[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 749-755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address 
the Chamber tonight to discuss a very important issue, the issue of job 
creation, the issue of energy independence, and what we are doing in 
the 112th Congress, the Republican majority, to make sure that we're 
creating jobs and opportunities for the American people.
  According to the Canadian government, Mr. Speaker, over 143,000 jobs 
in Colorado depend on our trade relationship with Canada. And whether 
people want to admit it or not, crude petroleum is Colorado's top 
import from Canada. But we're not unique in that aspect. Colorado is by 
no means unique. Many of our jobs and much of our energy depends on our 
good relationship with our friendly neighbor to the north. When it 
comes to the Keystone pipeline, though, it's been 3 years since an 
application was first filed. America knows the Keystone pipeline, a 
1,700-mile energy project from our neighbors to the north to the Gulf 
of Mexico, one that could create as many as 20,000 direct jobs and 
100,000 indirect jobs. The United States as a whole would benefit both 
economically and from a national security standpoint if this country 
were to be able to move forward with the Keystone pipeline.
  And tonight, we have Members of Congress from across this country, 
and Members from the East and the West, the North and the South who 
will talk about the importance of energy security and the importance of 
creating jobs.
  So many of the debates we have heard on the Chamber floor, not only 
today but in the past few months, have been revolving around the notion 
of creating jobs and what we're going to do to get this economy turned 
around, an economy that already has over 14 million Americans 
unemployed and 46 million Americans living in poverty, a chance to get 
people to work and a chance to create jobs.
  I will frame this debate tonight with some information that we've 
just received. People across this country want the Keystone pipeline to 
be built. If you look at the numbers we have here, supporters of the 
Keystone pipeline, you can see the support. It's not just Republicans. 
It's not just the majority of Democrats. Every sector that we have 
talked about in this poll supports the Keystone pipeline 
overwhelmingly, 64 percent when you take into account the opinions of 
Republicans and Democrats. They know that this project will create 
opportunity, opportunity that hasn't existed for far too long.
  For over 36 months now, we've seen the unemployment rate in this 
Nation exceed 8 percent. It's unacceptable. And the fact that this 
administration has decided to punt on jobs is shameful. It's been said 
before, a year ago, 2 years ago when the President was talking about 
shovel-ready projects, well now apparently the only thing that the 
President is willing to use his shovel for is to bury jobs. And that's 
why tonight I'm excited for the discussion we will have with the 
American people.
  So at this time I would like to yield to some of my colleagues who 
have joined me on the floor for their take and perspective on the 
Keystone pipeline, beginning with my good friend from Alabama, Martha 
Roby.
  Mrs. ROBY. I very much thank the gentleman from Colorado. I 
appreciate you holding this very important leadership hour tonight. 
And, of course, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme 
disappointment over President Obama's decision to block the Keystone 
pipeline by rejecting an application to build and operate the oil 
pipeline across the U.S. and Canada border.

                              {time}  2020

  I think every American should be aware of the consequences. More than 
100,000 jobs could be created over the life of the project, including 
an estimated 20,000 immediate American jobs in construction and 
manufacturing.
  Oil accounts for 37 percent of U.S. energy demand with 71 percent 
directed to fuels used in transportation. That is equally true of a 
mother who drives her children to school as it is the businessowner who 
operates a fleet of delivery vehicles. When the price of gasoline 
increases, Americans hurt. And the price of gasoline increased 81 cents 
per gallon in 2011 alone.
  I support an all-of-the-above approach to energy, which includes 
opening up new areas for American energy exploration, transitioning to 
renewable and alternative energy, and using more clean and reliable 
nuclear power.
  In his State of the Union address, the President stated, ``This 
country needs an all out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every 
available source of American energy, a strategy that's cleaner, cheaper 
and full of new jobs.'' In my opinion, his decision on the Keystone 
pipeline is blatantly inconsistent with this very statement.
  The door is now open for this Canadian oil to go to China. Canada's 
Prime Minister announced his ``profound disappointment with the news.'' 
While the Chinese Government has ensured its future supply of oil and 
other energy resources, the United States has rejected a new source of 
energy that was laid at our doorstep. Mr. Speaker, I ask, how does the 
fact that China could receive this energy supply not serve our national 
interests? Mr. Speaker, I consider President Obama's decision a grave 
mistake. And on behalf of the American people who want secure oil and 
new manufacturing jobs, I hope that the Congress will continue to push 
him to reconsider this error in judgment.
  Again, thank you to my friend from Colorado for holding this 
important hour tonight on this very important topic to the American 
people for job creation.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentlelady for being here tonight and 
discussing the impact on her district with the Keystone pipeline. She 
brings up a good point when it comes to the price of gas. Reports that 
we have say that the discovery of the Canadian oil sands has the 
potential to change the current gas-price dynamic. Bringing a massive 
amount of oil to market from a politically and economically secure 
source can restore market confidence and bring down gas prices.
  With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank my colleague for yielding, and it's 
great to be here with so many of them who also believe in not only the 
Keystone pipeline but that America can attain energy independence and 
security.
  When the President came into office, gasoline at the pumps was about 
$1.68 a gallon. Today, it's approaching $3.40, and in some places even 
higher than that. We face a dichotomy of leadership here in Washington, 
D.C. You just heard our colleague from Alabama talk

