[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 24 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S729-S734]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Keystone XL Pipeline Project
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise today for the purpose of engaging
in a colloquy with my distinguished colleagues on the matter of the
Keystone XL Pipeline for 30 minutes.
[[Page S730]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise today with my distinguished
colleagues, both Republican and Democratic, on a bipartisan basis to
urge approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Joining me today will be Senator Mary Landrieu from the great State
of Louisiana, a Democrat; Republican Senator John Cornyn from Texas;
Republican Senator John Boozman from Arkansas; Democratic Senator Joe
Manchin from West Virginia; Republican Senator John Barrasso from
Wyoming; Democratic Senator Mark Begich from Alaska; and Republican
Senator Lisa Murkowski, also from Alaska. I emphasize that to show the
bipartisan support for this critically important project.
I also will have a statement from Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who
has been leading this effort with me, in his case on the Democratic
side of the aisle. He wasn't able to be here, but I do have a statement
from Senator Baucus that I will read as well, and I appreciate very
much his statement of support.
You may have seen that the national gas price has now risen to an
average of $3.62 per gallon. So the average price for gasoline today in
the United States--and it continues to go up--is up to $3.62 a gallon.
That is the highest it has ever been in the month of February. So that
is a new record--not a record we want to make, either, but it is a
record, the highest price for a gallon of gasoline in the United States
that we have ever had in February.
If you take a look at that trend line, you will see it has been going
up dramatically, and that price is double--$3.62 a gallon average
across the country--that is double the price of gasoline compared to
when this administration first took office. So it is a doubling of the
price, and, of course, every consumer, every working American is paying
that price at the pump. It affects our small businesses across the
country, and it affects our families across the country every day.
There was a poll released yesterday that you may also have seen. The
poll was commissioned by API, which is American Petroleum Institute,
and was conducted February 5 through February 10 by Harris Interactive.
They polled just over 1,000 registered voters, and so the poll has a
margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. In that poll, 69 percent of
the respondents support construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline--69
percent--and 17 percent oppose it. So Americans overwhelmingly support
the project--69 percent to 17 percent--in the most recent poll. And, of
course, why wouldn't they.
This is a project which provides energy to our country when we very
much need it. It is a project which will provide jobs--tens of
thousands of jobs. We have 7.9 percent unemployment. We have 12 million
people out of work. Here is a project that won't cost the Federal
Government one single penny, but it creates tens of thousands of high-
quality private sector jobs.
It is about economic growth. This is a $7.9 billion project. The
project over its life will create hundreds of millions of dollars of
tax revenue for State and local governments, as well as the Federal
Government to help with our deficit and our debt without raising
taxes--more tax revenue without raising taxes.
It is also about our energy security, energy security for America.
Instead of bringing oil from the Middle East, this is about working
with our closest friend and ally Canada to meet our energy needs. This
pipeline will not only bring in Canadian oil, however. It also moves
oil from my State of North Dakota and from the State of Montana to our
refineries in places such as Texas and Louisiana and other places
around the country. So this is about making sure we don't have to
import oil from the Middle East, and I think that is something every
American wants. That truly is an issue of national security.
It has been 4\1/2\ years since TransCanada--the company that is
seeking to build the Keystone XL Pipeline--it has been 4\1/2\ years
since they first applied for a permit. Here is a chart that shows the
route the pipeline would take, and it shows that they had already built
another pipeline. This is actually a second pipeline they are seeking
to build. But after 4\1/2\ years, they still don't have approval of a
project that is similar to other projects that have been built.
As a matter of fact, we have built quite a few pipelines through the
country, and they go everywhere. For some reason this project has been
held up for 4\1/2\ years when almost 70 percent of Americans support
it. We need the energy, and we need the jobs. Why would that be?
