[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 187 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8384-S8388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY ACT
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise this morning to discuss the North
American Energy Security Act in a colloquy with my colleagues. Joining
me will be our leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Senator Johnny Isakson from the great State
of Georgia, Senator Mike Johanns from Nebraska, and Senator Jim Inhofe
of Oklahoma. We are here to discuss a very solutions-oriented piece of
legislation. It is about creating jobs. It is about creating energy
security for our Nation. It is about good environmental stewardship. It
is about all of these things and more.
We want to take this opportunity to discuss the legislation and
encourage--to urge--our fellow colleagues to join with us to create
jobs and opportunity for the American people. In a nutshell, this
legislation clears the way for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is a
1,700-mile pipeline that will run from Alberta, Canada, all the way
down to the gulf coast region of the country, down to the refineries in
the United States.
This blue line shows the route of the Keystone XL Pipeline. This red
line shows an existing pipeline, the Keystone Pipeline, which was built
very recently by TransCanada. It provides almost 600,000 barrels a day
of crude to the United States. The Keystone XL Pipeline would provide
more than 700,000 barrels a day of crude oil to our refineries. In
addition, it will also haul domestic crude from States such as North
Dakota and Montana.
It will put 100,000 barrels a day of our own light, sweet, domestic
crude into the pipeline to bring it down for our needs in the country.
It will also bring oil from places such as Cushing, OK, where we
currently have backlogs to the refineries, as well. So it is also about
moving oil within our country as well as bringing Canadian crude to the
United States and to our refineries.
I mentioned it is a job creation bill. As our leader said just a
minute ago, just the construction alone will put 20,000 workers on the
job--20,000 workers on the job--just constructing the pipeline. The
Perryman Group out of Waco, TX, has indicated more than 250,000 jobs.
It is a huge job creator.
I yield to our leader, Senator McConnell.
Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield on that point, it is my
understanding, and is it not correct, that these are not jobs sometime
in the future but these are, in fact, jobs that just as soon as the
President would sign off on this, this project is ready to go. We don't
have to borrow any--the government doesn't have to borrow any money and
they don't have to try to stimulate anything. This is a project, as I
understand it, I would ask my friend from North Dakota, that is
literally shovel ready and will not cost the government a penny?
Mr. HOEVEN. This is a project that is absolutely ready to go and will
not cost the Federal Government one penny. It puts 20,000 workers on
the job right away.
The hurdle was the route through Nebraska, but we have now worked
with the State of Nebraska. They have had a special session. They have
set up a process to clear that part of the route. Our legislation says
within 60 days after passage of this bill the route is deemed approved.
That is after 3 years of process through the EPA.
So we are ready to go. We have addressed the issues. We can put these
people on the job now if we can get the Presidential approval.
Mr. McCONNELL. In fact, I would say to my friend, the Senator from
Nebraska is on the Senate floor with us right now. He could further
underscore that the people of Nebraska, having now satisfied the
concern they had earlier about location, seem to be ready to go.
Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond
to the leader's comment and his question. The leader is absolutely
right. The people of Nebraska, through their elected officials, have
worked with the company building this pipeline in that they have
resolved their differences.
The reason I support this legislation and have decided to be a
cosponsor of the legislation is that this legislation respects the
Nebraska process. It says there will be a process in Nebraska where we
will site the pipeline in the best place. This legislation says that is
fine. But what this legislation also acknowledges is, on the entire
rest of the pipeline outside of the State of Nebraska, this is ready to
be built today.
The President of the United States has had 3 years of background
study and extensive environmental study, as the leader has pointed out,
and nothing is going to change outside of the State of Nebraska. So
work can begin today. There is just one person holding up that work.
That is the President of the United States. With the stroke of a pen,
he can turn this project loose. It will respect what is going on in
Nebraska. Workers can be hired, the pipeline can be built, and those
jobs can be literally provided today.
So I support this legislation. I am proud to be here this morning to
say that and to thank the Senator from North Dakota, the minority
leader, and all others who have worked with us to solve this problem.
The problem is solved. We are ready to create the jobs. It is my hope
the President will announce that he is ready to proceed to create these
jobs for American workers.
Mr. McCONNELL. Could I ask one further question of either or both of
the Senators--and Senator Isakson as well.
I understand there is a suggestion that there may be political
concerns on the President's part, and we all know that most
environmental groups are very much on the Democratic side. But is it
not the case that there are a number of unions in the country--most of
which, certainly, do not support Republicans anywhere I know--that also
feel passionately about this issue and would like to get to work? Is
that not the case?
Mr. HOEVEN. I ask Senator Johanns, would he like to respond?
Mr. JOHANNS. I have worked on this issue for a number of months--
actually, a couple of years. Here is the situation: Unions are ready to
go to work. I talk to the locals in Nebraska on a regular basis, and
they talk about unemployment numbers that are staggering, in the
double-digits, which, in our State, is remarkable because we have an
unemployment rate of 4.2 percent.
The unions are ready to go to work, bringing their skills and their
talents to bear. The leader's observation is absolutely right.
For the environmentalists, on the other hand, it is not the pipeline,
it is not the location, it is that they do not want the tar sands
development to occur. So the President is on the horns of a dilemma.
Part of his base, the unions, are saying: Create the jobs. There is
already a pipeline. Let's go out there and do this in the most
environmentally sensitive way we possibly can.
[[Page S8385]]
On the other hand, the environmentalists are saying: No, Mr.
President. They have circled the White House. They have done all of
these things. Well, the President solved this dilemma he finds himself
in, in my judgment, by announcing he would just delay this until after
the election.
Mr. McCONNELL. Could I ask the Senator from Nebraska a further
question?
It strikes me--correct me if I am wrong--that America not going
forward does not prevent this from happening, just in another country.
And a good option for the Canadians might well be to just ship this
product to China. Is that not correct?
Mr. JOHANNS. Well, in response to the leader's question, the Canadian
Government has already indicated that if the United States is not a
reliable purchaser and transporter of this commodity, they will have to
look to other parts of the world, for example, China, to sell this
product.
This will not stop the development in that area. In fact, it will
push the development to a part of the world where the refinery process
might take place with fewer environmental standards and, therefore,
cause more environmental problems than if we build this pipeline and
solve it. That is why from the very beginning I have said: Look, I am
not opposed to the tar sands development. I am not even opposed to the
pipeline in our State, now that we have solved the problem.
As I said, there is one person who can create these jobs today. That
is the President of the United States. With the Prime Minister with the
President, it would be a perfect opportunity to say: We do not have to
wait until after the election. Let's create these jobs today. Let's put
Americans to work.
Mr. McCONNELL. Just one final observation, and then I am going to
leave the colloquy to all the rest of my colleagues. But it strikes
me--and I wonder if my colleagues agree--this is about as close to a
no-brainer as we will ever run into in America. There is no government
money.
Mr. HOEVEN. I would ask Senator Isakson to join us at this point. He
is here specifically to talk a little bit about the issue with oil
sands development and China. So Senator Isakson, and then certainly
Senator Hutchison as well.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank Senator Hoeven for the recognition, and I thank
the leader for his remarks.
I just want to confirm what the leader just said by quoting from two
recent articles. The first is from an article about Minister Oliver,
who is Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, on his trip to Shanghai.
Here is his quote:
My mission to China is clear. I have come to raise
awareness of the strength of Canada's natural resource
sectors--as both an outstanding source of quality products
and an attractive destination for investment.
Let me read one other quote that occurred shortly after that speech
was made by the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources:
A unit of China Petrochemical Corp., [known as] Sinopec,
agreed to buy Daylight Energy Ltd., a Canadian oil and
natural-gas producer, for 2.2 billion Canadian dollars . .
.--China's second [purchase and second] foray into Canada's
oil patch in [the last year].
So to confirm what the leader has said, and to confirm what Senator
Hoeven has acknowledged, this is not something we might fear happening
later on. This is something happening now. If we default on the
Keystone XL Pipeline now, we are giving a wide open year for the
Chinese to come back to Canada, make those investments, tie down that
oil, and encourage that pipeline to go--not to Houston, TX--but to
Vancouver, Canada, and then on ships to China.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of both of these articles
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[Natural Resources Canada, Nov. 9, 2011]
Minister Oliver Promotes Canadian Energy in China
``My mission to China is clear. I have come to raise
awareness of the strength of Canada's natural resource
sectors--as both an outstanding source of quality products
and an attractive destination for investment,'' said the
Honourable Joe Oliver, Canada's Minister of Natural
Resources, while speaking today at the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce in Shanghai.
The Minister has been in Beijing and Shanghai this week
meeting with senior government officials and leaders of
Chinese companies.