[[Page 750]]

about the President's State of the Union address, and he talked about 
an all-of-the-above approach to energy. Well, the administration's 
actions and their words simply don't match.
  And there's no more striking example of this than the President's 
rejection of the Keystone pipeline, a project that would have created 
20,000 immediate jobs, bipartisan support, even the unions are 
supportive of that project, upwards of 100,000 jobs as it trickled down 
through the life cycle of that project; and yet the President rejected 
it. Hardworking taxpayers across America, particularly those in my 
district along eastern and southeastern Ohio, are very tired of 
Washington taking more and giving less. They want real leadership, they 
want real solutions, and they want a return to American exceptionalism.
  I remember, and I know many of you do, a time when we grasped the 
concept of American exceptionalism. President Kennedy told us back in 
the '60s, he said, We're going to go to the Moon in 10 years. We didn't 
make it in 10 years; we made it in 7 because he engaged every fabric of 
our society--academia, our industrial base, our economic base, our 
political will, and even our military was behind this idea of getting 
to the Moon. We saw industries crop up around space exploration. We saw 
millions of jobs created. We saw young people lining up to get into 
institutions where they could major in disciplines that would prepare 
them for careers in space exploration.
  Think about what would happen if we really had an all-of-the-above 
approach to energy similar to that. Think about what would happen if 
America had an energy policy that said, starting today, we're going to 
draw a line in the sand, and over the next decade, we're going to set a 
goal to become energy independent and secure in the United States. 
We're no longer going to sit on the sidelines. We're going to go after 
the 3 trillion barrels of oil that we already own. We're going to go 
after the natural gas we own because we're sitting on the world's 
largest deposits of it. We're going to continue to mine coal; and 
because we're going to invest in it, we're going to learn how to use it 
more environmentally soundly.
  We're going to expand our nuclear footprint because guess what? It's 
the cleanest, safest form of energy on the planet. We're even going to 
look at wind and solar and find out where they fit into the energy 
profile. We know they can't solve all the problems, but they have a 
niche where they can. But we're not going to sit idly by and do 
nothing, and we're going to start by telling our regulatory agencies to 
become partners in progress with American businesses, to become rather 
than the department of ``no,'' the department of ``let's move the ball 
forward'' and get over throwing up arbitrary barriers that are keeping 
America from going after its own natural resources.
  I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we had that kind of all-of-the-
above energy policy that had action behind the words, you would again 
see America believe in American exceptionalism. You would see young 
people lining up to get into institutions to major in disciplines to 
prepare them for advances in energy production, distribution, and even 
usage. And at the end of the day, we would see and we would find out 
that we would learn how to produce, store, and use energy in ways that 
we've never even imagined.
  Do you know why? Because I do believe in American exceptionalism, and 
I know that my colleagues believe in American exceptionalism. I just 
don't think that our leaders in Washington and in the White House and 
in this administration believe in American exceptionalism.
  It was a striking example back last March, last spring, when the 
Prime Minister of Australia stood in this very Chamber and gave a 
presentation. We were all here. She related a story, and she said, I 
remember being a young girl sitting in front of my television and 
watching Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin land on the Moon thinking to 
myself, wow, Americans can do anything.
  She went on to talk about the history of America and Australia and 
how we worked together to address the world's problems and how America 
had stood by Australia during World War II. She gave many examples. At 
the end of her speech, she said, I'm not that young girl today. I'm the 
Prime Minister of our country, and I've got a lot more experience under 
my belt, but I still believe that Americans can do anything.
  I was sitting right over there, and I remember I could feel a 
cleansing breath take place in the House Chamber. You could have heard 
a pin drop in here. We heard something from a leader of another nation 
that we so desperately want to hear from our own leaders.
  Mr. Speaker, America is the exception. We are gifted with the ability 
to innovate, compete, and solve the world's problems; and we've been 
doing it for over 230 years.

