Keystone XL Pipeline Actby Representative Yvette D. Clarke
Posted on 2015-01-09
CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, the majority has chosen the
first week of the 114th Congress to relitigate the battles of the
previous two Congresses. This time, we're here debating whether or not
to approve a pipeline, through our nation's Heartland, carrying
Canadian tar sand oil.
There are many reasons why I'm opposed to this legislation, Mr. Speaker, the fact that oil produced from tar sands creates 17% more carbon emissions than other crudes; the potentially devastating impact wrought by this heavy crude should a pipeline rupture occur; or that my constituents are enjoying the best prices at the pump in several years without the completion of this pipeline due to the record glut in global oil supply.
Without even getting into the disappointing number of permanent jobs created by this project, which is 50, Mr. Speaker; the President has already clearly stated that he will veto this measure should it ever make it to his desk.
[[Page H179]] So at the end of the day Mr. Speaker, what are we really talking about here? It would seem to me that instead of trying to score political points and refighting old battles, the 114th Congress should be using its first week to bring legislation to the floor that fosters an environment of innovation, energy diversification and an investment in clean, domestic forms of renewable energy. Policies that would create hundreds of thousands of new, permanent jobs while also ensuring energy independence for years to come.
While I understand that some of my Democratic Colleagues are in favor, I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this misguided legislation.