There was a report in the news yesterday that actress Daryl Hannah
and about 40 activists handcuffed themselves to the fence of the White
House, and they were arrested for that. They were doing that in protest
of the Keystone Pipeline project. Maybe that is where we should be
today. Instead of our bipartisan group of Senators here in the Senate
arguing the merits of this project and advocating for what the American
people want, maybe we should be handcuffed to the White House fence
because that seems to work.
It has been 4\1/2\ years, and we still don't have a decision. We
still don't have approval from the administration on this project even
though gas prices have doubled on this President's watch, even though
the American people overwhelmingly support the project, even though we
need the energy and the jobs. We don't want to keep importing oil from
the Middle East, and that is why we are here. We are here on a
bipartisan basis to make our case and to get this project approved.
I want to begin by recognizing a distinguished colleague and somebody
who has been a real leader in the energy world and has a direct
interest on behalf of his constituents in the great State of Texas
concerning this project. We need to move oil to the refineries in
Texas; we need to move oil--not only Canadian oil but oil from North
Dakota, Montana--and we need to get it to refiners so we can get it to
our consumers, so instead of seeing the price continue to go up, we can
bring it down. I think that is what the American people want.
Perhaps the Senator from Texas can talk about the refining and jobs
aspect of this multimillion-dollar project.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican Whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to express my appreciation to the
Senator from North Dakota for his leadership on this issue. He has been
relentless in pursuit of this Presidential permit to authorize the
Keystone XL Pipeline because he recognizes, as I do, that it is
important in terms of jobs, energy security, and national security.
It has been said that because of the revolution in natural gas
production in America, and as a result of horizontal drilling and
fracking--combined with the energy we can get from the Keystone XL
Pipeline from Canada--that North America could potentially be energy
independent--North American energy independence--in the not-too-distant
future.
The Senator from Louisiana is scheduled to be here as well. This is a
bipartisan effort, as all successful efforts around here must be.
Before Senator Landrieu speaks, I want to talk about the Keystone XL
Pipeline, which would create an estimated 20,000 American jobs in
construction and manufacturing in my State, which still is the No. 1
energy-producing State in the Nation. As a result, job growth in Texas
is outpacing most of the rest of the country. I would add that North
Dakota is now the second largest energy producer in the country thanks
to the Bakken shale efforts. In Texas alone the Keystone would lead up
to $1.6 billion worth of direct investments and would boost our State's
economic output by an estimated $2 billion. This would not only create
thousands of long-lasting and well-paying jobs, it would allow Texas
refineries to refine up to 700,000 barrels of oil each day to produce
gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil, and the like.
As the distinguished Senator from North Dakota pointed out, this
would increase the supply at a time when gas prices have gone up,
because of restricted refinery capacity, in the worldwide price of oil.
It can do nothing but help America contain those high prices.
It strikes me that this is a no-brainer. While we find ourselves
engaged in armed conflicts in places such as the Middle East--where
Iran periodically threatens to block the Strait of Hormuz, through
which about 20 percent of the world's oil supply flows--
[[Page S731]]
why wouldn't we want to make ourselves less dependent on Middle Eastern
oil? Why wouldn't we want to make ourselves more independent on North
American energy? This is a no-brainer on almost every count I can think
of.
Let me express my gratitude to the distinguished Senator from North
Dakota for his relentless leadership. I know he is not going to give
up. He just keeps getting stronger.
In excess of 50 Senators have signed a bipartisan letter to the
President on this, and it is very important for our country as it
relates to jobs, energy independence, and national security.
I see the distinguished Senator from Louisiana here, and I know
others wish to speak on this important issue as well.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I want to thank the distinguished
Senator from Texas. Look at the economic growth and dynamism in his
State of Texas; look at the economic growth and dynamism in the State
of North Dakota. We are now the fastest growing State in the country.
Senator Cornyn is correct when he said Texas is the largest producer of
oil in the country. I think they produce about 1.1 million barrels of
oil a day. We are at 750,000 barrels and growing, so we are after you.
The important point is we are producing this product and we have to
have the infrastructure to get it to market.
Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas, and I wish to
now turn to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. Here is another
State that is doing amazing things in oil and gas. They have
refineries, and they have refineries that need product. To get that
product from North Dakota, Montana, and our ally Canada to Louisiana,
we need pipelines. We don't want to ship it in from the Middle East. We
want to send them our oil.
I am very pleased Senator Landrieu is here, and I would ask for her
comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am very proud to join in this
colloquy with over eight Members of the Senate this afternoon. We are
here to talk about this important issue and share ideas with our
colleagues and with those who are listening to this debate. This
pipeline is important so we can get a reliable, steady stream of oil
and gas as we move to cleaner fuels in the future for our country.
I say to my good friend, the Senator from North Dakota, how important
it is for drilling, particularly for natural gas, using the
breathtakingly new technology that is allowing us to find both wet and
dry gas, which is very valuable to our country. This is happening in
many places in the country. It will help to fuel a renaissance in
manufacturing.
This is not just going to help traditional oil- and gas-producing
States such as Louisiana and Texas, this breakthrough in technology
enables us to retrieve gas not only in an economically efficient way
but in an environmentally sensitive way. It is going to be very
important and impactful to many States in the Union.
We are already seeing companies coming back to the United States.
They are relocating from Chile, places in Europe, places in Asia, and
coming back to the United States primarily because of this resurgence
of gas.
But here we are talking about a pipeline that is primarily for oil
that comes out of sand. This is not the traditional deep wells where
there are large deposits of oil that are drilled. This is a technology
that is allowing the separation of these sands to get the carbon or oil
out of them.
Now, yes, we want to move as quickly as we can away from carbon--or
to lessen carbon because of its damaging impacts--but there is a
transition period we have to go through. There is no waving of a magic
wand; there is no snapping of a finger; there is no jumping from this
generation of energy production to the next overnight.
Even President Clinton--even Al Gore when he was Vice President--
talked about the transition we have to go through. I see this pipeline
as a transition. It is giving us oil from one of our closest, most
dependable, and friendliest of all allies, Canada, as opposed to
pushing over the next 5 or 10 years to continuing to do business with
countries that do not share our values, such as the leadership in
Venezuela today or the problems with countries in the Middle East. Even
the Saudis, whom we respect in some ways, do not have the same value
system as the United States. We would much rather--at least my
constituents would much rather--deal with Canada and Mexico. Not only
are they better allies, but for Louisiana, we like working in Canada.
It is a little closer to home. We like working in Mexico.
Many of the workers on these rigs and in this business come from
Louisiana and Texas. Let me be crystal clear: My colleagues who are
helping on this issue are absolutely right, the people of Louisiana
wish to work in Canada where there are environmental protections, where
the wages are good, where there are not a lot of pirates floating
around, and where workers are much less likely to be kidnapped. I mean,
these are serious issues for the oil and gas industry. That is one of
the reasons I have been urging President Obama, along with many of my
colleagues, to rethink his position on this pipeline.
I guess this has been said by my colleagues--I see the Senator from
West Virginia is here, and I am sure he has said this on the floor
before--Canada is going to produce this oil one way or another. The
question is: Who are they going to send it to? Are they going to send
it to their good friend the United States and our refineries in Texas
and Louisiana or are they going to ship it somewhere else in the world?
I would like--and the Senator from North Dakota knows this--to form a
stronger partnership with Canada and Mexico so we can have security in
North America. This will help the Canadian economy and it will help the
Mexican economy, which immediately and directly affects our whole
Nation. These are our border countries. We are doing a lot of work. I
don't know if the Senator knows this, but down in Mexico, in the Gulf
of Mexico--I literally--and this is a little bit afield--was recently
in Israel and had the great opportunity to go offshore to visit a
field, the Leviathan field, which is one of the largest fields in the
world. It was discovered in a remarkably new place, which gives Israel
a great opportunity to think about being energy independent or energy
self-sufficient, which is quite exciting.