                              {time}  2030

  We can become energy independent and secure in this country. We can 
return the idea of American exceptionalism to this country. We can put 
the American Dream back into play to the over 14 million Americans that 
are out of work and the 40-plus million Americans that are 
underemployed.
  I ask the President and the Senate today to begin to work with us in 
the House of Representatives to advance the idea of a real, no-kidding, 
all-of-the-above energy policy, one that puts America first above 
politics and above campaigning.
  I want to thank my colleagues for being here again tonight. Thanks 
for giving me an opportunity to share.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
  And I'm sure you'd be interested to know this--and I'm sure you 
already know this, in fact--that according to testimony that was given 
before the Energy and Commerce Committee hearing last year on energy 
issues, the impact of Alberta oil sands development on the U.S. State 
economy, in your great State of Ohio, 13,200 new jobs could be created 
between 2011 and 2015 as the development of the Alberta oil sands moves 
forward. And the Keystone pipeline is an important part of that. So, as 
I know there are many visits going on to Ohio by this President, 
perhaps he can explain to the people who may be unemployed in your 
district, 13,200 new jobs good to be created by the development of the 
Alberta oil sands, why the Keystone pipeline was vetoed.
  So I thank the gentleman for being here today.
  And with that, I would yield to the gentleman from Arizona for his 
perspective.
  Mr. QUAYLE. I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Colorado, for 
yielding.
  Back home in Phoenix, Arizona, in my home district, one of the big 
things that we worry about is the cost of gasoline. I went to the pump 
the other day and it was about $3.60. It's about twice as much as it 
would cost back before President Obama was elected. And if you look at 
the statistics, in 2011, the average American household spent a record 
$4,155 at the pump. This is equal to 8.4 percent of the median family 
income. So this is a huge issue, that we need to continue to find 
stable sources of oil so that we can have a secure source of oil and we 
can make sure that we have more supply of oil so that we can start to 
bring the prices down for gas at the pump.
  Back before the President made his decision, I would go around and 
talk to people around my district and I would say, What if I told you 
that with the swipe of a pen the President and his administration could 
create 20,000 immediate jobs and over 100,000 jobs over the long term 
and there wouldn't be any taxpayer dollars put at risk or expended; 
what do you think we should do? Every single one of the people that I 
talked to said this President should sign that as soon as possible and 
let's get to work making sure that the Keystone pipeline gets put into 
effect and get people back to work.
  And then something funny happened. The administration decided to 
placate the radical fringe element of their party, and the President 
punted to

[[Page 751]]

2013--didn't even make the decision whether a yes or no, just pushed it 
down the road. But House Republicans decided that we were going to give 
the President a second chance, a second opportunity to do the right 
thing, an opportunity to realize that the State Department had already 
done an environmental impact study that showed that there was very 
little chance for any environmental damage to some of the sensitive 
areas where the pipeline would be going. Maybe we could have the 
President realize that this is not the time to play politics; this is 
the time to get American people back to work. And that's exactly what 
the Keystone pipeline would do. And yet, once again, the President 
punted.
  Now, we can't give him too many more chances. We've already given two 
chances for this one already. But when we all sat here at the State of 
the Union and we heard him say that we were going to adopt the all-of-
the-above approach, as some of my colleagues mentioned earlier, we 
actually realized that that's not really the case, because it seems as 
if there are only favored sectors that actually get some attention from 
this administration. You have companies like Solyndra.
  Solyndra received a $535 million loan guarantee from the government 
as well as nearly $15 million in severance money for its employees when 
that company went bankrupt. A total of nearly 550 million taxpayer 
dollars were squandered. This is a risk that the American taxpayer 
should never have taken. And there is very little chance we're going to 
get any of that back because our rights were actually put lower than 
people who were giving loans after the American taxpayers.
  Now, then, we have another company, Ener1, received $118.5 million in 
stimulus grants before going belly up just a few moments ago.
  According to The Washington Post, Obama's $38.6 billion green job 
loan guarantee program has created just 3,545 permanent jobs. That's a 
cost of $5 million per job, $5 million per job in a favored sector. You 
know how many taxpayer dollars would be spent to create hundreds of 
thousands of jobs for the Keystone pipeline? Zero. And yet the 
President couldn't sign a simple sheet of paper to get this done. This 
is a no-brainer, as many people have said.
  So I hope that the President will reconsider. I hope that the House 
Republicans will continue to push this issue because this is something 
that we can do right away. It is shovel ready, to borrow a phrase, and 
this is something that will make sure that we are looking towards the 
future for our energy security.
  And I thank the gentleman from Colorado for addressing this important 
issue and for starting this conversation tonight.
  Mr. GARDNER. The gentleman from Arizona brings up a great point about 
Solyndra and the Keystone pipeline. And I think there is a real 
question about what kind of an economy we want in this country. Do we 
have a Solyndra economy that relies on government funding, government 
financing, and then rips off the American taxpayers? Or do we rely on a 
Keystone economy that creates private sector jobs, 100,000 private 
sector jobs?
  The Arizona Republic said in an article, an editorial that they wrote 
on January 20 of this year, just a couple days ago:
  A lack of urgency regarding energy independence is only one of the 
reasons President Obama is being shellacked this week by Republicans 
and Democrats alike for his disappointing decision regarding the 
Keystone XL transcontinental oil pipeline. The foot-dragging runs 
counter to the recommendations of the President's own Council on Jobs 
and Competitiveness. President Obama's choice is a bad one. He needs to 
reconsider.
  That was an editorial, again, from The Arizona Republic.
  And with that, I would yield to my colleague and good friend from the 
State of New York (Mr. Reed), somebody who has been very active in 
natural gas production and certainly a leader in the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. REED. Well, I thank my colleague from Colorado for hosting this 
Special Order tonight and for truly engaging in a conversation we need 
to have with America.
  And I would like to associate myself with the words of the gentleman 
from Ohio, when Mr. Johnson spoke soeloquently about the need for a 
comprehensive energy policy, an all-of-the-above approach to getting us 
off of foreign sources of energy once and for all. I think Mr. Johnson 
really hit the nail on the head with his description of the American 
Dream, or exceptionalism, and the ability that in America we develop a 
plan; when we have a vision, we can accomplish anything.
  And I don't know if you noticed, Mr. Gardner, I'm over here on the 
other side of the Chamber tonight. You know, I'm an individual who is 
proud to be a member of the Republican Party, and many of the times I'm 
standing on that side of the Chamber. But I am willing to come over on 
this side of the Chamber to speak tonight to say to my fellow 
colleagues across the aisle that my hand is open for us to join 
together on this issue and many issues that face Americans back at 
home, and this issue in particular because it impacts all of us, all 
300 million people across America; because when we can commit 
ourselves, as the President did at the State of the Union, to 
developing a comprehensive energy policy of all of the above, I am 
confident that we can achieve that energy independence.
  And tonight's discussion on the Keystone pipeline is an example of an 
administration and of folks engaging in old-school politics rather than 
focusing on good, sound policy that is going to achieve that dream of 
energy independence because, as my colleagues have articulated, this 
project has been fully vetted, years of environmental studies and 
reviews. The primary agency, FERC, who had the responsibility to 
oversee the project, came to the conclusion that there were no 
significant environmental impacts that were associated with this 
project.

