[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.