Keystone XL Pipeline Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, this is my first speech to the Senate.
It is interesting because as a child I would read about how the
Senate was a great deliberative body. I would read of the debates in
which issues were discussed that changed the course of our country's
history. The key issue here is that it is a deliberative body.
I was in the Senate energy committee the other day and one of the
opponents of this Keystone bill said we need to be guided by science. I
like that thought. We are not to be guided by our prejudice. We are not
to be guided by what we want to be the case. We are to be guided by the
facts, because just as when I was a kid and I would read about how this
great deliberative body would decide issues that would then decide our
country's future, this Keystone bill decides the future for many
issues.
With that said, let me also say that I just came over from the House
of Representatives and one of the nice things I had the privilege to do
was to enter a Keystone bill quite similar to this one, which passed.
In the course of that being introduced, debated, passed, et cetera, I
heard the arguments of those who were opposed to the Keystone bill, and
I have been able to think about them.
I am pleased to say I think there actually is common ground. If the
American people want the Senate to work together to come up with
solutions on a bipartisan basis, and if we are to be guided by science
and the facts and not by our prejudice, and if what we deliberate will
help determine the future of our country and the many families in our
country, I am pleased to say that we have common ground.
The opposition is concerned about climate change, increased carbon
emissions, the amount of oil that might be spilled, whether this
encourages the use of fossil fuels, and are the jobs being created
worth being created? We can address these factually, not by prejudice
but by using, actually, President Obama's own State Department
information. With that kind of source--it is President Obama's State
Department providing the answer to these questions. So let's go through
them.
First, the President's own State Department says that building the
pipeline will decrease carbon emissions, there will be less oil
spilled. By the way, it will not only create jobs, but it will also
save workers' lives. We are deliberating a bill here which, according
to President Obama's State Department, will save lives. That is truly
changing the future of somebody.
In detail, on page 34 of President Obama's State Department report,
it says that the pipeline would have no significant environmental
impact. It will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 28 to 42
percent relative to not building the pipeline at all.
President Obama's own State Department also acknowledges that these
oil sands are going to be developed whether we build the pipeline or
not. If they are not piped to the gulf coast of Louisiana and Texas to
be processed, they will be sent to overseas markets such as China,
creating Chinese jobs instead of American jobs.
I think it is also safe to say--we read about how in China people
can't see the blue sky. Their environmental standards are far more lax
than ours. If it goes to the gulf coast, I can tell my colleagues I
just came from Louisiana yesterday and I saw blue skies.
With all of our environmental standards, this will be processed in
such a way which is most environmentally friendly. If it goes to China,
there will be pollutants put out in the air which the jet stream will
blow over the United States. If we are to be guided by science and not
by prejudice, the science would say we should build the pipeline to
allow the oil sands to be processed in the United States.
I heard one person say that he would be for the pipeline if he was
sure the oil would not be exported. I don't quite know how to respond
to that because if we don't build the pipeline it will absolutely be
exported. It will be exported to China, and then quite likely we will
buy the refined products that the Chinese then produce. On the other
hand, again referencing President Obama's State Department, they have
said that if we pipe that oil to the gulf coast, our gulf coast
refineries are uniquely equipped to process that oil in an
environmentally safe way, and so it is unlikely that it will be
exported. I will add to that, according to the World Trade Organization
guidelines, if we accept an import from another country, we cannot not
export it should there be higher value.
But I return to what President Obama's State Department said, which
is that the gulf coast refineries' unique ability to refine this in an
environmentally sensitive way means that despite World Trade
Organization restrictions, it is unlikely that it will be exported.
There are other benefits as well. It is clear that it will diversify
our energy security. Instead of buying our oil from the Middle East or
from countries like Venezuela who don't care for us--in fact, use the
money we pay them in some cases to finance terrorism--it will come from
a trusted neighbor who will spend that money that we pay Canada for
this commodity back into the North American economy creating jobs
indirectly in the United States that otherwise would not be, which
leads us to the question, are these jobs worth having? In a word, the
answer is absolutely. Now, we all know that creating better jobs for
American families is what should be the Congress's priority.
For 6 years we have been talking about building the Keystone XL
Pipeline and we have, if you will, postponed the creation of these
jobs.
Let's just look at it. Refineries in my State of Louisiana and along
the gulf coast would benefit because it would be roughly 100,000
barrels a day of crude oil transported to us. In Louisiana up to 12
percent of that oil would end up in our refineries, more than $1
billion in revenue to our economy. It would create over 40,000
construction jobs over a 1-to-2 year period.
Some will oppose this and say these jobs only last for a week or two.
I was outside the energy committee hearing room and there were a couple
of fellows from trade unions who stopped me. They said, We need these
jobs.
I said, what about the argument of the other side that the jobs will
only last 2 weeks?
Those are the nature of our jobs. If you bring a master welder in, he
or she will do their job for 2 weeks and then move on to another. But
for our union members to get their union benefits, they have to work a
certain number of hours per quarter or per month--I forget the unit of
time--but this will allow them to meet that minimum requirement in
order to continue to receive their union benefits.
I can tell you the crafts unions think that these jobs are worth
having. These are well-paying jobs with good benefits. They are not the
service sector in which hours might have been reduced from 40 to 30
hours a week. These are great jobs and great benefits.
The American people want Washington to work together. As I mentioned
earlier, I introduced and passed Keystone legislation in the House of
Representatives. Keystone has become a symbol for North American energy
independence. Approving this pipeline is not the final step in this
independence but it is the next step. It is a good step.
The case for approving this pipeline and other energy infrastructure
projects is clear. I encourage my colleagues to join in approving the
Keystone XL Pipeline and putting this debate to rest because I truly
believe we have common ground, if we are to be guided by the science
and the facts and not by prejudice. We know from President Obama's
State Department that it reduces carbon emission, it will decrease the
amount of oil spilled, it has minimal effect upon the environment, it
will save the lives of the workers while strengthening our national
security and enhancing our energy independence and creating 40,000
American jobs. That is why more than 60 percent of Americans support
this bill. It is a jobs bill, a national security bill, and it is a
bill which should be passed.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source