Minister Oliver met with Vice Premier Li Keqiang and
discussed the role of investment and trade in energy and
mineral resources in contributing to Canada's long-term
strategic partnership with China. He also signed an agreement
with the President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Professor Bai Chunli, to expand cooperation on science and
technology in earth sciences and natural resources.
Over the last few days, Minister Oliver has held meetings
with major Chinese energy companies including Sinopec, China
National Offshore Oil Corporation and Petrochina to discuss
Canada's enormous energy resources and attractive investment
climate.
``As reaffirmed today in the International Energy Agency's
2011 World Outlook, global energy demand is expected to
increase by one third from 2010 to 2035,'' said Minister
Oliver. ``Given that Canada is also projected to be an ever-
increasing contributor to global energy supply, our Chinese
investors recognize the importance of getting into the
Canadian energy market right now.''
The Minister discussed the Government of Canada's key
strategic policy of diversifying Canadian energy markets and
participated in a joint Canada-B.C. event with Canadian and
Chinese industry officials to promote exports to China.
Minister Oliver met with Vice Chair Zhang Xiaoqiang of the
National Development and Reform Commission on strengthening
Canada's long-term strategic partnership with China through
two-way trade and investment in energy and natural resources.
While in Shanghai, the Minister also toured the Jinqiao
Wood Townhouse Demonstration Project, where he underlined the
many benefits of Canadian wood-frame construction expertise
for China.
This demonstration project is one of several in China
funded by the Government of Canada to showcase the low-
carbon, environmentally friendly and energy-efficient
properties of wood-frame construction, and to assist China in
meeting its national goals of reducing carbon emissions in
new housing projects.
Minister Oliver continued to highlight the phenomenal
growth in exports of wood products when he met with Vice
Minister Qiu Baoxing, Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural
Development, as well as with British Columbia Premier Christy
Clark and Pat Bell, BC Minister of Jobs, Tourism and
Innovation, to discuss trilateral cooperation on wood-frame
housing in China.
Minister Oliver will now continue on to Tokyo and Sendai,
Japan.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 10, 2011]
Sinopec Deepens China's Push Into Canadian Oil Patch
(By Edward Welsch)
A unit of China Petrochemical Corp., or Sinopec, agreed to
buy Daylight Energy Ltd., a Canadian oil and natural-gas
producer, for 2.2 billion) Canadian dollars (US$2.12
billion)--China's second big foray into Canada's oil patch in
recent months.
In July, Cnooc Ltd. agreed to pay just over $2 billion for
bankrupt OPTI Canada Inc., in a rare move by a Chinese
company to swoop in and swallow an entire company instead of
tiptoeing in with a minority stake.
In the North American energy sector, in particular, Chinese
companies have been wary of political fallout if they are
seen as acting too aggressively in a sector that many
consider to be strategic.
But the two recent moves suggest sensitivities in Beijing
may be easing somewhat--at least regarding business in
Canada. The federal government in Ottawa and its
semiautonomous provincial counterparts have long welcomed
foreign investment in the Canadian oil patch, which includes
vast conventional oil and natural-gas reserves, but also the
much more capital-intensive, oil-sands developments of
northern Alberta.
Canadian companies, with relatively small domestic capital
markets to fall back on, have relied on foreign investment--
including from China--though more often that has come in the
form of minority stakes in companies, or joint ventures in
certain capital-intensive projects.
Last year, for instance, Sinopec bought ConocoPhillips' 9
percent stake in its large Syncrude oil-sands project in
northeastern Alberta for $4.65 billion.
Recently, some Canadian politicians and businessmen have
expressed new wariness over big foreign deals.
Ottawa rejected Australia-based BHP Billiton Ltd.'s $39
billion attempt to buy Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. last
year. The Canadian government said the deal wouldn't bring
enough economic benefit. However, a campaign against the
takeover launched by the local government of Saskatchewan
generated significant support from regional politicians and
the public.
The Sinopec-Daylight deal will face the same sort of
government review that other significant foreign deals
undergo, including a federal sign-off. But it isn't expected
to garner the same sort of scrutiny as the BHP-Potash bid.
Potash holds a significant chunk of the world's reserves of
potash, a critical raw material in fertilizer. Critics used
that market dominance to argue that Potash was a strategic
asset that should remain in Canadian hands.
[[Page S8386]]
Daylight, meanwhile, is a relatively small energy
competitor--one of scores of Canadian companies that hold
just a thin slice of the country's overall petroleum
reserves.
