BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Whether or not you support the pipeline, you should oppose this legislation. H.R. 3 is a reckless attempt to sideline environmental review and limit public input.
The majority claims that Keystone XL is the most studied pipeline in the history of pipelines. Shouldn't a pipeline that is going to run the length of our country be exhaustively studied? We need to know the environmental impacts and truly weigh all the consequences, intended or not, of H.R. 3; and H.R. 3 would deny the American people and this Congress that opportunity.
Over 1 million Americans commented on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The President and his administration need time to analyze these comments and evaluate the impacts of this massive project. H.R. 3 shuts that process down and says it's ready to go.
This can't be about making the President look bad or the bottom line of a Canadian corporation. This is about doing what's right for this country.
This is no ordinary pipeline. It will transport dirty tar sands oil from Canada to Port Arthur, Texas. Tar sands oil produces 40 percent more carbon pollution than conventional oils.
Pretending that this pipeline has to be done and has to be done immediately is to hide from the reality of the consequences of this pipeline. We really don't need the oil. It is oil that will be primarily exported out of this country.
A recent study by Cornell University found that Keystone XL will divert more green jobs and contribute to more climate change than any other project. The claims of employment are hugely exaggerated.
We are having the wrong conversation. We should be talking about the future of real energy independence and alternative and renewable energy.
While I don't support H.R. 3 or Keystone XL, I think the decision lies with the President. That's why I am circulating a letter to the President to reject this lack of a Presidential permit.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT