[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 64 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2615-S2619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. McConnell, Ms.
Murkowski, Mr. Portman, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin,
Mr. Crapo, Mr. Thune, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Alexander,
Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Flake, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Enzi,
Mr. Toomey, Mr. Lee, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Scott, Mr. Coats, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Rubio, Mrs.
Fischer, Mr. Coburn, Mr. McCain, Mr. Corker, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Risch, Mr. Boozman, Mr.
Burr, Mr. Graham, Mr. Heller, Mr. Paul, Mr. Moran, Mr. Cruz,
Mr. Shelby, Ms. Ayotte, Ms. Collins, Mr. Begich, Mr. Pryor, Ms.
Heitkamp, Mr. Warner, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Walsh,
Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Tester, and Mrs. Hagan):
S. 2280. A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; read the first
time.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I filed an updated bill to approve
the Keystone XL Pipeline project. That bill is at the desk. What this
legislation does is it approves the project congressionally, which is
authorized under the Constitution of the United States. Section 8 of
article 1 of our Constitution expressly gives Congress the authority to
regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is the determination we
are looking for here from the President on this pipeline project. The
decision is simply: Is the project in the national interest or is it
not?
The President and his administration have been considering this
project, and
[[Page S2616]]
this decision--is it in the national interest or not--for more than 5
years. We are now in the sixth year. It was our expectation the process
would be completed on or about the first week in May. The final
environmental impact statement came out at the end of January and, as
the prior environmental impact statements had determined, this
environmental impact statement said there is no significant
environmental impact caused by the project. This is a study done over
years by this administration's Department of State. For the fourth time
the report came out with no significant environmental impact created by
this project. So as I say, it was the expectation of this Senate and
really of Americans across the country that sometime in May the
President would make a decision because all along he said he was
following the process, and once the process was completed he would make
a decision. A little over a week ago, on the afternoon of Good Friday--
a time that I believe was selected in order to minimize the news
coverage--the President or the administration made the announcement
they would now delay this project indefinitely--indefinitely. Not a
statement of: We are just going to follow the process, which is what
had been said before. Even though the President, in a meeting with me
and our conference, came out and said we would have a decision before
the end of 2013. That is what he told us. That didn't happen because
then he changed it to: We are going to follow the process. Now it is
not even going to follow the process. He is just going to delay a
decision indefinitely.
The rationale for that is that there is litigation in Nebraska as to
whether the public service commission in the State of Nebraska has the
right to determine the route of the pipeline through Nebraska or
whether in fact the legislature does.
Some time ago, right at the beginning of 2012, we had passed
legislation in this body, which I sponsored, that required the
President to make a decision on the project within 90 days. We passed
that bill and, in fact, he then made a decision to decline the project
based on the route in Nebraska. So Nebraska went through the work of
rerouting the pipeline in the State, and that new route was approved by
the legislature and it was approved by the Governor. But opponents of
the project decided to sue on the basis that, no, the PSC should make a
decision as to the route in Nebraska.
So be it. That can be adjudicated in Nebraska, as can any other issue
that somebody may choose to file a lawsuit over. But that really has
nothing to do with the decision the President needs to make. The
decision the President needs to make is a very simple decision: Is this
pipeline project in the interest of the United States or is it not?
This is after his State Department has said there is no significant
environmental impact created by the project not once, not twice, but
four times. So it is a simple decision.
It is a decision of whether we should have more energy that we
produce in our country and that is produced in Canada, our closest
friend and ally, or whether we should keep getting energy from the
Middle East. It is a decision about whether we should have more jobs.
The State Department says 42,000 jobs are created in constructing the
pipeline. It is a decision about economic activity. This creates
economic activity, with hundreds of millions in tax revenue to help
reduce the deficit and debt without spending one penny of Federal
money.
That is the decision before the President. But he refuses to make it.
So it is long past time--long past time, as we are now in year 6--for
this body to step forward and make the decision. As I said just a
minute ago, we have the authority to make the decision. Section 8 of
article 1 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the
authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. So we need to make
the decision. The time is long past when we can continue to wait.
How can we continue to wait when the President says it will be an
indefinite time period before he will even consider making a decision?