                              {time}  2040

  And it was on the verge of approval at the Department of State whose, 
if I remember correctly, primary mission is to deal with diplomatic 
issues. Because this pipe crosses an international border, the 
President used the final act from an agency who is focused on 
diplomatic issues to reach in and, for political purposes, say no.
  I applaud the gentleman from Arizona, and I associate myself with his 
words, that we have given another chance to the President to do what is 
right in our and my opinion. This is a project that is ready to go. It 
will put 20,000 people back to work, and that's what we've been talking 
about here for months is improving this economy: jobs, jobs, jobs. And 
with the stroke of a pen, the President said no to 20,000 jobs and 
100,000 jobs on top of that. And he put an obstacle in the barrier of 
his own State of the Union message that we are going to accomplish 
energy independence with an all-of-the-above approach by taking action 
a week before and saying, for political purposes, we're not going to be 
able to achieve that goal.
  That has to stop, ladies and gentlemen. I'm proud to be part of this 
freshman class that has come in November 2010, and I fundamentally 
believe that we are changing the conversation in Washington to focusing 
on policy over politics. And this is an example, under this pipeline 
project, that is going to be directly related to that change in 
conversation in Washington because it's a commonsense type of approach 
to the job.
  It's about focusing on people, getting them back to work, committing 
ourselves to a vision of energy independence, which is so critical to 
our future, and also so critical to our future in the manufacturing 
sector, because if we can get energy from domestic supplies here, and 
we can secure those energy sources long term, we're going to have lower 
utility rates, manufacturers are going to invest in America again, and 
we're going to start building things again. That has to be the 
cornerstone of what we're talking about. And the Keystone pipeline is 
but an example of that.

[[Page 752]]