Daylight produces light oil and natural gas from properties
in northeast British Columbia and northwestern Alberta. The
company produced just 37,000 barrels of oil equivalents in
the second quarter. But Daylight has accumulated a
significant undeveloped land position in the emerging
liquids-rich Duvernay shale-gas play in Alberta.
Sinopec is laying down a sizable premium for the deal. In a
statement Sunday, Daylight, based in Calgary, said that
Sinopec had agreed to buy the company for C$10.08 a share,
representing a premium of 43.6 percent over the 60-day
weighted average price of the stock ending Oct 7.
``We believe this transaction with [Sinopec] recognizes the
highly attractive asset portfolio and exceptional team that
we have assembled,'' said Anthony Lambert, the president and
chief executive of Daylight, in the statement
Barclays Capital advised Sinopec on the transaction.
Canaccord Genuity Corp. advised Daylight. Q02
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank Senator Isakson and ask the Senator if he has any
more he wants to add. I know the Senator has to leave and is on a tight
timetable.
Mr. ISAKSON. Just to thank the Senator for his leadership; the
Senator's leadership on this issue has been outstanding.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank Senator Isakson and thank him for being here.
I will turn to Senator Hutchison from Texas.
We have actually 40 Senators already on this legislation--40
Senators. It is bipartisan. This is something we absolutely need to
move on. I spoke with the Canadian Ambassador today, Ambassador Doer.
He talked about how they are already looking at Western routes to send
this oil to China.
So this oil is going to be produced. It is going to be produced. The
question is, Does it come to the United States and help us reduce our
dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Does it come here and create
thousands of jobs or do we send it to China where there will actually
be more emissions because it will be refined in refineries that produce
higher emissions?
We will also have the emissions of shipping product all around the
world, not only shipping this oil to China but then we are going to
continue to have to ship oil from places such as the Middle East and
Venezuela. So we actually increase CO2 emissions without
this project.
Now, in Texas, of course, we have refineries, and Senator Hutchison
is here to talk about just how important it is we bring this product
down to our refineries in the gulf coast region.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from North Dakota because Senator
Hoeven has been a leader on this issue, knowing how important this find
is, and how much more capacity we will have for affordable energy in
our country if we can extend the pipeline.
This is a pipeline that is not just starting from Canada into the
United States. The Keystone Pipeline was started in 2008. The initial
line moves 590,000 barrels of oil per day from northern Alberta to
points in Cushing, OK, and Patoka, IL. The XL extension--which is what
we are talking about that is being held up by the State Department--is
currently under review. It would expand the system by 700,000 barrels
per day--so more than double what we are getting already--and bring the
line further south to Texas.
Well, now, why is that important? It is because 25 percent of the
refinery capacity in America is in Texas. It is in the gulf coast of
Texas. That is where the refiners are. We are talking about producing
now more affordable energy for all the consumers in our country by
bringing it straight down and having it refined and sent back out to
all points in America. Otherwise, what my colleagues have just been
talking about--Senator Isakson and Senator Hoeven--is that we will see
Canada export this to other countries, whether it be China or other
countries, and eventually it is going to be coming back into the United
States much more expensively to be refined in Texas and sent out.
So specifically for Texas, it would put our State's 26 refineries
into probably 24 hours' of business, which means lots of jobs in Texas.
That 25 percent of U.S. production is approximately 5 percent of
worldwide capacity. So we are talking about lowering the price of
energy throughout our country and the world.
It would produce an estimated $2.3 billion in new spending and
generate more than $48 million in new tax revenue for my state alone.
It would result in 700,000 barrels of oil a day, as I have said. We
know the Canadian find--the sands that have been found there--is the
third largest capacity, next to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, in
recoverable oil in the world. So we have the third largest reserve in
Canada and we know we have the ability to bring that oil down, have it
refined, and go out to the United States because dependence on the
Middle East and North Africa has certainly led to price spikes.
Venezuela is certainly not a reliable partner right now and supply
interruptions threaten our economy and our national security.
So the Keystone XL Pipeline would certainly be a boom to Texas and
Texas jobs. But more than that, it is going to benefit every consumer
of energy in America. It will more than double what we can buy from
Canada, and think of the reliability of our Canadian relationship. The
reliability of our trade and our relationship with our neighbor to the
north, Canada, is among the most solid we have in all of the globe.