So the bill we have put forward is a very simple, straightforward
bill. As a matter of fact, I am going to take a couple minutes and read
it because it is three pages. It is an updated bill to a bill I
provided on a bipartisan basis earlier. We had 27 cosponsors of the
earlier legislation. We now have 56 Republicans and Democrats on this
bill, and we are working very hard to get 60 so there is no procedural
way to stop this legislation, but I will take just a minute and read it
because it is self-explanatory, it is simple, it is straightforward,
and it is common sense.
A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. KEYSTONE XL APPROVAL.
IN GENERAL. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. may
construct, connect, operate, and maintain the pipeline and
cross-border facilities described in the application filed on
May 4, 2012, by TransCanada Corporation to the Department of
State (including any subsequent revision to the pipeline
route within the State of Nebraska required or authorized by
the State of Nebraska).
So we have expressly put language in there to address the litigation.
The litigation the President is concerned about we expressly address in
the bill.
(b) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.--The Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement issued by Secretary of State
in January 2014, regarding the pipeline referred to in
subsection (a), and the environmental analysis, consultation,
and review described in that document (including appendices)
shall be considered to fully satisfy--
(1) all requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 . . .
and
(2) any other provision of law that requires Federal agency
consultation or review (including the consultation or review
required under section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 . . . with respect to the pipeline and facilities
referred to in subsection (a).
(c) PERMITS.--Any Federal permit or authorization issued
before the date of enactment of this Act for the pipeline and
cross-border facilities referred to in subsection (a) shall
remain in effect.
(d) FEDERAL JUDICIAL REVIEW.--Any legal challenge to a
Federal agency action regarding the pipeline and cross-border
facilities described in subsection (a), and the related
facilities in the United States, that are approved by this
Act, and any permit, right-of-way, or other action taken to
construct or complete the project pursuant to Federal law,
shall only be subject to judicial review on direct appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
(e) PRIVATE PROPERTY SAVINGS CLAUSE.--Nothing in this Act
alters any Federal, State, or local process or condition in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is necessary
to secure access from an owner of private property to
construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities described
in subsection (a).
That is it. It is that simple. It is that simple.
So our President has been deliberating on this now for 6 years, and
that is the decision. Are we going to produce energy in this country,
are we going to work with Canada to get our energy, are we going to
create jobs, are we going to generate economic activity or are we going
to continue to rely on oil from the Middle East?
It is not as though there is no precedent to do it. Look at this
chart. The red line is the Keystone Pipeline. I don't know how many
people realize it, but we have already built the Keystone Pipeline--not
the Keystone XL Pipeline for which we are seeking approval but the
Keystone Pipeline. The project under consideration is a sister project
to one that has already been built. It brings oil from Canada into the
United States. That is the Keystone project. It has been permitted and
built. It is in operation now.
The Keystone XL Pipeline, the sister project, brings oil from Canada
into the United States; then North Dakota and Montana put light sweet
Bakken and crude oil in it as well, and that oil goes to our
refineries. Does it seem like a complicated decision, a difficult
decision? Does it seem like something that requires 6 years of study?
The point is this body can approve it. That is what this is all
about. We have 56 Senators--56 Senators, Republicans and Democrats--
saying: Give us a vote. Give us a vote. Let this Senate do its job.
Let's approve this project. It is a very straightforward decision.
Is this decision going to be made for special interest groups? Is
this decision going to be blocked? Are we not going to get a vote
because special interest groups are opposed to something the American
people want? In the most recent poll, 70 percent of Americans want it
built. What does it take?
One of the arguments I heard is: It is a pipeline. It has to be
studied for 6
[[Page S2617]]
years because it is so complicated and difficult.
There are the pipelines we have in this country. We have millions of
miles of pipeline, but it is so difficult to figure out whether we
should build one more that produces energy and jobs for our country? A
lot of these pipelines are old and we have millions of miles of
pipelines all over this country. We can't decide whether we should
build one more that is state-of-the-art?
What are we saying to our friends and neighbors in Canada? They very
much want this project. They feel they have dealt with our country in
good faith. What are we saying to Canada?
Some might say, if the pipeline isn't built, then that energy will
not be produced from the oil sands area in Canada.
Really? Is that right? Then what is this pipeline moving? Oil from
the oil sands in Canada. What is moving on our railroads all over this
country?
If we don't build this pipeline, that oil is either going to China--
and then we end up continuing to get our oil from the Middle East--or
it is going to move by rail. If it moves by rail, that is 1,400 tanker
cars a day on our railroads, 14-unit trains of 100 cars a day on our
railroads. Does that seem like a better way to move it than a state-of-
the-art pipeline? That is the decision.