  One last point I would like to address. We here in Washington can 
impact people every day, and this is an example of that impact in a 
positive way, because if we put the Keystone pipeline online, every 
time an American goes to the pump to fill up his gas tank or her gas 
tank, you will see the immediate results of it in a lower price, unless 
we continue down the policy that the President has committed us to in 
not constructing this pipeline. Every penny counts in this economy.
  So I'm proud to be down here on the floor tonight to talk about this 
key issue and also the bigger issue of making sure that we stay focused 
on the American Dream of energy independence.
  And with that, I wholeheartedly join my colleagues tonight.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from New York and, again, thank 
you for your constant leadership on our national energy security. And 
we do harken back to the time just a few weeks ago when the President 
gave his State of the Union address, addressed this Chamber, the joint 
session of Congress. And it reminded me when he said, I'm for an all-
of-the-above energy policy, and then vetoed, basically with the stroke 
of a pen, as you said, the Keystone pipeline. It reminded me of 
something that Yogi Berra might say. Yogi Berra might say, I'm for all-
of-the-above energy as long as it's not all of the above. That seems to 
be what we're hearing. And with the killing, with one single signing, 
of 100,000 jobs, I think it shows where the real intent in terms of job 
creation some people would have this Chamber try to follow.
  You mentioned the Department of State. A week ago, last week, we had 
Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary of State from the Department of 
State, testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee and admitted 
that when it comes to the EIS, the no-pipeline alternative, there was 
an alternative considered under the EIS, the Environmental Impact 
Statement. One of the options they considered was no pipeline, no 
pipeline at all. In testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
it was admitted that that was not the preferable alternative. That was 
not the preferable alternative under the Environmental Impact 
Statement. So even the Department of State admits that the EIS on the 
pipeline envisions the construction of a pipeline. And yet the 
President said no.
  And so I thank the gentleman from New York and the thousands of 
people that could be employed by the development of the Alberta oil 
sands. And I know the next gentleman, Mr. Conaway from Texas, that will 
be addressing the Chamber, I don't know if he has this statistic right 
in front of him, but according to testimony, again, before committee, 
170 firms supply the Canadian oil sands from Texas, 170 firms that 
supply the Canadian old sands.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for allowing me to 
join in; and although I'm not a part of the freshman class, I hope they 
won't toss me out of the Chamber as a result of that indiscretion.
  I wanted to walk us through kind of the process by which TransCanada 
has gone through trying to laboriously apply and comply with all of the 
rules, regulations, and hoops that anybody who tries to do a project of 
this scope has to go through.
  They began in September of 2008 when they filed their application for 
a permit to build this pipeline. As has been mentioned, the State 
Department would not be involved in this at all except for the fact 
that this pipeline crosses an international border. If this were just 
within the United States, the State Department and the President would 
be out of the loop in this instance. But because this is an 
international problem, then the State Department gets a whack at this 
deal.
  In April 2010, the State Department issued their draft Environmental 
Impact Study. Then, a couple of months later, in June of 2010, EPA 
weighed in with the results of their technical review and said that the 
draft Environmental Impact Study was deficient and didn'tprovide the 
scope and the detail, if necessary, for decision-makers to make their 
mind up. Bureaucratic nonsense for stopping things from going forward, 
so that it allows one group of folks in the administration to brag on 
how hard we're pushing on this issue, while all the time they've got a 
backstop at the EPA that knows that they're not going to move anything 
forward.
  And then October 2010, State Department issued a supplemental draft 
Environmental Impact Study. Only in America can you come up with these 
kinds of titles to simply laying a pipeline across this country. Again 
the EPA weighed in and said, no, no, no, this supplemental one is 
deficient, and you've got to continue to give us information; although, 
when asked a little later on that month, Secretary of State Clinton was 
asked at a press conference, kind of where are we with respect to the 
pipeline approval process, she commented that we're inclined to say 
``yes'' to the pipeline.
  And then in April 2011, the EPA again said in a filing that the 
supplemental draft Environmental Impact Study was deficient.
  Finally, by August of 2011, the State Department issued its final 
Environmental Impact Study, allowing for a 30-day public comment and a 
90-day agency comment. And of course it was during this agency comment 
period that the State Department decided that a new route was 
necessary, that the original route that was planned and the 
alternatives going across the Ogallala, the 13 alternatives that were 
assessed, that this one really was the best, that somehow a new route 
was necessary and that gave rise to the charade that we saw played out 
where the President decided he was going to wait until after the 
election, and then Congress weighed in and said, no, you need to make 
that decision sooner.
  The State Department's decision to go or no go on it has to be based 
on a finding that the pipeline is not in our national interest. 
Transporting this oil of almost 1.4 million barrels of crude and 
bitunium across this country to U.S. refineries would have to not be in 
the United States' best interest. And, in fact, that's what the State 
Department found. After we passed the law requiring the President to 
make a decision, the State Department suddenly decided that building 
this pipeline was no longer in the national interest and allowed the 
President then to say what he said. The President's wrongheadedness on 
this issue couldn't be more self-evident on its face.
  I want to talk real quickly about the safety issue. You hear a lot 
about that. I come from west Texas--Midland, Odessa, San Angelo. There 
are thousands and thousands of miles of pipeline crisscrossing my part 
of the State. In fact, there are three oil pipelines that run through 
the front yards of the people who live across the street from me. And 
we've lived there for almost 15 years now, not a bit of trouble with 
the pipelines. And they're inspected all the time, both inside and out 
and observed from the air, and this type of stuff. So pipeline safety 
is not an issue.

                              {time}  2050

  Drilling safety, by the way, I just wanted to pitch this in real 
quickly. When I left my home yesterday morning at 5:45 to come here, as 
I was closing the garage door, I could see the lights on the crown of a 
drilling rig less than a half mile from my house that's in operation. 
It's been in operation for about 4 or 5 months now drilling wells that 
are actually that close to my house, and it's being drilled inside the 
city limits of Midland, Texas.
  So when we talk about not in my backyard or all of the other kinds of 
reasons why people don't want oil and gas production around them, I 
come from a part of the State where it's a badge of honor, and, in 
fact, it's helpful on the 20th of the month each month when the royalty 
checks show up. So this industry has a great record of being able to 
operate soundly not only in the drilling and exploration phases, but 
also in the production and transportation issues across.
  Let me give you one quick thing, and I'll close. The Wall Street 
Journal, on the 19th, had made a pretty good statement. It said:

       The central conflict of the Obama Presidency has been 
     between the jobs and growth

[[Page 753]]

     crisis he inherited and the President's hell-for-leather 
     pursuit of his larger social policy ambitions. The tragedy is 
     that the economic recovery has been so lackluster because the 
     second impulse keeps winning. Yesterday came proof positive 
     with the White House's repudiation of the Keystone XL 
     pipeline, TransCanada's $7 billion shovel-ready project that 
     will support tens of thousands of jobs if only it could get 
     the requisite U.S. permits. Those jobs, apparently, can wait.