When I went offshore in Israel, I met my own workers from Morgan
City, Thibodeaux, and Lafourche. They said: Why are you here? I said:
The same reason you are. The Louisiana workers go everywhere. We are
proud to do it. We would love to be close to home in Canada, Mexico,
and our refineries, which are expanding for the first time in many
years. Our manufacturing base is expanding.
Finally, I would say in this colloquy, I ask the Senator from North
Dakota: Has he had a conversation with the oil minister from Canada--I
think it is Minister Oliver--and talked to him at all recently? I had a
conversation with him yesterday, and I wanted to maybe share that with
the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. To the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, I recently
visited with the ambassador, Ambassador Gary Doer. We talked about this
and other issues.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Through the Chair, I wanted to say I had a very good
conversation with the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources. We had a
long conversation, about 10 or 15 minutes, and he explained to me the
importance of this development for Canada. He also said to me what I
just shared with my colleagues. He said: Senator, Canada is going to
develop this resource. It is just a question of whom we send it to or
with whom we share these benefits.
So for those who are opposed to the pipeline because they don't like
the direction it is going or they think there is something America can
do to prevent this resource from being developed, that is simply not
true.
I see the Senator from West Virginia. I wanted to get that in the
Record. I thank the Senator for his leadership and for allowing me to
join this colloquy because the people of Louisiana strongly support the
development of this pipeline. We are proud of the oil and gas industry,
but we also recognize we need to make a transition to cleaner fuels and
we want to do our part and are happy about the natural gas that is
being discovered in this Nation.
[[Page S732]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from
Louisiana for her leadership in energy, onshore and off, in a big way.
She is absolutely right.
This is our opportunity to have North American energy security and
North American energy independence, working with our closest friend and
ally Canada. This is how we do it--Mexico as well. The Senator from
Louisiana is also absolutely right: Canada will produce this oil. That
is a fact. That is going to happen. The question is, Is it going to
come to the United States or is it going to go offshore to China? We
see these green lines; they show the pipelines that would take that oil
to China rather than the United States. Net effect: We continue then to
import oil from the Middle East, and Canadian oil goes to China. It
makes no sense--not to mention better environmental stewardship that we
would enjoy working with Canada, which we will touch on as well.
I wish to at this point ask the distinguished Senator from Arkansas,
Mr. Boozman, to join the colloquy, and I would also invite Senator
Manchin as well. I see Senator Begich is here also. So I invite Senator
Boozman to make his comments but then also offer the opportunity for
our other distinguished Senators to join in the colloquy.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota
for his leadership and for, again, spearheading this effort. I thank
all the Senators who are here and are, in a very bipartisan way, trying
to move this project forward.
We speak a lot about jobs in regard to this project, but that simply
cannot be overemphasized. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, most of the
largest labor unions--major labor unions--all agree that if this
pipeline were to go forward, which it has to do, it would create
250,000 jobs; 20,000 of those tomorrow, almost immediately. Again, it
is so important.
It is important to my home State because many businesses, many hard-
working Americans living there would benefit tremendously. We have a
large Nucor plant. That Nucor plant in Blytheville, AK, in Mississippi
County, would supply a lot of the iron that would be used. We have
another facility, Welspun Tubular Company, they make oil pipe. They
have 500 miles of this pipe sitting in storage that they have produced
to go forward, which should be a great thing. The problem is instead of
increasing employment for the future, right now they have had to lay
off workers because of the indecision.
So there are all kinds of reasons we need to do this. Others have
talked about national security reasons, but the labor--the good-paying
jobs that would be created, again, not being dependent on places such
as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, that is a pretty good deal, and we need
to move forward immediately.
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to recognize the Senator from the
great State of West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, if I may, I wish to thank all my
colleagues. This is something wonderful for the people who are watching
and the people watching who are here, to see a bipartisan colloquy;
that we all agree, basically, about energy being the crux of what we do
and how this country is made up and how we got to where we are today.