I could put the decision in front of anybody in this country and I
don't think it would take them 6 years to decide and I don't think it
should take our President not only 6 years to decide, but now he said
indefinitely--an indefinite delay.
It is time to vote on this important issue. I wish to thank the
Senators who have stepped up and supported this legislation--certainly
Senator Landrieu, who will be down here to talk about it in a minute,
and Senator Heitkamp, my fellow Senator in North Dakota, and many
others on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats.
It is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of whether we are going to
make this decision for the people of this country and build an energy
future for this country--energy security for this country--where we
produce more energy in North America between the United States and
Canada than we consume so we don't have to rely on energy from the
Middle East or from Venezuela or other countries that may not share our
beliefs, our views, and our interests. That is the decision or is this
going to be a decision for special interest groups?
If the President refuses to make that decision, we in this body have
a responsibility to do it, and we put forward a bill to approve it.
Again, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this bill, and I
ask others to join us. Let's make this decision, and let's make it for
the American people.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am going to speak very briefly this
afternoon about a very timely and important subject. My colleague and
partner, Senator Hoeven, came to the floor earlier--I was unable to
come at that time--to speak about a bill for which he has actually
provided extraordinary leadership.
I wish to thank the Presiding Officer, and Senator Hoeven for his
leadership as well, to try to help bring to the floor of the Senate a
vote to help construct the Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue a group of
us have been working on now for quite some time. I wish to thank the
Presiding Officer again. I wish to also thank the other Democratic
leaders who have been so supportive and helpful to us in this effort:
Senator Pryor from Arkansas, Senator McCaskill from Missouri, Senator
Tester from Montana, who agreed to cosponsor the bill, Senator Warner
from Virginia, Senator Hagan, Senator Begich, Senator Manchin, Senator
Donnelly, and Senator Walsh. I really want to thank them and other
colleagues who have decided they may not want to cosponsor the bill
that will be introduced later tonight, but they very well may vote for
it, and I appreciate it.
I know this has been a very contentious issue for many, because
people have very strong feelings about this particular pipeline called
the Keystone XL Pipeline. Some of us who support it have a little
trouble understanding why it is such a big deal, but I appreciate there
are strong feelings on the other side of this issue. For those of us
from States such as Louisiana and Texas and Oklahoma and North Dakota,
particularly, that are affected by this pipeline, it is clear that the
technology--and we should be proud of it--is extraordinary, it is
exploding and, in some ways, unprecedented and unexpected. The
technology is creating a real opportunity for America and for North
America. That opportunity is for us to produce more oil and gas. The
opportunity is to continue to maintain coal supplies that are clean and
appropriate for the environment--or advanced coal technologies, I
should say--and provide the kind of energy, including as well
alternative energies that are emerging, such as wind and solar, and
maintaining our nuclear and strategic advantage as part of our electric
grid. It provides a real opportunity for us to go from a major country
that was scrambling to plan where our energy was going to come from and
really concerned about it--paying very high prices sometimes at the
pump and through our electric grid--to now a country that gets to
actually say, My gosh, look at the resources we have right here in
America and the resources we potentially have with our partners and our
allies. One of the strongest allies we have in the world is Canada, and
an emerging ally--emerging in its relationship with us--is Mexico: The
North American continent. I think there is so much potential for
Canada, the United States, and Mexico--and others share my view--to
become completely not only energy independent but an energy powerhouse
for the world--a world in which the North American continent, at least,
wants to promote freedom, democracy, and human rights. Senator Cardin
was just on the floor talking about how important that issue is for our
Nation and world. He has given literally his life as an expert on human
rights around the world and is leading the Helsinki Commission. He was
just talking with us about the importance of this and what is happening
in Ukraine and in Russia and in Europe recently.
So the issue of freedom and private enterprise and opportunity and
education and energy self-sufficiency are goals we treasure and it is
possible for the rest of the world and our allies around the world.
But what signal does it send if America is not willing to do its part
when it comes to production right here in America and transporting oil
and natural gas and other emerging fuels--alternative fuels,
alternative sources of electricity--when we are not doing our very
best?
I know it is contentious, but I come to the floor to talk about this
issue. Senator Hoeven gave an excellent defense of why the Keystone
Pipeline is important. But I want to underscore that in terms of jobs
and the economy. I want to underscore the process. Because there are a
lot of Democrats and others in my caucus--friends and colleagues--who
have said: Well, has the process been complete? Has the process been
thorough?
