|“The Department of Energy for this administration did a study in June of last year. In that study, they said the oil will be used in this country, and it will--not ``may'' but ``will''--lower gas prices on the east coast, the gulf coast, and in the Midwest. I had Secretary Chu in front of me at one of our hearings, and he acknowledged that, in fact, that is what the Department of Energy of this administration provided--that the product will be used here, that we are going to need more crude, and it will lower gas prices. . . .
Do we go ahead and get oil from our closest friends and trading partner, Canada, or say no to them and have them send it to China? Do we reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and reduce the price of gas for hard-working American consumers? How about national security? Would you rather rely on oil from the Middle East or from Canada?
Would you rather have oil produced here, in North Dakota, Montana, and in Canada, or would you rather get it from the Middle East?”
|“I also wish to express my strong opposition to Senator Hoeven's Keystone XL amendment, which is nothing more than a rubberstamp for a project that poses serious risks to our environment and public safety.
The Keystone XL Pipeline will be one of the largest pipelines outside of Russia and China. It will be 1,700 miles long, cut through six States, and carry nearly 1 million barrels of tar sands oil each day. Make no mistake, the Keystone Pipeline is not ready for approval. The fact is, the people have a right to know the facts about projects like this. This is one of the reasons I wrote the Pipeline Safety Act, which President Obama signed into law in January.
This law requires the Transportation Secretary to determine whether we need better rules for the movement of tar sands oil, which is thicker and more corrosive than conventional oil.”