It is essential we build this pipeline. As the leader said earlier,
this is a no-brainer--as close as you can get to a no-brainer for
building our economy, creating jobs, and creating more tax revenue that
will bring down the deficit we have heard so much talk about on the
other side--but this would do it the old-fashioned way: by giving
people the ability to provide for their families and contribute to the
economy of our country.
That is the way we want to see increased revenue in this country:
with more jobs and paying taxes, not collecting benefits because they
cannot find work. It is right here, and it does not cost the government
a dime because it is private investment that will bring this oil to the
refineries and put it back out to the United States.
I urge the President of the United States to go to the State
Department and say: Let this go. In lieu of urging the President, we
have a bill that was started by Senator Hoeven, with 40 sponsors, that
will tell the President: Now is the time--it is long past due time--for
us to create the jobs in this country that are not going to be taxpayer
funded, that are going to be privately funded. They are going to create
cleaner, better, cheaper, more efficient energy; and they are going to
create jobs which people want in this holiday season and on into the
future years.
So I thank my colleague from North Dakota for giving us this chance
to tell the American people we have an answer to jobs and to bringing
down the deficit and increasing revenue the way people want to: by
providing for their families and paying taxes with the money they are
earning. It is a win for everyone. I thank the Senator from North
Dakota for leading this effort.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Texas. Senator Hutchison is, as
usual, not only eloquent but has hit the nail on the head. Looking
across our country from North Dakota to Texas to Oklahoma, across our
country we need these jobs. This is the way to get them, and we can get
them now. We need our President to act.
This legislation is a solutions-oriented bill.
It is about job creation. It is about energy independence. It is
about good environmental stewardship. We need to do it. I would like to
now turn to my esteemed colleague from the State of Oklahoma, Senator
Inhofe, who is the ranking member on Environment and Public Works. He
has a tremendous background in energy, as does Senator Hutchison. I
would turn to Senator Inhofe for his comments.
Mr. INHOFE. I do appreciate that. Sometimes we stand on the floor and
we talk about jobs. But here is the evidence, Oklahoma has a big dog in
this fight. Not only do we have Cushing--when the Senator from North
Dakota talked about Cushing, that is Cushing, OK, right there on his
map. That is kind of a choke point in this pipeline. They all kind of
converge. There is no way of getting down to Texas without getting
through what we have in Oklahoma.
But more so, if you do not think this is a jobs bill, you have a very
famous Oklahoman working in your State. I would say Harold Hamm is
probably
[[Page S8387]]
the No. 1 producer out there today. I have talked to him. Do you know
what his biggest problem is in North Dakota? His biggest problem is he
cannot find anyone to work. They are full employed up there. What
better evidence is there that this solves the problem--that this is a
jobs bill--than the jobs in North Dakota?
I think there is something sadly lacking in this debate, though; that
is, that this is just an extension of what this administration has been
trying to do. They have been trying to kill fossil fuels from the very
beginning. Let me quote Alan Kruger, who is chair of the President's
Council of Economic Advisers. He says: ``The administration believes
that it is no longer sufficient to address our nation's energy needs by
finding more fossil fuels.'' He wants to kill fossil fuels.
Steven Chu, the Energy Secretary said: ``Somehow we are going to have
to figure out how to increase the price of oil to be equal to that in
Central Europe.'' That is $8 a gallon. He is trying to wean us off
fossil fuels. We cannot run this machine called America without it.
I only wanted to mention that, and I appreciate the Senator from
North Dakota talking about the Environment and Public Works Committee.
It has been an effort of this administration through the backdoor,
through regulation, to do away with fossil fuels. The boiler MACT--
MACT, by the way, means Maximum Achievable Controlled Technology.
By increasing the emission requirements on boilers and on utilities,
we are talking about around $83 billion a year of cost. Compare that to
the cap and trade. Cap and trade right now is--and we have gone through
this on the floor with all these bills trying to have cap and trade and
the greenhouse gases and all that. The cost of that is between $300 and
$400 billion a year. That is more than all the other regulations
combined.
It is all aimed at one thing. What is that one thing? To stop fossil
fuels. Of course, when we talk about my State of Oklahoma being kind of
the choke point, as the Senator has pointed out in his chart over
there, I say to my good friend from North Dakota, we have done an
analysis of jobs just in my State of Oklahoma. By the construction of
the Keystone XL, that would be 14,000 new jobs just in Oklahoma--just
in my State--and an increase of personal income by $847 million.
So this is a huge thing that we have in my State of Oklahoma. Cushing
just happens to be the crossroads. That is where they all come
together. They are clogged up now. As the Senator pointed out, they
cannot do anything. Their hands are tied because they are in total
capacity right now.
It should be a no-brainer. But the problem is there is one man, as
the Senator from Nebraska said, one man can make this a reality, the
President of the United States. He has made it very clear he does not
want to do anything to help fossil fuels in America. It is a political
problem we have.
Mr. HOEVEN. If I may, I would like to ask the esteemed Senator from
Oklahoma to talk for a minute on the subject of how we create that
environment that gets job creation going. I think this project is a
perfect example of what we are talking about. We have to create an
environment--a legal, tax and regulatory environment--that empowers
private investment, not government spending but private investment, to
get job creation going.
Here we have a regulatory issue, where we just--TransCanada has
worked for 3 years to meet the environmental process. Most recently,
the problem was in Nebraska, the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, the
Ogallala aquifer. But now we have come up with a solution to make sure
we deal with that issue. So we have cleared that process.
That means this project is ready to go as we have just described.
Leader McConnell just a minute ago talked about how the labor unions
strongly support this project. I can go through that whole list as
well. In addition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says: Let's go. We
support this project. So we have 40 Senators, bipartisan, labor unions,
Chamber of Commerce.
Here is an another interesting statistic. This example is such a good
example of what we are talking about. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma
to maybe expand on the point. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last
year released a study identifying 351 stalled energy projects
nationwide costing the American economy $1.1 trillion in lost income
impact, and nearly 2 million jobs annually.
My point is this: We have to find a way to empower private investment
to get job creation going. The esteemed Senator from Oklahoma is
ranking member on Environment and Public Works. He sees this every day.
But without more government spending, the secret to unlocking jobs in
this country is to empower the investment. I would ask if the Senator
from Oklahoma can address that for just a minute because I think this
project is such a perfect example of what we are talking about.
Mr. INHOFE. It is, and this is something that is understood. The term
a ``no-brainer'' has been used several times because we do not have to
think this through. One of the problems I have had--back when
Republicans were a majority, I chaired the Environment and Public Works
Committee. That has jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection
Agency, which has been making every effort to overregulate, to the
extent--we know everybody knows of the spending crisis we have, the
deficit and the debt and all that. They do not understand the
overregulation actually costs us more than all these fiscal issues
combined.
I mentioned just a few of those. I can recall, before the Senator
from North Dakota was in this body, back during the Kyoto treaty--in
the Kyoto treaty, they were trying to get this through to have a type
of cap and trade, something that they said somehow greenhouse gases
were going to cause catastrophic global warming and all that. That went
down the tubes. Then they started introducing legislation to do the
same thing. Then we had--and I appreciate the honesty of Lisa Jackson,
who is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, when
she came out and said: No, if we were to have this strictly in the
United States, it is not going to reduce the emissions.
This is kind of a long way around. The point I am trying to make is,
it is very difficult for people to understand. Just the cap and trade
this administration is trying to do through regulations, because they
could not do it through legislation, is going to end up having the same
effect: kill fossil fuels. That is what they are trying to do.
But the point the Senator from North Dakota is making is that is kind
of complicated. That is hard to understand. This is not. This is
already out there. As I mentioned, just in my State of Oklahoma alone,
14,000 new jobs. Who would be against it? The only ones against it are
people who do not want to keep this machine running in America because
they know they cannot do it without fossil fuels.
Maybe someday that will be different. It is not different today. The
way to get it down, to bring it down, is through this pipeline. I am
very selfish. It is not just the country; I have 20 kids and grandkids
right there in Oklahoma who are depending on us doing what we
are supposed to be doing.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the esteemed Senator from Oklahoma. He is so
right. That is what it is all about. It is about putting people back to
work. It is about American ingenuity, private investment. It is about
getting this economy going.
We have to find ways to save dollars, to reduce the spending that has
gotten out of control. But a big part of getting out of the deficit and
the debt is getting people back to work and getting this economy
rolling. We are talking about a project that will create 20,000
construction jobs right upfront, 250,000 permanent jobs, $600 million
in State and local tax revenues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HOEVEN. This is a project that reduces our dependence on oil from
the Middle East. This is a project that provides better environmental
stewardship, as we have described. This is a project where we need to
move forward. This body needs to be about solutions. This is a
solution. We need to act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
[[Page S8388]]
____________________