I want to review for the record a couple of very interesting aspects.
Before I start, I want to point out, again, this, shown on this map I
have in the Chamber, is the Keystone XL Pipeline.
There is already a ``Keystone Pipeline'' that has been constructed
and has been operating for quite some time. This is an existing
pipeline that is operating from Canada down to the refineries in Texas
technically, but very close to the Louisiana border. We are very proud
of our industry in Texas and Louisiana--the refining capacity we have,
the ability to generate resources this country and the world need.
Hopefully, if we can open exports appropriately--which is happening, as
we speak. Permits are being issued. The jobs that are created here, the
opportunity for creating jobs in every one of our 50 States, including
Hawaii and Alaska, and in our territories and in our first nations, as
they are called, in our tribal territories, is almost without peer in
the last several decades.
But this XL Pipeline is an alternative route, and it has been debated
for quite some time. There have been these permits I am going to talk
about in a minute that have been reviewed and will put that into the
Record because there is some concern: Have we really reviewed what we
need to do? Have the environmental studies been met?
So into the Record I want to put: On April 16, 2010, the Department
of State
[[Page S2618]]
issued its Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It opened a 45-day
comment period, which extended for additional days.
Then, a year later, on April 15, 2011, the Department of State issued
a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and opened another
45-day comment period. At that time, there were 280,000 comments that
were received. Those comments were read, responded to, and absorbed
into the process.
On August 26 of that year--2011--the Department of State issued its
Final Environmental Impact Statement and opened an additional 90-day
review period. The agency continued to accept public comments.
Then, on March 1, 2013, the U.S. State Department issued its
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL
Presidential Permit application, which includes the proposed new route
through Nebraska because there were some questions earlier in the
process whether it should go through Nebraska.
Let me say, as strongly as I support the Keystone Pipeline, I also
support States--whether it is Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Nebraska, or
North Dakota--to make determinations according to their own laws and
their own constitutions about the takings of private property, which is
sometimes required for projects such as this. Those processes cannot be
shortchanged and they cannot be ignored.
One of the court cases right now in Nebraska is because--the courts
have ruled this--the Governor there overstepped his bounds and he,
according to the court in Nebraska, took actions that were contrary to
the law in Nebraska and the constitution.
So these laws I am not dismissive of--the rules and regulations.
Nebraska still has some issues that have to be resolved. But the rest
of the pipeline to the south here has already been constructed. This
part is being worked on. There are other parts of the pipeline that can
be started while Nebraska finishes its very legitimate decisions
between its courts, its public service commission, and its legislature
about the issues in Nebraska--which, let me say, the landowners have
valid concerns, and the courts have ruled so.
But, nevertheless, on January 31, 2014--this year--the State
Department issued its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
for the permit application, confirming that the project is safe and
will have limited environmental impacts. The report reflects that
TransCanada has agreed to incorporate 59 special safety conditions
recommended by the pipeline safety commission.
So to my colleagues who say: Have we given ample time to review, I
would say the answer is clearly yes. Is it time to build the pipeline?
Yes. And should we get about a vote on the Senate floor to express
strong support for a piece of America's infrastructure--North American
infrastructure that is critical to the future growth of our economy and
to the promise of opportunity, economic opportunity for our citizens? I
think the answer to that is yes.
This group of Democrats--of which the Presiding Officer, Senator
Warner from Virginia, is a part--has been working on this now for
several years.
One other point I would like to make: the comparison here of other
pretty well-known and very large public works projects or private
developments--some of them are public and some of them are private--
that have been constructed.
The Hoover Dam--very well known--took 5 years to complete, from 1931
to 1936. From planning, design, to completion--5 years.
The Pentagon took 2 years to complete, from 1941 to 1943.
The Space Shuttle Discovery took 4 years to complete, from 1979 to
1983.
The Ambassador Bridge between the United States and Canada--3 years
to complete. Design, build, and complete--from 1927 to 1929.
The Theodore Roosevelt--4 years to complete, from 1968 to 1972.
America and Canada: Together we have been building major projects for
many years--complicated, tough projects that require tremendous
cooperation between agencies, and dealing with environmental protection
rules and regulations, and meeting citizens' concerns.
