This debate is about U.S. energy security, North American energy, and jobs. The original Keystone pipeline cost $2 billion, a thousand U.S. jobs. The expansion of the refinery bordering my district and the chairwoman's district is thousands of jobs and an expansion of the refinery. Keystone XL will allow us to create thousands of new jobs expanding the pipeline, expanding new refineries, getting down to the refineries in Texas. The Canadians are going to build this pipeline in one or two directions. They're either going to go south to help us become North American reliant and secure in energy, or they're going to build this pipeline west to put it on tankers and ship it to China. Now, I would ask my colleagues: What's more environmentally safe, secure, and sound--a pipeline or a supertanker? What's better for our country--have that oil coming to the United States or that oil going to China? I think the answer is clear. We can become North American energy independent. The Keystone XL pipeline is part of that. I would ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Share & report
More from John Shimkus
I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose it. The Acting CHAIR (Miss Rice of New York). Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes. There was no objection.
I am happy to follow the Speaker, and I do have great respect for her. It gets me in trouble in my district every now and then when I talk about our relationship, but it has to be said that I can't allow a revisionist history to report on…
What if we don't do this? Here is a chart. Here is Yucca Mountain, secure, in the desert, underneath a mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas. Right here in this Chamber, we are 44 miles from the nearest nuclear power plant. It just happens to…
Who has the right to close? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has the right to close.





