightforward: Is it in America's interests to reduce our dependence 
on oil from the Persian Gulf and from Venezuela? Is it in America's 
interest to create tens of thousands of new jobs at a time of 8.6 
percent unemployment? The answer is abundantly obvious. The answer, of 
course, is, yes, it is in America's best interests to reduce our 
dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf and Venezuela. It is in 
America's interest to create tens of thousands of new jobs at a time of 
8.6 percent unemployment.
  It is time that the President starts to say yes and stops saying no 
to jobs and to energy--yes to energy security, yes to tens of thousands 
of new good-paying jobs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I seek recognition in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________