My little State of West Virginia now has a tremendous shale gas find
in the Marcellus Shale, with the Utica Shale in Ohio, the shale being
explored and produced all over our country. We truly have an
opportunity in our lifetime to become totally energy independent.
The only thing I am saying is, where I come from, the people are such
good people and they have a lot of common sense. They say: We would
rather buy from our friends than our enemies. How much would this
displace, as far as us buying from and depending on areas of the world
that haven't been friendly to the money we give them for the product of
oil they sell us; does the Senator from North Dakota have an idea about
that?
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to respond to the Senator from
West Virginia. Right now, between the oil we produce in the United
States, both together with Canada and Mexico, we generate about 70
percent of the oil we consume. This project alone would add 6 percent.
We are talking about over 800,000 barrels a day this project adds and
brings to market. So we go from about 70 percent just for this project
phase 1 to about 76 percent. But understand this pipeline project is
expandable to 1.4 million barrels a day, so we can see it would take us
up even higher.
So we are talking about a significant contribution to our oil supply,
again, from North Dakota, Montana, and Canada, versus, as the Senator
says, countries such as Venezuela or from the Middle East.
Mr. MANCHIN. My other question would be this. Since we have Senators
from two of our great producing areas, knowing the challenges we had in
Louisiana and the gulf coast with the BP oilspill, as well as a lot of
concern about the environment and that is why it has been held up, I
understand our friend, Gov. Dave Heineman from Nebraska, now has
approved this. That, as I understand it, was the last concern he had.
I have always said this, and I will ask the question of the Senator
from Alaska--they have one of the harshest climates and are one of the
largest oil producers for our country and they have been able to do it
in a safe atmosphere--will the Senator from Alaska comment on his
concerns, if he has them, about doing this in a safe environment.
Mr. BEGICH. Absolutely. I thank my friend from West Virginia. We
built the largest single capital project back in the 1970s when we
brought oil off the North Slope, almost 800 miles through the harshest,
most unpredictable climates one would ever see. I can tell my
colleagues, if we went back to the stories and articles, the sky would
fall, the environment would be destroyed, and the world would come to
an end by us building that pipeline. We are multiple decades past. It
has worked very well. There haven't been those disasters people claimed
would happen.
On top of that, my friend from Louisiana mentioned the environmental
impact and it makes sense that the pipeline is the safest way to move
oil.
On top of that, we have a choice--the Senator from North Dakota made
it very clear--and that is to get it refined in China or the United
States. I don't know about anybody here, but I would bet we all agree
that between the environmental standards, we have a better
environmental record than China in the refining of oil products, so it
makes sense for us to do it.
On top of that, people are traveling to Alaska not just for the jobs
and the opportunity but the beauty of Alaska, and we have more visitors
who want to see the pipeline, to visit the pipeline. When I went down
the Gulkana on a rafting trip, it is unbelievable beauty. But one of
the last things people do when they come down and land the raft and
begin to pack to go back home, there is the pipeline going right across
the Gulkana. Guess what. It hasn't damaged the environment. As a matter
of fact, there are plenty of photos of people trying to get their raft
underneath the pipeline; trying to get the pipeline and the rapids at
the same time. So the Senator's point is a very good one.
The Governor of Nebraska has approved it going through their State,
but there is nothing similar to Alaska when it comes to the harsh
environment we had to build in. We did it, and we did it when
technology was much different. Today, the standards are even greater.
Again, I wish to echo the Senator's point.
If I could make one other point. This is unique, the Chamber and
labor working together for the common good of this country and the jobs
and the groups--we think of the Teamsters and Operating Engineers, the
pipeline contractors, the plumbers and pipefitters, they are all part
of this agreement to build this pipeline and train workers; as my
colleagues know, there is a huge gap in our trades. So we get to
utilize a training opportunity, employ thousands of people not only for
today but for the future.
