Volume 158, No. 20 covering the 2nd Session of the 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S366-S367 on Feb. 7, 2012.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about jobs, energy independence, and good environmental stewardship for our country. I rise to speak about working with our strongest ally and trading partner, Canada. I rise to speak about moving forward on behalf of the American people and not delaying, not failing to act in their best interests.
Yesterday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper left for China. He left for China with five of his top Ministers, including his Minister of Trade and his Minister of Natural Resources. He also took along 40 leading businessmen from Canada, including many of their leading businessmen in the area of energy, oil, and gas. He left on a trade mission to China. And what is at the very top of his list? At the very top of his list in his trade mission to China is selling Canadian oil to China. Why is that?
The reason is because our current administration evidently would prefer that we buy oil from the Middle East and from Venezuela rather than buying oil from our closest friend and our No. 1 trading partner, Canada.
That seems hard to believe but, if not, how else can we explain the administration turning down the Keystone XL Pipeline project after more than 3 years of study--not 60 days but more than 3 years of study. We recently passed legislation in this Chamber and in the House that was approved by the President, and in that legislation we said the President needs to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline within 60 days of the date of that legislation, but that is after 3 years of study.
The administration came back and said: Well, it cannot make a decision in 60 days but forgot to mention they have been looking at it for over 3 years. In fact, let's go through that timeline. I think it is important that the American people understand the real timeline.
The real timeline has nothing to do with 60 days. The real timeline is more than 3 years that a project has been held in limbo. On September 19, 2008, TransCanada applied for a permit to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. That is more than 3 years ago. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department said they would have an answer on the project before the end of last year. They made it very clear that after going through the full NEPA process--
including the full environmental impact statement, doing all of the due diligence, all the work over more than a 3-year period--they would have an answer before the end of the year.
The administration then says: No, that is not enough time. We don't have enough time in more than 3 years to make a decision, so the decision is null. You ask: Why would that be? Is this such a unique project that we have never done this before; that after more than 3 years of study--not 60 days--this is so unique we cannot make a decision in that amount of time? So the administration says no.
On this chart we see this red line that runs from Hardisty, which is Alberta, Canada, all the way down to Patoka, IL, to refineries we have in this country. This is the Keystone Pipeline. That was approved in 2 years, roughly 2006 to 2008, and then constructed. It now moves almost 600,000 barrels of oil a day from the Canadian oil sands down to our refineries. So that project already exists. We are talking about building a sister pipeline, the Keystone XL Pipeline, that will bring it from the Calgary area, the Province of Alberta, Canada, down to Cushing, which is a major oil hub, and our refineries in the gulf.
So it is not a new concept; we are already doing it. This pipeline carries almost 600,000 barrels a day. The new pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels a day.
It is not just about Canada. It is not just about moving Canadian crude to our refineries. My home State of North Dakota, and Montana, produce oil as well--light, sweet, Bakken crude--good stuff. We need to get that product to market as well; 100,000 barrels a day from North Dakota and Montana will go into this pipeline. Now, that is incredibly important to States such as North Dakota and Montana because right now we have to move that product by truck and by train. There is incredible wear and tear on our roads, and with the congestion on our roads, there are also traffic accidents and traffic fatalities.
Mr. President, 100,000 barrels a day represents 500 truck loads a day on some of our highways in western North Dakota and eastern Montana.
This pipeline would reduce the number of truck miles to move that product by 17 million truck miles a year. So it is not just about moving that product from Canada to our refineries, it is about moving our own crude, crude that we produce in this country to market. Our States need that vital infrastructure, and the government is not building this infrastructure--not one penny of tax money, not one penny of Federal Government spending. This is a $7 billion-plus investment from the private sector to give us the infrastructure we need to get our oil to our refineries.
So it is not a new project. It has been done before.
As a matter of fact, as my next chart shows, not only has this been done before, but the Obama administration has approved similar projects before.
In August of 2009 the current administration approved a 1,000-mile pipeline that moves 800,000 barrels of oil a day that is moving oil right now. They approved this project in August 2009. It came online in October 2010. It goes from the Province of Alberta down to refineries in Wisconsin. So they approved it in August 2009.