This is not anything new. We have been doing this in America for a
long time. It is time to stop studying and stop waiting and start
building this Keystone XL Pipeline.
Now, again, the legislation we have introduced today--Senator Hoeven,
Senator Landrieu, and 10 other Democrats, and several other
Republicans--to build this pipeline would simply say it is time to stop
studying; start building. With all due respect, the process is
complete. We just acknowledged the process is done.
We also acknowledge there is still an outstanding issue in Nebraska.
Nothing in this bill will affect the court decisions, the timeframe in
Nebraska. But what it will send is a signal that this other section can
start to be built and constructed. And then, of course, Nebraska will
take--we do not know. It could be 6 months, it could be a year. We do
not know when that process will finally be resolved.
But we can start now. It is going to take several years for this to
be completed. If we wait another year, it is pushing this even further
back for no good reason.
Let me mention a third argument.
I think some people are under the mistaken impression that this is
maybe the first time we have built infrastructure with Canada. Nothing
could be farther from the truth. There are 100 cross-border permits
that have already been approved for oil and natural gas and electric
transmission facilities crossing the U.S.-Mexico or the U.S.-Canadian
border. Of these 100 are 21 oil pipelines crossing the border.
So this is such a basic, important point of building infrastructure
between Canada, America, and Mexico that some of us who support these
kinds of things fairly routinely are having difficulty understanding
why 5 years and five permits and five reviews is not satisfactory to
build something that has been basically built multiple times before.
Some people may say: Oh, but the difference is, this is connecting
the oil sands. The oil sands in Canada are a very important resource,
not just for Canada but for the United States. I am glad these oil
sands are here as opposed to in Venezuela or I am glad the oil sands
are here as opposed to in Cuba. I am glad the oil sands are here as
opposed to in the middle of Russia with everything else they have.
I am happy Canada has resources. I am happy. They are a friend and a
neighbor and close to us. I am also really impressed with Canada's
environmental standards, which are, by my calculations--not in depth,
but just a broad review, after speaking to so many industry and
government leaders there--very rigorous. I do not think there is anyone
in this Chamber who would counter that.
It is well known and understood that Canada has very high standards.
They understand, accept climate change. They believe carbon is
affecting the climate in a negative way. They believe they can reduce
the amount of carbon coming out. They are sensitive to that. But they
know what we know--that the world is going to need oil and gas for
decades to come. It is not going to stop in 5 years or 10 years. We
need oil and gas for decades. Why not use our own? Why not use the oil
and gas from Canada, America, and Mexico--creating jobs right here at
home, instead of importing it from places around the world that we do
not even get along with or places around the world that do not share
our values or places around the world that can use the price of oil or
gas to hurt our economy. Why don't we take charge of our own economy?
So when some people complain about the oil sands in Canada, I am,
frankly, glad they are there. I am glad we can tap into them with
extraordinary new, cleaner technologies to have oil and gas and energy
for this country that has a very bright future.
So with the reviews--five over 5 years--hundreds of thousands of
comments from business, industry, citizens, environmental groups that
have been taken into consideration, the Department of State has issued
its final review, and that final review said it is safer and more
environmentally in tune with our environmental rules and regulations to
transport this oil through a pipeline than through rail or highway.
For those of us who live in places that do a lot of production, we
always
[[Page S2619]]
say we are proud of the industry, and we are--the industry makes
mistakes, and when they mess up, they have to clean up--but I also have
to say, I am very conscious, as most Americans are, of the traffic on
our highways, of the backups on our rail system. I hear complaints from
businesses, manufacturers: We cannot get our products fast enough.
So here we have a chance to move a commodity under the ground, safely
through a pipe, but know if we do not build this pipeline, it is going
to move by rail or truck, which congests our highways, congests our
rail lines, and causes even more impact on our environment.
I think the record is clear. I think the arguments are in. I think
there is no question that this is right for the environment, right for
the country, and clearly in the interests of the United States. This
will benefit not just the gulf coast where the refineries are, but it
is going to create jobs throughout our entire country. Suppliers to
this project exist everywhere.
There is a terrific map that I have shown before where suppliers from
all over the country are providing either labor or support for the
construction of this pipeline and much other similar infrastructure in
the Nation.
