[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20126-20128]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I think there are a few things that many 
people across the country, and, hopefully, in the Congress, agree upon. 
One is that we need to focus like a laser on creating jobs. That is 
something I think there is universal agreement on here.
  I also think there is universal agreement that we ought to become 
more energy independent as a nation. We need to look for ways in which 
our country can lessen that dangerous dependence we have on foreign 
sources of energy. We import a good amount of our oil from other places 
around the world--some of them not so friendly regimes. That is why it 
is such a mystery as to why the Keystone XL Pipeline project is running 
into such resistance from the administration.
  It is ironic in many respects because we had the President of the 
United States, several months ago, saying:

       We are going to have to import some oil; and when it comes 
     to the oil we import from other nations, obviously, we've got 
     to look at neighbors like Canada and Mexico that are stable, 
     steady, and reliable sources.

  That is what the President said earlier this year, that if we are 
going to get energy, if we are going to import oil, we ought to import 
it from countries that are friendly to the United States. I argue there 
is no country more friendly to the United States than Canada, with whom 
we have a very robust trading relationship. We do about $640 billion of 
bilateral trade annually with our Canadian neighbors. So thinking that 
we might be able to get oil from Canada, as opposed to from Venezuela 
or somewhere in the Middle East, seems like a good option for this 
country--a good option that policymakers here ought to be very 
supportive of.
  That, again, makes it an even greater mystery as to why the 
administration has insisted on blocking or even making a decision about 
whether we can develop a project called the Keystone XL Pipeline, which 
would take advantage of those oil resources available in Canada and 
bring them into the United States, transport them through a pipeline 
that is 1,700 miles long to refineries where that product can be 
refined, and people here could benefit from it or it could be sold 
perhaps somewhere else. Nevertheless, it would benefit the economy.
  Both in the initial stages when the project is under construction, as 
well as later on, it will create lots of jobs. In my State of South 
Dakota--the pipeline would come through South Dakota as it makes its 
way down to the refineries, and we would benefit from hundreds of jobs 
that would be created and $\1/2\ billion in economic activity will be 
created alone in South Dakota. That is during the construction phase, 
not to mention all the State and local tax revenue that would benefit 
many of the local governments across my State and other States through 
which the pipeline would traverse.
  It is increasingly a mystery--I don't know how else to describe it--a 
curiosity or something--to those of us who see the great benefit in 
getting our oil resources from a friendly country like Canada as to why 
this administration would be so opposed even to issuing a decision on 
permitting this pipeline project that would enable that oil to come 
from Canada through to refineries in this country.
  The other issue on which there is universal agreement is that we 
ought to put policies in place that create jobs. There is no greater 
shovel-ready project than the Keystone XL Pipeline. It would have an 
immediate impact of 20,000 jobs that will be created immediately--a $7 
billion initial investment and billions more over the years as this 
project continues to be utilized. Furthermore, I argue that it will 
create other opportunities for energy project development. Certainly, 
the Bakken oil find in North Dakota would stand to benefit from having 
a pipeline this accessible to it. It creates all kinds of spinoffs and 
other types of economic activity that would be good for jobs.
  We will have something that lessens our dependence upon foreign 
sources of energy by about 700,000 barrels of oil a day, creates 
hundreds of thousands of jobs, and enhances the ability of State and 
local governments to collect revenues, which they desperately need for 
their own purposes and needs. Yet here we are looking at this project--
or at least a decision on it--being blocked by this administration for 
no apparent reason other than politics, I argue.
  We are heading into a political year, and the President is running 
for reelection next year. I think it is clear that the delay on a 
decision on this project for 18 months was clearly designed to get past 
the Presidential election so the President would not have to make a 
decision that splits his political base. We have the labor groups that 
are for it and the environmental groups that are opposed to it. I guess 
it must be a political decision for this administration to delay this 
project. It doesn't make sense for America and American workers.
  The President says he gets up every day and he thinks about what he 
can do to create jobs. Well, here are 20,000 immediate jobs that we can 
benefit from right away--not to mention the many jobs that would come 
if this project was built.
  As we look at the legislation sent to us from the House of 
Representatives, it includes this Keystone XL Pipeline language that 
would allow a decision to be made 60 days from its enactment. So we 
could accelerate at least the period in which this decision could be 
made.
  Why is that important? Because this project is going to go on one way 
or the other. If it is not built in this country, it will be shipped 
somewhere else around the world--perhaps China or another country--and 
the American workers and the American economy will suffer, and the 
American need that we have for energy will not be met. We are not going 
to benefit or be advantaged by not having this project here

[[Page 20127]]

or if it goes someplace else. That makes absolutely no sense for our 
economy, no sense for jobs and for many States that are in support of 
this project.
  I hope as this debate gets underway on the proposal sent from the 
House of Representatives, the sticking point, the thing that hangs it 
up is not the Keystone XL Pipeline. People will probably have honest 
disagreements about various provisions in the legislation being sent to 
us from the House, but one thing that should not delay or in any way 
detour this from being considered in the Senate is resistance or 
objections to a final decision being made on the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  I want to read a few things for you that have been said by some of 
the folks across this country who think this is a good idea. Many 
represent working people--the labor unions. The 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.

  The AFL-CIO said:

       For America's skilled craft construction professionals, any 
     discussion of the Keystone XL project begins and ends with 
     one word: Jobs.

  Look at what has been said by the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers:

       At a time when jobs are the top global priority, the 
     Keystone project will put thousands back to work and have 
     ripple benefits throughout the North American economy. Our 
     members look forward to being part of this historic project 
     and pledge to deliver the highest quality work to make it a 
     success.

