WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) today spoke on the Senate Floor about his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, as well as his support for Senator Edward Markey’s amendment to ensure any action helps American Consumers – not Big Oil.

Below is a transcript of his remarks, as prepared for delivery:

“M. President, first, let me say that I rise in general opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, and I rise in favor of Senator Markey’s amendment.

“After long and careful deliberation – and after having had the benefit of a hearing on the Pipeline in my Committee, I have decided to oppose this bill for four basic reasons.

“First, on the bill, I am deeply concerned that – if approved – this pipeline will be the first of many pipelines, opening one of the largest sources of carbon on earth to exploitation.

“Second, contrary to what many believe, I am convinced this pipeline will simply not enhance, help, or – in any positive way – improve our energy profile.

“Third, in my view, it is completely absurd for Congress to take the role of permitting pipelines. It in a role we have never assumed and should not assume now.

“And fourth, I believe it is ridiculous that our Republican colleagues insist on language banning eminent domain for National Parks legislation, but oppose it when it comes to foreign or private projects like Keystone.

“Furthermore, M. President, we cannot underestimate the environmental impacts of this pipeline. The facts are clear. The resource in Alberta is enormous. The tar sands formation is the size of Iowa. Tar sands oil is 17 percent more greenhouse-gas-intensive than other forms of oil because it takes an enormous industrial process to extract it.

“As James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world has said, building the Keystone pipeline would be “game over for the planet.”

“There are also more local risks. Over the weekend, landowners are seeing the pipeline spill on the Yellowstone River in Montana... It’s happening right now, and landowners are wondering if their family farm will be the victim of a similar spill – wondering if property that has been in their family for generations can still be farmed and passed on to the next generation.

“While some temporary jobs will be created by the pipeline, the fact is after two years of construction it will create only 35 permanent jobs: 35. That’s not a lot of jobs.

“If we want to create millions of permanent infrastructure jobs, I urge the supporters of this pipeline to support Democratic efforts to increase transportation funding. I urge them to continue incentives for clean energy. I ask them to do all they can to help local governments rebuild water infrastructure systems. That is how we create permanent jobs that build our economy and help keep us competitive. By comparison, the number of jobs created by Keystone is hardly an argument for passage of this legislation.

“And as you all know we also have the issue of eminent domain – the power of any governmental entity to take private property and convert it to public use, subject to reasonable compensation.

“Many, including most of my conservative friends on the other side were outraged by the idea that eminent domain proceedings could be used to seize private property for private gain.

“I have been working very closely with Senator Cantwell on an amendment and we agree with our conservative colleagues that using eminent domain proceedings for private gain is outrageous. Here on the issue of Keystone a foreign-owned company is using eminent domain to seize private property so it can better export Canadian oil.

“The project is not in the public interest, but clearly in the private interest. Senator Cantwell and I feel this amendment should be a no-brainer – an easy amendment every Senator can support.

“M. President, in recent years, Republicans have insisted on similar language prohibiting the use of eminent domain when we establish national parks. If eminent domain cannot be used to establish a national park in the public interest to conserve our national treasures and preserve America’s beauty for future generations – then surely it should not be used to benefit private interests – in this case, in the interest of a foreign-owned oil company seeking to ship its product around the world.

“Which brings me to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. We know that the oil that will flow through this pipeline will flow directly to foreign markets, which is why I support the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.

“Foreign oil is not subject to America’s crude oil export ban. But – whether it is shipped as crude or refined here, and then exported – we all know that this oil is not going to help the American consumers. The intent of the Markey amendment can be summed up very simply, using an old adage that President Reagan was fond of: “Trust, but verify.”

“For months now, supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline have been telling us that the tar sands that will travel through the U.S. will help advance our energy security. They’ve been telling us that the pipeline will bring a reliable source of fuel from a close ally, that it will reduce prices at the pump, helping U.S. consumers and businesses.

“The Markey amendment does nothing more than confirm the promises made – time-and-time-again – by supporters of the pipeline. It would require the tar sands that travel through the U.S. – STAY in the U.S.

“It says that if Americans are to accept all of the downsides of the pipeline – if U.S. property owners are to have their lands taken away for TransCanada’s benefit, if Americans are forced to live with the risk of an oil spill of dirty tar sands that we don’t even know how to clean up properly, then the very least we can do is get a guarantee, in law, that the U.S. will reap the benefits that come with all of these risks.

“So all this amendment does is put into writing the promises we’ve heard over and over again from supporters of the pipeline. It codifies in law what we previously had to take on faith.

“I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for offering this amendment, and would note that he has a long history of working to improve American energy security. He and I have worked closely since he came to the Senate to protect the longstanding requirement that U.S.-produced crude oil stay here at home – to benefit the U.S. consumer – rather than being shipped around the globe. This amendment is another common-sense protection to make sure that our nation’s energy policy is aimed at helping consumers, rather than helping oil companies’ bottom line – and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

“For the last several Congresses, I’ve introduced the American Oil for American Families Act, a bill to ensure that oil or petroleum products that originate within American public lands or waters are not exported as crude or in refined form. That bill would increase our energy supply at home, lowering prices for consumers and businesses. I intend to reintroduce that legislation this Congress, and I think Senator Markey’s amendment is a strong complement to that work.

“M. President, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment. But, I intend to vote against the bill which, in my view, is nothing more than an earmark for Big Oil.

“The pipeline will have enormous environmental impacts. It will not significantly help the American economy. It will not benefit American consumers. And it will needlessly harm landowners for generations. With that, M. President, I yield the floor.”

###