  And a couple of paragraphs later, very succinctly, said, ``This is, 
to put it politely, a crock.''
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  I will show a map. Mr. Conaway, the gentleman from Texas, referred to 
a pipeline. The only reason we had the Department of State involved is 
because it crosses a national boundary. So you can see the pipeline 
right here where it extends. I already have some pipelines, and I know 
the gentleman, Pete Olson from Texas, will be addressing the Chamber 
shortly and share even more about this route and the different 
pipelines that we're dealing with.
  But again, here it is. Right here. That's the only reason the State 
Department is involved. The only reason that they had a hook to get 
involved, and, as you can see, the hook was yanked and jobs were 
killed.
  I would like to follow up as well with an editorial from The Detroit 
News, The Detroit News on the 20th of January. Detroit, Michigan, 
particularly hard hit by economic tough times over the past several 
years. This is the editorial:

       President Barack Obama is willing to wait and wait and wait 
     for 20,000 desperately needed jobs. For someone whose 
     operating slogan is ``We can't wait,'' it's curious that 
     President Obama is willing to wait and wait and wait for the 
     Keystone XL pipeline project and the 20,000 desperately 
     needed jobs it promises. If the ``can't wait'' President 
     keeps dragging his feet, he will hand the Chinese yet one 
     more competitive advantage over the United States.

  That's the Detroit News, January 20. Again, just a couple weeks ago.
  I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) has been very involved in 
the Energy and Commerce Committee. He's been standing up for his State, 
energy security jobs that would be created. And I'm sure he knew this 
already, but in Texas alone, the development of the Alberta oil sands 
could create as many as 27,000 jobs over the next 4 years.
  With that, I would yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from Colorado and my brother on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee. They say that imitation is the sincerest 
form of flattery. I've got the same chart that you have.
  I want to focus my discussion tonight on national security. I want to 
make sure that the American public understands the truth. I mean, 
there's been many, many, many misstatements from the administration 
about the safety, national security implications, jobs of the Keystone 
XL pipeline.
  While every American can have their own opinion, no American can have 
their own version of the facts. That's why we're here tonight, to give 
the American people the facts.
  This is the Keystone pipeline, as my colleague alluded to. There are 
actually two Keystone pipelines. The first one, the little orange line 
here, that's the Keystone pipeline, the plain Keystone pipeline. 
Actually, oil is flowing through that pipeline right now, the Steel 
City, Kansas-Nebraska border into St. Louis and into Patoka, Illinois. 
That is happening right now as we speak today.
  The thing that's been controversial is the dotted line, the Keystone 
XL pipeline, which follows a similar path, ends up in the Gulf States, 
in my home area of Houston, Texas, the Port of Houston, and the Port of 
Beaumont and the Port of Port Arthur.
  The real problem, as I follow my colleagues, I want to point out 
three points:
  Little slivers right there, no one knows what it is. It's just an 
imaginary line. Those two cross these points. Those pipelines cross 
from Canada into the United States. That's the only reason why the 
State Department is involved in this process. Some imaginary line 
between our two countries, and the State Department has the approval 
authority.
  Again, I talked about the two ports down there in the gulf coast in 
Texas. Those refineries on those ports are the safest, most advanced, 
most efficient refineries in the entire world. That oil will be 
processed quickly, efficiently, in an environmentally friendly manner. 
We've just got to get it there.
  This part right here, the State of Nebraska is the problem. I will go 
into that a little bit further.
  As the American people can see, this is a map of the central part of 
the United States where the Keystone pipeline comes through; and just 
to get you oriented here, the yellow line that's hard to see, that's 
the Keystone pipeline, the one that's existing right now, the one that 
actually oil is flowing to Illinois as we speak.
  The dark green line here is a proposed path for the Keystone XL 
pipeline. And the reason the administration has given for not approving 
this pipeline is because of this big pink area, and that's the Ogallala 
Aquifer that runs through most of Nebraska and, as you can see, goes 
into my home State of Texas.
  All of these other lines here, all of these little arteries, all of 
these little spinoffs, these dark lines, you know what those are? Those 
are pipelines, pipelines that go in all through that aquifer.
  The Keystone XL pipeline is designed to be the safest pipeline in the 
entire world, much safer than all of these other pipelines that may 
have been there for 50 years. The Keystone XL pipeline is going to be 
put in deeper so it doesn't have the risk of some of the things most 
pipelines have where the integrity gets compromised because somebody on 
the surface drills into it. They're putting the pipeline down deeper to 
avoid that. It's got all of these modern systems that monitor the 
pipeline's status at a fixed interval so if there is some sort of 
problem on it, it will shut down almost automatically and prevent 
further spills into the Nebraska aquifer.
  All of these pipelines are there. Keystone is the safest one, and yet 
the administration didn't approve it.
  We all know the numbers: 20,000 shovel-ready jobs right now; 830,000 
barrels of oil flowing a day down the port in the southeast Texas 
ports; energy security, national security.
  Now I'm going to turn to focus a little bit on national security.
  As the American people know, the Middle East is as unstable as it has 
been in most of our lifetime. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia all have new 
governments. Syria is on the verge of collapse; Yemen, as well. On top 
of all of that, we have Iran. Iran that is actively pursuing a nuclear 
weapon.
  The world seems to be growing in its appreciation of the threat that 
a nuclear power in Iran has to our whole world security. We in Congress 
here passed a bill imposing sanctions on the Iran national bank. The 
European Union passed sanctions on Iran just this past week preventing 
them from purchasing any oil from Iran. But the Iranians responded in 
just the way we thought--with lots of swagger, with lots of bravado. 
What'd they do? They talked about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz.