So what is going on here? Well, the issue they have talked about is that they have to delay this because of the western Sandhills region of Nebraska. The western Sandhills region of Nebraska includes something called the Ogallala Aquifer. The Ogallala Aquifer is obviously very important for water supply and irrigation. That is here in western Nebraska, so that concern has been raised. So we put forward legislation that addresses that issue.
We put forward legislation that follows the lead of the State of Nebraska and says: We will reroute the pipeline in Nebraska. For example, rerouting it over here where there is already the existing Keystone Pipeline. But in the legislation we put forward we say we will reroute the pipeline in Nebraska; that issue will be fully addressed, and we do not set a timeline on doing it and we expressly provide that we work with the State of Nebraska to do it.
Nebraska had a special session in November. After their special session where we all agreed to do the rerouting, the State of Nebraska--their legislature, their Governor, and their Senators--
supported the project. They said: Yes, we need to move forward with the project.
As you can see, there are many pipelines through there already. Nevertheless, we said: OK, the administration said that is an issue. We do the rerouting and we set no time limit to do it. So why aren't we proceeding with the project? What are we waiting for? And what are the ramifications of waiting? Look at all these pipelines. This is not a new concept.
So I take a step back to what I mentioned earlier: What is going on here? Why is it that Prime Minister Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada in China today, is arranging to sell oil that they produce in Canada to China rather than to us in the United States when we need it so badly--not just for our economy, not just for the jobs, but for energy security at a time of incredible upheaval in the Middle East? Now this oil is going to go to China. What is going on here?
Well, the only thing that I guess we can figure is that the administration has decided they don't want oil produced from the Canadian oil sands. They have decided they don't want oil that is produced in Canada in the oil sands. The argument is that somehow that oil will have higher greenhouse gas emissions, so we are not going to take it and somehow that is not going to be produced. So it is an environmental issue. The only problem with that is that it is going to be produced. It just won't come to us, it will go to China. And maybe an even bigger irony--although certainly not a bigger problem but a bigger irony--is that the environmental stewardship will then be worse, not better. So if that is the argument, it is going in the wrong direction.
This oil, which will be produced up here--that is exactly the agreement Prime Minister Harper is now working on with China and, believe me, China wants the oil. There is no question about that. They have made it very clear. While we continue to put Canada on hold, China is working very hard to make sure that oil comes to them.
Lets talk about the environmental aspect of that. Now, instead of bringing this oil in a pipeline down to our refineries--the best technology in the world in terms of refining, so we put it in a pipeline and we have lower emissions in the very best refineries in the world--we are going to put this oil in thousands and thousands of tankers that have to go across the ocean, producing greenhouse gases, and it is going to be refined in China, where they have lower emission standards, meaning higher emissions. They don't have the same standards we do, so we end up with more greenhouse gas, and yet at the same time we continue to have tankers of oil coming in from the Middle East producing more greenhouse gas because we can't get the oil from Canada.
So if that is the argument, what are we doing? We are saying: OK, we are going to say no to the jobs and we are going to say no to the fact that we can be energy independent in terms of oil. Between the United States and Canada, we can be independent in our oil needs. We won't need to get oil from Venezuela and we won't need to get oil from the Middle East--a huge national security issue. Look at what is going on in Syria and look at what is going on in Egypt and look at what is going on in Iran. Look at what is going on with the price of gasoline. We can become oil independent with our best friend and ally, Canada, but we say no instead. After 3 years, we are going to say no to the project, so Canada sells it to China and we get worse environmental stewardship.
I hope the American people fully understand exactly what is going on here because it is time to act. Right now, Prime Minister Harper is talking to President Hu Jintao, the President of China and, believe me, China wants the oil. Prime Minister Harper and Canada, our closest ally in the world, have waited 3 years--3 years--to get a ``no'' answer from the administration. So we will see what kind of agreement he comes back with from China.
The reality is, it is time to act. Here are some of the pipelines that are moving crude oil and other product around our country. Do we really think that is a problem, particularly when we put in legislation--when we went specifically and found out what the administration's concern was and we solved it and we built it into the legislation? The time has come to act. I call on my colleagues to join me. We put forward legislation that addresses the concerns. But it is time to act for the good of the American people.
Thank you, Mr. President. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator rescind the suggestion, please.
Mr. HOEVEN. I will.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up