So from Alaska's perspective, we like it. We know pipelines. We know
we have to build big ones, as we did, and the fact is, as the Senator
from North Dakota said, they are going to move this oil one way or
another. We have a choice. Do we do it in our country, get
[[Page S733]]
the jobs that are attached to it, the opportunity to refine it in
States with great quality refineries or do we let China do it? This is
a no-brainer for my State.
Mr. MANCHIN. One very quick question, if I may, to the Senator from
North Dakota.
There might be a fallacy of thinking that only oil that is going to
move is what we would buy from Canada. How much oil would be moved from
the United States that we produce in the United States but that is
captive right now, that is not being refined, maybe down in Louisiana
and Texas? Would this help U.S. production?
Mr. HOEVEN. I appreciate the question from the Senator from West
Virginia. For starters, it would put 100,000 barrels a day--this is for
starters--into the pipeline. So day one is 100,000 barrels.
Mr. MANCHIN. Just for North Dakota?
Mr. HOEVEN. North Dakota and Montana. It is very important to
understand that is just when we start. The pipeline is expandable.
Today, North Dakota is the second largest producer of oil in the
Nation, second only to Texas. We produce 750,000 barrels a day--and it
is growing--and more of our oil is leaving the State by truck and rail
than by pipeline. We need these pipelines. This project alone will take
500 trucks a day off our roads, trucks which are beating up our roads
and creating safety issues in our State. This is vital infrastructure
we need to get this product to refineries in Louisiana, in Texas, in
Illinois, and other points around the country.
At this point, I wish to thank the Senator from Louisiana, again, for
her participation in this colloquy. I wish to turn to the esteemed
Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, another major energy-producing
State, and ask him for his thoughts in regard to the regulatory
obstacles to energy development. If we are going to be energy secure,
energy independent in this Nation, we have to find a way to empower
project investment and empower the kind of development we are talking
about--not only infrastructure but the new technologies that will help
us produce more energy in our country with better environmental
stewardship. That is what we seek to do and I know that is exactly what
Senator Barrasso is working on in his State. I would like him to
address that aspect.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, if I may join in this discussion--and
it is wonderful to see the bipartisan nature of this discussion, to
turn and look around the floor of this Chamber and see three Democratic
Senators talking to this issue and three Republican Senators talking to
the same issue and agreeing, because all of us are like-minded in the
fact that when we think of energy--and the Keystone XL Pipeline is a
big part of that--we think of energy security for our Nation, which is
part of this, economic growth, and environmental stewardship. We just
heard from one Alaskan Senator and the other Alaskan Senator will speak
shortly.
We hear what a wonderful job people continue to do in one of the most
pristine areas of the country, the State of Alaska. I will tell my
colleagues, as a Senator from Wyoming, an energy capital of this
Nation, that energy is a big part of our economy but so is tourism. If
we did things that did not focus on environmental stewardship for our
own State, it would impact our tourism. Energy is a big part of the
economy, so we want to have economic growth, energy security, as well
as environmental stewardship.
But I will tell my colleagues it has been a difficult task based on
some of the regulatory obstacles to energy development. The President
likes to talk about how he supports all-of-the-above American energy
development. But, in fact, we heard him the other night during the
State of the Union Address. His actions over the past 4 years tell a
completely different story. Instead of making it easier for our own
country to produce energy, I believe he has made it harder.
If we look at the folks who are leaving his administration: The EPA's
Director, Lisa Jackson, she said the EPA's role is, interestingly, ``to
level the playing field against fossil fuels.'' Secretary Chu, who is
leaving the administration, said he would ``boost the price of gasoline
to the levels in Europe.'' Secretary Salazar, who is leaving, continues
to talk about the fact that the energy strategy, he says, showed good
results, but they have restricted access to Federal offshore and
onshore oil and gas resources through moratoriums, through blocking
permits, through leasing plans. They have denied Americans billions in
public revenue and thousands of jobs.
