BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, my amendment before us today asks a simple question:
Why should America shoulder new environmental risks to help power the economy of China?
Many Members have come to the floor today to document the considerable ecological and public health threats posed by the development of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline. In addition to producing 40 percent more life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil, the recent Exxon pipeline spill in Montana's Yellowstone River serves as a stark reminder of the very real risks posed by these kinds of pipeline projects.
However, in discounting these facts, the proponents of Keystone XL assert that, without the new pipeline, Canada's dirty tar sands oil will be shipped to China and to other overseas markets. This simply isn't true. Without access to a major new shipping terminal and refining hub on the gulf coast, Canada's tar sands will remain stranded on the North American continent.
Indeed, Keystone XL is essential to the economic expansion of Canadian tar sands because it opens up new trade routes to the East. Current pipeline infrastructure carries tar sands oil to the Midwest but no further. By 2015, existing markets will no longer be sufficient to absorb this increased tar sands production. So the Keystone XL pipeline will provide that new market to China for this oil.
Indeed, earlier this year, the CEO of Valero Energy, one of the companies that has signed up to ship oil through Keystone XL, said this: that the future of refining in the United States is in exports.
So America is increasingly now the global middleman in world oil exports. Our oil exports have doubled in the last 5 years. The question is this: Shouldn't we have some say in where our oil goes?
With the construction of this new pipeline, we are going to be shouldering
all of the increased environmental risks that come with its construction to help meet the growing overseas oil demand of our economic competitors. How does that further the energy independence of the United States?
So the amendment we are offering today with Mr. Cohen and Mr. Welch will merely make it clear that a decision to permit Keystone XL is a decision to, in part, help promote North American oil exports to China. Whether you like that or don't like that, we should at least admit that that is one of the byproducts of our action today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to face the reality of the Keystone XL pipeline rather than just the rhetoric.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska.
That line through Canada, less than 800 miles long, to add an additional almost 10,000 miles to go through the Panama Canal to Shanghai doesn't make economic sense. And let's keep in mind, Canada is our neighbor. They are our friend, our most consistent and reliable ally, and I trust the way they are going to be working on many things with us.
But I also trust the workers who will work on this pipeline, American workers from here in the United States, well-trained people who have gone through good training programs as apprentices and journeymen. Construction of this pipeline will generate about $20 billion in economic output, perhaps $13 billion in direct work on the pipeline itself.
Now, some estimates have said that for every $1 billion you spend on infrastructure, it yields about 35,000 jobs. That's some jobs that go for manufacturing, that's some jobs that go for the actual construction, and some jobs that go for all the supports that help those workers as well as the places that they will spend money--steamfitters and welders who make $45 to $50 an hour, operating engineers, laborers who will earn between $23 and $31 an hour.
And, yes, this is a time we need to do this, not with more delays and more problems, but at a time when we need jobs.
Let's keep this in mind too: Construction of this pipeline with oil from Canada is going to make us less dependent on OPEC. Right now we send $129 billion a year to OPEC. That's $129 billion in foreign aid which we do not have to send to those countries there, $129 billion which we wouldn't have to be spending on countries that sometimes turn around and use U.S. dollars against our soldiers and then we end up fighting for both sides on the war on terror.
This is what we need to keep in mind: This is a jobs bill; this is a bill dealing with a friend; and this is a bill that makes a lot of sense, and we shouldn't put more delays and restrictions on this because we have to get off of our addiction to OPEC oil.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT