Keystone XL Pipeline Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to share some thoughts about the debate we are having on the Keystone Pipeline, climate change, and how the two intersect. The concept that climate change is real, I completely understand and accept. To the point of how much man is contributing, I don't know, but it does make sense that manmade emissions are contributing, and the global warming effect, the greenhouse gas effect, seems to me scientifically sound. The problem is how we fix this globally is going to require more than just the United States to be involved.

This deal with China where they have to do nothing for 20 years is probably not exactly where I want to be. The bottom line is that the solutions coming from our Democratic friends about how to deal with greenhouse gas emissions turn our economy upside down and do more damage to the economy and to the welfare of the American people than it will in terms of helping the environment.

Our liberal friends give us a false choice. You have to reorganize the economy in a draconian fashion to help the environment. Some people on my side believe that the whole climate change experience is scientifically unsound. I am not a scientist, but I have heard enough regarding those who make it their life's work to be convinced that manmade emissions are causing the problem and contribute to the overall warming of the planet.

About the Keystone Pipeline, my Democratic friends are making an argument that is just absolutely false. The product that Canada will produce from the oil sands is going to be used by us, the world community through the gulf port or by China.

Those who believe denying the building of the pipeline protects the planet from fossil fuels do not understand what Canada is about to do. Canada is going to sell the product to somebody. The question for us is, Would we benefit from building a pipeline that will create American jobs and help us put oil into that pipeline within the United States in a joint venture with Canada or we will say no to the Canadians and they will go build a pipeline and send it to China?

The product is going to be burned. It is going to be used. The only question for this Congress is, Do we want the pipeline to go West and export the product to China or do we want to build the pipeline so we will have more product from a friend rather than enemies?

Dirty oil is oil that comes from people who hate your guts. The sulfur content of oil sands product is higher than Mideast sweet crude but no different than the oil we find off the coast of California. The actual carbon content is no different than the oil we find off the coast of California. To lock this country and the world into buying more Mideast product seems to me to be a very bad idea at a very dangerous time. So when I hear Members of the Democratic Party take the floor and say: Don't build this pipeline because it will help the environment, you obviously don't realize what Canada is about to do. Canada is going to sell the oil to another customer, build a new pipeline, and the only question for you is, How do you justify that? How do you justify destroying the ability to create thousands of jobs in the country at a time when we need them? How do you justify not building a pipeline that could be used to help us with product from North Dakota and other places within our own country?

You can justify it, but you can't say it is based on climate change because the product you are talking about is going into the environment. It is going to be used.

It is either going to be used coming to America to our benefit or the pipeline will be built west and it will go to China.

To our friends in Canada, I imagine your patience is about to run out with us, and I don't blame you one bit if you get tired of dealing with an American Government that seems completely out of sync with reality. In terms of the lawsuits, it is a procedural issue. In Nebraska the pipeline is one of thousands of pipelines we already have in America.

To the President last night, instead of one pipeline, why don't we have a comprehensive infrastructure strategy? I am all for that. But you are threatening to veto building this pipeline. Why? Because your judgment has been taken over by the environmental community which is hell-bent on no fossil fuels anywhere, anyway, anyhow.

That is not the world in which we live. I embrace the fact that a lower carbon economy will be beneficial over time. My view is: Find more fossil fuels from friendly people, including our own backyard--Canada, the United States--to replace fossil fuels we have to buy from foreign entities that do not like us very much. That concept is a reality. We are not going to be able to replace fossil fuels any time soon.

We can invent technology to make it cleaner. We can find alternatives. But at the end of the day it comes down to this: If you are using climate change as a reason not to build this pipeline, you are kidding yourself or you are misleading the public because the product is going to be used. They are going to build a pipeline in Canada. The question is, Do they build a pipeline that we get no benefit from or do they build a pipeline in collaboration with us that helps us with our job problems and our energy needs?

I don't understand how you can justify voting against the Keystone Pipeline based on a concern about climate change because it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue in this regard. The product is going to be used by somebody, and they are going to build a pipeline somewhere. For you to deny us the ability to build this pipeline that would make us more energy independent from overseas' fossil fuels is shortsighted and does not advance the cause of climate change.

To the people who believe in climate change, it is gimmicks such as this and tricks such as this that hurt your cause. You are undercutting a real genuine debate. You made climate change a religion rather than a problem. It is a problem, but you are taking a draconian approach to the problem to the point that you are denying our country the ability to build a pipeline that we would benefit from economically and energy security-wise. The alternative you are leaving this country is that the same product will go somewhere else, and the next pipeline will not benefit America. So it is stunts like this that undercut your overall efforts.

I wish you would change your mind about the pipeline and work with Republicans who are willing to work with you to deal with emissions in a realistic way and stop selling what I think is a fraud when it comes to this debate.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source