I stand here saying that the Keystone XL Pipeline is a perfect
example of the Obama administration's pattern of delaying good projects
by requiring excessive redtape.
So I come here with the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator
from Alaska--and I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his
leadership, for his determination, for his courage, and for his
fortitude--in fighting to make sure we as a country continue to strive
for American energy security. That is exactly what we are going to have
with this proposal.
I call on the administration today--the President, as well as the new
Secretary of State--to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, to allow that
energy--which is either coming here to the United States or going to
China or elsewhere--to approve it to come to the United States, to help
our production, to help our consumers, to help our jobs in this
country. Those are the things that are important as we try to focus on
energy security for our Nation, economic growth for our Nation, as well
as environmental stewardship.
So I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership.
I see now the ranking member of the Energy Committee is here with us
as well, who has done a masterful job with a visioned ``Energy 20/20.''
For people who have not seen it, I would say they are missing
something--if they have not really read through it--from the Senator
from Alaska because she has focused like a laser on these three E's of
energy security, economic growth, and environmental stewardship.
So I thank both the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from
Alaska, the ranking member of the Energy Committee, for their
leadership.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator. I appreciate the Senator from
Wyoming being here and for his leadership on energy. Again, I want to
recognize that he comes from an energy-producing State, a State that is
producing energy for this Nation and creating hundreds of thousands of
good jobs in doing so. I thank him for his leadership on the Energy
Committee as well.
I want to turn to and recognize the Senator from Alaska, who is the
ranking member on our Energy Committee. As the Senator from Wyoming
said, she has recently put out a blueprint for energy development,
energy independence, energy security for our Nation. It is
comprehensive. It includes all types of energy and, again, developing--
developing--them the right way, with good environmental stewardship and
the latest technologies but truly accomplishing something the people of
this country very much want; that is, energy security.
So at this point I would turn to the Senator from Alaska and ask for
some of her comments on this Keystone Pipeline project in terms of the
economic benefits and the need for our Nation to truly have energy
security.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague from North Dakota. I thank him
for his leadership on how we can get the Keystone Pipeline moving, how
we can ensure that a resource from our friend and ally Canada can be
utilized, can help us here in this country to truly gain that level of
energy security we have been talking about.
There have been several good comments about the report I released
last week, my ``Energy 20/20.'' I just happen to have a copy of it here
on the floor. But out of 115 pages, I can distill it in one simple
bumper sticker; that is, energy is good, energy is necessary.
If you look at the cover of the report here, it is essentially a map
of the world from way up high. When you are looking down and you see
the lights at night, you can tell the prosperous places within the
world. It is where the lights are on. It is where our energy is. So
when we talk about energy, I think it is important to really put it in
the context of how important, how significant it is to our daily lives.
Over a week ago now we were all reminded of the importance of energy
when there were 34 minutes of dead
[[Page S734]]
time during the Super Bowl. A lot of folks were paying attention to,
well, where do we get our energy sources from? It starts a good
conversation, a necessary conversation.
In my document I focus on five different areas where we need to talk
about energy policy. I am looking for an energy policy that is
abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. When we talk about
the fifth one, the security, this is where the Keystone XL project
really comes in to play. When we are talking about security, that does
not necessarily mean that everything we want as a nation is going to be
produced right here within our own borders. What it means is how we
reduce vulnerabilities from others, how we can eliminate our reliance
on OPEC.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a reality. This is doable. This is
possible by 2020. This is not pie in the sky. Let me give you some
numbers.
In 2011 Canada produced roughly 2.9 million barrels of crude oil per
day. Mexico produced 2.6 million. When you add this to the
approximately 6 million barrels the United States produces each day,
total North American production--which is 11.5 million barrels--it is
far greater than the Nation's net imports, which was 8.5 million
barrels back last year--more than double the imports from OPEC.
So if we can do more within our own borders here and ensure that we
are able to rely on our friends to the north, the Canadians, and our
friends to the south, the Mexicans, we can displace--we can fully
displace our reliance on OPEC imports by the year 2020.