We already have 2.9 million miles of pipeline in America. This piece
we are speaking about today is 1,000 miles. We already have 2.9 million
miles of pipe. Yes, some of it needs to be upgraded. Yes, not every
inch of it is safe. We are working on that. But this is probably going
to be the safest pipeline ever built in the history of America. It has
been reviewed so many times. I cannot wait to look at the details of
what has been required. I am positive that it is going to be the safest
pipeline ever built. It has taken 5 years to get it.
So that is what our bill does. I am going to end with again thanking
the Democrats who have joined with me to support the Keystone XL
Pipeline. I thank the caucus for at least the opportunity. Hopefully,
we will introduce this bill tonight. Hopefully, we can get a vote on
this bill. Let me say that the vote will be in connection with the
energy efficiency bill that will also be brought to the floor. The
reason, as chair of the energy committee, I think that is so important
is that while neither one represents a comprehensive energy plan for
the country, which I hope to develop with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle--I just stepped into this position in the last month--
these are two important energy-related pieces that need resolution.
The energy efficiency bill has now been worked on by Senator Shaheen
and Senator Portman--bipartisan--for 5 years, almost as long as the
Keystone Pipeline has been under consideration by the administration.
We have had an energy efficiency bill worked on by Republicans and
Democrats that will create thousands of private sector jobs.
It is supported by the Business Roundtable, the Real Estate
Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, labor leaders all over our
country, building owners, and retail establishments. The energy
efficiency bill is a terrific piece of legislation. Again, it came out
of our committee 18 to 3. There are very few things that have come out
of the energy committee that are that impactful. There are little bills
that come out that really do not mean much to anybody. They may come
out unanimously. It means a lot to the person who is sponsoring it, but
it does not have national impact. This has national and international
impact--all positive.
Senator Shaheen has been a champion of trying to bring this bill to
the floor. We have been rebuffed and rebuffed and rebuffed by the
Republican side for no reason because some of them are wanting to
debate health care and some of them want to debate Iran sanctions. I
said: Let's just talk about energy. It is important for the country to
focus at least a few hours of the Senate's attention on energy.
America is focused on it. They want it to be affordable. They want it
to be as clean as possible. They do not want to have to buy it from
countries they do not share values with and do not appreciate. They
want less imports to America, more domestic production of alternatives
and oil and gas. So let's get about that business.
So efficiency is basically doing a lot more--a lot more with a lot
less--saving taxpayers and saving huge sums of money. The example that
everyone is becoming more familiar with is the Empire State Building in
New York, an extraordinary private sector effort to take one of our
most iconic buildings that we all know and which many millions of
Americans have actually visited, and to take an old building that was
constructed in the 1930s, retooling it with private money--not public
grants, private money--and saving the building owners and the tenants
of that building millions and millions of dollars as an example of what
can be done in commercial buildings throughout this country.
That needs to be unleashed with the legislation of Jeanne Shaheen--
that power, that promise, to do more of that is going to be unleashed
by this bill that Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen have carefully
put together and Senator Wyden also when he was chair, with Senator
Murkowski's help, and they got it out of the committee.
I committed when I stepped into the leadership of the committee to
build on their good work and to do my very best to get that bill to the
floor. We have an energy bill with Keystone. I thought the two of them,
working together, Republicans and Democrats, we could get a good
compromise by working on both of them at the same time. We are capable
of doing it. They are clearly broadly supported. It will help create
jobs in America.
We will begin with two important steps--not the only ones. There is
more that can be done. People come to me and say: Senator, we should do
this, we should do that. Yes, we can work on coal. We can work on
propane. We had a hearing on propane today. We can work on additional
rail for the country. We can work on pipeline safety. We can work on
alternative fuels. We can work on strengthening our relationship with
Israel and China. We can work on new kinds of automobiles.
But that is for another day. We cannot do all of it at one time. But
what we can do is what is before us. We can do what is before us. We
can do what is clearly timely. The energy efficiency bill, for 5 years,
has been waiting for action by this Senate. The House has already
passed an energy efficiency bill.
The pipeline has been waiting 5 years and has been reviewed five
times. It is time to move forward on both and create the kinds of jobs
for America that we need--high-paying, middle-class jobs--and to begin
to help build America and North America as the energy powerhouse that
it can be, doing it together. We can recognize the transport of oil and
gas, and the production is important, but also alternative and focusing
on efficiency and conservation, and many of our Democrats are very
proud of the work in that area.
I am sorry to keep the Senate. I think I might be the last speaker of
the evening. But I thank the leadership for providing the time, and
again, I want to thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership.
______