  That is what some of the labor leaders are saying. I want to read 
what some key Democrats in Congress have said about this. These are a 
few excerpts from Democratic Members of Congress:

       America truly cannot afford to say ``no'' to this privately 
     funded, $20 billion jobs-creating infrastructure project, 
     which could bolster our economic, energy, and national 
     security. To that end, we respectfully urge you to ensure 
     that the Presidential permit is issued for Keystone XL.

  Here is another quote:

       Mr. President, America needs the Keystone XL pipeline. It 
     is in our national interest to have a permit issued for 
     Keystone XL as soon as possible.

  The Department of State's final environmental impact statement 
reaffirmed the findings of the two previous environmental impact 
statements; namely, that the pipeline will have no significant impact 
on the environment.
  So we have a project that has been OK'ed by the environmental 
agencies in this country, the people who look at the environmental 
impacts, who have said this project is ready to go. We have labor 
organizations that are waiting and are saying this is important to 
getting people back to work. We have Democrats in Congress who have 
said this is a project that we should be for. In fact, there was a vote 
on this language in a freestanding bill in the House recently. There 
were 47 Democrats who came out in support of the Keystone XL Pipeline 
legislation. So we have 47 Democrats on record.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I have some sympathy for the position I 
hear the Senator enunciating--that the issue of the pipeline ought not 
to be the thing that prevents us from moving forward. I personally 
think the pipeline is absolutely in the national interest. It will help 
us reduce our dependence on foreign energy--at least foreign sources 
that are hostile to our interests.
  The big question is--at least for this Senator--would the language 
permit a rerouting of the line within the State of Nebraska so that the 
question of the Ogallala aquifer would not be addressed? Is it the 
Senator's understanding that the language that has come to us from the 
House would permit Nebraska to reroute the line to avoid the aquifer?
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, through the Chair, I would say to my 
colleague from North Dakota that my understanding is the legislation 
does permit that to happen, and that is why I believe the State of 
Nebraska, including the Governor and our colleagues here in the Senate 
from Nebraska, have now come out in support of this. Whereas previously 
there had been some concern about the Ogallala aquifer, my 
understanding is the legislation allows for that issue to be addressed. 
And I have a statement here from the Governor of Nebraska expressing 
his support for this legislation. So it does strike me that at least 
that should not be an issue that in any way deters consideration of 
this pipeline and that we shouldn't have to wait 18 months.
  I am saying to my colleague from North Dakota--and I think he 
recognizes the value of this, as he is from North Dakota, and obviously 
his is a State that could be favorably impacted by the economic 
activity resulting from this pipeline--that if we don't do this, 
somebody else is going to benefit from it. This is not going to wait 
around. There are vast oil sands reserves up in Canada, and they are 
looking for a place where they can get this to a refinery and get it 
refined. If the United States doesn't move forward, some other country 
is going to benefit.
  Mr. CONRAD. If I could just say to my colleague, Canada is going to 
develop this resource. This oil is going to go somewhere. It is 
absolutely in our national interest for that oil to come to our 
country. If the language is, as the Senator represents, that it permits 
the rerouting of the line within Nebraska to avoid the issue with the 
Ogallala aquifer, then I, for one, on this side, would hope this could 
be part of the final package.
  I hope this is something we can work through in the coming hours. 
This should not be the thing that prevents us from reaching across the 
aisle, reaching across the divide between the two Chambers and 
achieving a result that is critically important for the country.
  I thank the Senator for allowing me to ask this question.
  Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the question and comments of the Senator from 
North Dakota. I couldn't agree more with the sentiments he expressed.
  I do believe we have in front of us something for which there is a 
lot of bipartisan support--an extension of unemployment insurance 
benefits, with some reforms, a payroll tax cut extension, a fix for the 
physician reimbursements under Medicare, and a number of other things 
that have been put into this with an eye toward not only addressing 
what are some very serious concerns--many of these things expire at the 
end of the year--but also something that would really create jobs, that 
has a jobs component to it that would do something positive for our 
economy.
  I hope that we can find a way to come together and that this does not 
become a deterrent to the legislation that is going to be before us in 
the not too distant future--the proposal that came to us from the House 
of Representatives. I certainly hope that doesn't unravel as a result 
of the Keystone XL Pipeline language being included because I 
recognize--as the Senator from North Dakota has expressed, and many of 
his colleagues on his side, along with many of my colleagues on our 
side--the value of what this could do for jobs, what this could do for 
our economy, and what this could do for America's energy needs. This 
will enable us to do business with a friendly partner to the north--
Canada--as opposed to continuing to import oil from other countries 
around the world with which we do not have that kind of a friendly and 
stable relationship.
  I would hope the President would make a decision not to get in the 
way or assert pressure on Members on his side to vote against this 
simply because it includes this particular provision. It is good for 
America, it is good for the States that are impacted, and many of the 
local governments would benefit. It is certainly good for jobs and the 
economy, as has been voiced by the various labor unions across this 
country that represent working Americans. With 700,000 barrels of oil 
coming to America from Canada, we would be creating economic activity 
and jobs versus 700,000 barrels of oil going someplace else around the 
world and some other country benefitting and our becoming even more 
dependent on foreign sources of energy.
  So, Madam President, again, I don't know what to say. This is a no-
brainer,

[[Page 20128]]

and so I hope the Senate will find its way before we adjourn for the 
Christmas holiday to enact this legislation that has been put forward 
that would enable this project to be decided. It doesn't prescribe one 
way or the other what the President does; it just says the President 
either has to approve it or give a reason why it is not in the national 
interest.
  I see the other Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Hoeven, is here as 
well. He has been a leader and involved in getting this legislation 
introduced. I thank both my colleagues for recognizing its importance, 
and I hope we can move legislation that will get this project decided 
one way or the other. In my view, an affirmative decision would be 
preferable and would allow us to move forward.
  Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________