With two high-profile crude oil pipelines currently making headlines, I believe it’s an important topic to discuss. The president’s rational for his recent rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, after seven years of review, has not quite convinced me he’s made the correct decision.

The U.S. State Department even concluded in its extensive reviews that the greenhouse gas effect from constructing Keystone XL would be negligible, and that modern pipelines are a safer and more environmentally friendly alternative to transporting energy than by rail. As soon as oil prices begin to rise again, the Canadian oil will be shipped one way or the other, and production will increase again. Why not transport it in the most efficient method possible?

These arguments hold true for the Dakota Access Pipeline that would cross Iowa. Projects like Keystone and the Dakota Access Pipeline provide jobs up and down the supply chain through construction, maintenance and increased tax revenue. Let’s face it, if you can go 10 minutes in your day without relying on a petroleum-based product, that’s impressive — from the hairdryer you used this morning to your pen in class to clothes you’re wearing right now likely made out of synthetic fibers.

We need to look at these projects holistically. These projects help keep the prices competitive for these products, which is good for everyone. From a geopolitical standpoint, the more energy we can produce here at home, the less we need to import from unfriendly nations abroad.

The hearing for the Dakota Access Pipeline is this week near Ames in Boone, and I fully support its construction. Our economy needs energy, all types. We need this critical infrastructure to get it to our vehicles and businesses as efficiently and safe as possible.

Viewing the Keystone XL and Dakota Access projects objectively, I see a strong argument for both. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. Having a reliable source of North American energy is essential to keeping the U.S. economy the most dynamic in the world.