                              {time}  2100

  The Iranians shut down this waterway. This choke point is a very real 
threat to our world's economic stability and growth.
  I may be the only Member of Congress who has flown missions as a 
pilot in the United States Navy, as a naval aviator, through the Strait 
of Hormuz. It's narrow. It's about 25 miles at its narrowest point. In 
my hometown, that's basically the distance between Houston and 
Galveston. It's shallow, 200 feet. A football field is longer than the 
Strait of Hormuz is deep.
  As you can see, the sea links, where the tankers all cruise through, 
are very close to Iran. They're not out in the middle of the strait. 
This little island over here, Abu Musa, is an Iranian island, so all of 
the traffic going through that strait has to pass basically through 
Iran on one side and Iran on the other side.

[[Page 754]]

  I'm not worried about my Navy having access through those straits. 
They can handle any situation the Iranians throw up. What I fear and am 
concerned about is all the tanker traffic that is currently going 
through those straits. Thirty percent of the world's oil goes through 
those straits to Europe, to our country, to Asia. If those straits are 
shut down for any given period of time, our world will go into an 
economic collapse.
  We've seen this in the past. When I was a young man and started 
driving in the late seventies--16 years old--it was this country, 
again, that was the problem. The Shah of Iran fell. The Mullahs, who 
are in power right now, took over. We supported the Shah, and all the 
Arab nations involved in OPEC put an embargo on the United States. 
Overnight, we lost all this oil flowing through the strait.
  What happened?
  My colleague from Colorado talked about gas prices going up. They 
doubled in about a week's period. I mean, I remember because my job as 
the new guy with a license--and I loved doing it because I was driving, 
man--was to get in the car and go down. It depended on what the last 
digit was on your license plate. If it were an odd or even day, you 
could go get in the gas line. On some days it was 30 minutes, and on 
some days an hour and a half. But my job was to get in that line and 
sit there and wait until I got up there and could pump gas in the car.
  Again, gas prices went from 25 cents a gallon, which we can't imagine 
today, to 50 cents overnight. If those straits were to shut down 
tomorrow with gas prices going up as they are right now, which is 
approaching $4 all the way across the country, we could see almost $10 
a gallon overnight--$10 a gallon. So we can't diminish this threat that 
the straits will shut down.
  How do we fix this? How do we address it?
  It's simple. We develop energy sources right here in North America. 
The administration and State Department have proven in the past that 
they will approve a pipeline based on the considerations I talked 
about. Let me give you an example of that.
  There are lots of pipelines coming from Canada to our country. Just 
to get the listeners oriented again, the dark blue line here is the 
Keystone XL pipeline. Well, actually, the dotted line is the Keystone 
XL coming down here. The blue line is the Keystone XL pipeline. The 
pipeline I want to talk about is the Alberta Clipper pipeline. The 
Alberta Clipper pipeline is the yellow one coming here, right here to 
the point there, which I believe is Lake Superior, but it's right there 
in the northern part of Minnesota. When that was approved a couple of 
years ago, here is what the State Department said. This is their Record 
of Decision and National Interest Determination:
  The Department of State has determined, through a review of the 
Alberta Clipper project application, that the Alberta Clipper project 
would serve the national interests in a time of considerable political 
tension in other major oil-producing regions and countries by providing 
additional access to an approximate, stable, secure supply of crude oil 
with minimum transportation requirements from a reliable ally and 
trading partner of the United States with which we have free trade 
agreements and further augments the security of this energy supply.
  If that were true 3 years ago for this pipeline, isn't it more true 
today for the Keystone XL pipeline? Why doesn't the President approve 
the pipeline immediately and give our country energy security and more 
national security?
  I know why the President did it. It's very clear. I mean, when it 
first started coming out, all the wings of the administration were 
saying, Well, we can't make a decision until sometime in 2013. The 
American people know what happens between now and 2013. There is a 
Presidential election. The American people need a leader. They need 
someone who will step up and do what's right for the country and do 
what's right for our security.
  I would like to close by using a quote from the Father of the United 
States Navy--my Navy--Admiral John Paul Jones. He was in a battle with 
the British ship Superior, with more speed, more guns. His ship was 
getting blown up pretty good.
  The British captain, the guy with those little megaphones, yelled 
over to Admiral John Paul Jones and asked, ``Sir, will you surrender?''
  Admiral John Paul Jones said those immortal words that every sailor 
knows. He yelled back, ``Sir, I have not yet begun to fight.''
  The American people should know that House Republicans have not yet 
begun to fight for the Keystone XL pipeline.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman for his leadership tonight.
  Before he leaves the Chamber and before I yield to the gentleman from 
South Carolina, I think it's, again, important to talk about something 
that you mentioned in the very beginning of your comments. The only 
reason the State Department was involved is that it crossed the border. 
The only reason they were allowed to kill 100,000 American jobs is 
because it crossed the border.
  If the pipeline were built from Fargo, North Dakota, to Houston, 
Texas, would they have been involved?
  Mr. OLSON. No, sir.
  Mr. GARDNER. Again, to the American people, we've heard asked often 
by Members of this body: Where are the jobs? I think we need to start 
asking: Why not these jobs?
  I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, who has been 
very active in the fight for jobs in his home State and across this 
country.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman from 
Colorado for allowing me to have a little time to talk about this.
  Canada is our largest and best trading partner. A good friend of mine 
was an ambassador to Canada, and I had the opportunity up there to talk 
with him about this issue and why it's important to the United States. 
Why Keystone XL pipeline? How about the refining capacity we've got in 
the gulf? How about the refining jobs that would be provided in a very 
hard-hit, post-Horizon gulf State economy?
  The gentleman from Texas was very clear. They understand in Texas, as 
they do in North Dakota, that energy is a segue to job creation. If you 
look at the unemployment rate in Texas or in North Dakota, North Dakota 
has 3 percent unemployment. If you're looking for a job in this 
country, America, go to North Dakota. There are good-paying energy jobs 
right there today, and if we can get Keystone XL pipeline to be a 
reality, we'll have good-paying, long-term jobs in the refineries in 
Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and in all the places that 
we're going.
  What I would like to talk about are the President's own words. He 
said in his statement--and this is from the White House's Web site--
that the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional 
Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact.
  Now, how long has this been going on that they've been doing the 
environmental impact assessment that you talked so brilliantly about? I 
came to Congress last year. This was going on well before I came here. 
A rushed assessment? Under the Obama administration, with an $800 
billion stimulus package and an unprecedented growth in government, 
don't you think that we had the personnel in the Department of Energy 
to deal with this and to do the assessment in a timely manner in order 
to approve a pipeline that would provide, not only American energy 
independence, but North American energy independence? This would be 
buying oil and natural gas from our largest and best trading partner, 
our friends in Canada, and providing good-paying jobs in America.
  I want America to listen to what the President also said in his own 
statement. He said that he was disappointed that Republicans focused on 
this decision. We should focus on this decision. This is about American 
energy independence, and it's about jobs. Yet he goes on to say, But it 
does not change my mind, and this administration's commitment to 
American-made energy that creates jobs--and listen closely--and reduces 
our dependence on oil. Period. It's not reducing our dependence