But part of achieving this goal is being able to count on the
Keystone XL Pipeline. It is as simple as that. It is about security. It
is about ensuring that we have a supply that not only helps us achieve
that energy security, but it allows us to achieve economic security.
So far as the jobs that are created, really the ripple effect that
goes out--it is not just constructing one pipeline. It is the ripple
effect that comes from this boom of opportunity within our country.
So it is jobs and economic security. It is energy security from the
perspective of reducing our reliance on those countries we do not
necessarily like, removing ourselves from the need to import OPEC oil,
and having the ability to control our destiny from a perspective of
abundance rather than from scarcity.
We should look to our friends and neighbors. We should work with the
Canadians. The President should sign the Keystone XL Pipeline bill into
law. He should make it happen. We should not be waiting any longer for
all the reasons so many on this floor have discussed this afternoon.
So to my friend the Senator from North Dakota, I say thank you for
your leadership. Let's make this happen now.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Alaska again for being here
today talking about the importance of moving forward with the Keystone
XL Pipeline project and, again, for her leadership on energy issues.
She is our ranking member on Energy. I think no matter whom you talk
to, she is absolutely inclusive when she talks about energy
development, all aspects--the energy development, the environmental
stewardship, the jobs, developing all types of energy. She brings
tremendous knowledge and experience to energy issues. So I would urge
the administration to listen to one of the leading voices in energy in
our country, and that is Senator Murkowski, and ask them to approve
this project.
The senior Senator from Montana could not be here today but did ask
that I express his strong support for the Keystone XL project--Senator
Max Baucus from Montana. My friend from Montana has said over and over
the same thing all of us know; that is, Keystone is about jobs, and
every day we delay the Keystone Pipeline is another day we delay
creating American jobs.
So I want to thank not only Senator Baucus but all of the Senators
who have joined us here today: Senator Landrieu from Louisiana, Senator
Cornyn from Texas, Senator Boozman from Arkansas, Senator Manchin from
West Virginia, Senator Barrasso from Wyoming, Senator Begich from
Alaska, and, as you have just heard, Senator Murkowski from Alaska.
We have made the environmental case. The environmental case is
stronger with the pipeline project than without it. Every single State
on the route is supporting the project. And I think, as Senator
Murkowski so well concluded for us, it is about energy; it is about
jobs; it is about tax revenue we need to close the deficit and address
the debt without raising taxes; and it is about energy independence and
energy security for this country so we do not continue to import oil
from the Middle East or from places such as Venezuela but, rather, we
get it from our closest friend and ally Canada, as well as from States
such as my own State and from Montana, and we refine it in our
refineries and provide it to our hard-working citizens across the
country. So instead of having record highs in the price of gasoline--we
have the highest price ever at this point in February: $3.62 a gallon--
we start moving energy costs down for our consumers, to create a more
robust economy, and to ease the pain at the pump for our hard-working
Americans.
I just want to close with that there will be another rally of
demonstrators around the White House this weekend. I think it is
scheduled for Sunday. Now, I do not know if they are going to handcuff
themselves to the fence like actress Daryl Hannah did the other day or
what they are going to do. But the simple point is this: I just gave
the information from a poll that was conducted from February 5 through
February 10. One thousand voters were contacted in that poll that was
commissioned by API and conducted by Harris Interactive. One thousand
voters were contacted, and 69 percent support construction of the
Keystone XL Pipeline and 17 percent oppose.
So here is a project which on the facts is something that needs to
happen. We need approval of this project on the facts, as we have gone
through and cited in great detail. But this is a project which the
American people support 69 percent to 17 percent. My question for the
administration is, Is this decision going to be made on the facts and
what the American people want or is this going to be made on the basis
of special interest groups that may demonstrate from time to time
around the White House? I believe the decision needs to be made for the
American people to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Wyoming.