[[Page 755]]

on foreign oil; it's not reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil 
and on oil from countries that oftentimes don't like us very much. It's 
the lessening of our dependence on oil. Period.
  That is the dynamic that is driving this administration's policies, 
and America needs to know that. These resources don't belong to 
President Obama. They belong to the American people, and it's time we 
step up to the plate and we use energy as a segue to job creation in 
this country. We trade with trading partners that like us, friendly 
trading partners within our own hemisphere. It's North American energy 
independence, and the Keystone XL pipeline is the answer to putting 
Americans back to work.

                              {time}  2110

  Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, the gentleman from South Carolina, getting to 
the passion which so many Members have tonight throughout this fight to 
create American jobs.
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) who has also 
been a leader when it comes to energy security and American energy 
production.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Thank you very much. I appreciate these few 
minutes to speak.
  You know, I have been sitting here listening to everybody speak, and 
very, very good points have been made by so many of the speakers. And 
it does come down to a couple, simple things. It was a tough decision 
for the President, not because he didn't have the ability to make that 
decision, and not because he didn't have the ability and the materials 
to make that decision. As you know, in our hearing last week 
Congressman Lee Terry brought in stacks and stacks of studies that have 
been done on this pipeline.
  But I think of it in terms of my daughter, Abby, who's a sixth-grader 
back home. Abby doesn't like to do her homework. She would much rather 
be talking to her friends or watching TV.
  President Obama apparently doesn't like to do his homework either. He 
would much rather be speaking to friends that tell him how great he is 
or being on TV.
  The bottom line is the same: I have to tell Abby from time to time, 
Abby, go do your homework. Read your materials.
  The American people need to tell President Obama on Keystone 
pipeline, why can't you read the materials? It's all there for you. 
Quit making speeches about jobs and take action after you have done 
your homework. Do it and do it now, and bring us the jobs you keep 
talking about. Get off the telephone, get off the speaking circuit, and 
put your nose to the grindstone and get the job done.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman for his time tonight, and again, 
as we wrap up our discussion, we will just highlight the support the 
Keystone pipeline has across this country. Again, you can see the 
people who believe that job creation, American energy security matters. 
It matters because we can create jobs now. We have an opportunity to 
develop our North American resources, to reduce our reliance on 
overseas oil.
  The question that these supporters ought to be asking tonight is 
whether or not they want to give up this project to China. I don't 
think they want China to win. And yet that's the decision this 
administration has made--100,000 jobs, American energy security.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________