[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 64 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2615-S2620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      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.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Toomey, 
        Mr. Johanns, Mr. Thune, Mr. Rubio, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. 
        Isakson):
  S. 2282. A bill to prohibit the provision of performance awards to 
employees of the Internal Revenue Service who owe back taxes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this is a speech--these are some 
remarks--that I really should not have to make, but late this 
afternoon, I rise to discuss more amazing actions from our Nation's tax 
collector. This is, unfortunately, an agency that is fast becoming the 
gang that cannot shoot straight--the folks who brought us the partisan 
suppression of free speech, who piled onto that with proposed rules to 
shut down political action by groups with which they disagree or do not 
favor, and the same team that shares confidential taxpayer information 
with their allies outside of government. Obviously, I am talking about 
the Internal Revenue Service.
  Here is a great deal: Break the law you are required to enforce and 
get a cash bonus and free time off.
  What on Earth is this all about?
  Well, last week, the Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax 
Administration issued a report, which I have here, on the Internal 
Revenue Service bonuses that were awarded to

[[Page S2620]]

personnel who have violated the tax laws or who have been subject to 
serious infractions of employee policy.
  This is a lot like hiring someone to work for you, and then they 
steel money from you or acted in ways that are very inappropriate. 
Would you give them a bonus? I do not think most businesspeople would 
do that. According to the inspector general, close to $3 million was 
awarded to staff with violations on their records, with about half of 
that amount going to people who had violated the Tax Code.
  Other personnel at the IRS received cash bonuses or other awards 
despite being cited for--listen to this--drug use, making violent 
threats, fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits and misusing 
government credit cards. Still they got bonuses--up to $3 million.
  In fact, the report indicates that close to 70 percent of IRS 
personnel receive some sort of performance award--70 percent of the 
IRS. That is rather remarkable when you think about the sorts of 
problems your average taxpayer has in getting help from that particular 
agency.
  This is flatly outrageous--if not appalling or atrocious--and cannot 
be tolerated. It also makes me wonder what you have to do to be 
disqualified from an award.
  More disturbing, these awards, even for people breaking the law, are 
perfectly acceptable under current IRS and government-wide guidelines. 
Let me repeat that. These awards, even for people breaking the law, are 
perfectly acceptable under current IRS and government-wide guidelines.
  Indeed, the IG report makes it clear that under the terms of the 
collective bargaining agreement with the main union for IRS employees, 
these awards are appropriate and cannot be taken away because of such 
violations.
  The distribution of these awards at a time when the IRS is under 
scrutiny for its actions concerning the political activity of 
conservative groups, when its performance of basic taxpayer service 
functions has drastically worsened, and when it is calling for 
additional funding, calls into question the agency's commitment to fair 
enforcement of our tax laws.
  The IG report recognized that these awards--while not technically 
prohibited--appear to be in conflict with the IRS's charge of 
``ensuring integrity of the system of tax administration.'' Well, no 
kidding. Thank goodness for the inspector general.
  That is what we call an understatement--maybe the understatement of 
the year.
  This is another fox in the henhouse story. Not only is the fox in the 
henhouse, but he is now being rewarded for eating the chickens.
  These performance awards are just plain wrong and should not go to 
anyone who breaks the law, particularly the laws which the agency 
enforces.
  These bonus awards weaken public confidence in the Nation's tax 
enforcement agency and are a sign that the agency has indeed run off 
the rails.
  The inspector general report recommended that the IRS create a new 
policy to take disciplinary actions into account when awarding bonuses.
  It seems to me we need to do more than set up a new policy or 
guideline. We need something more concrete and more immediate. That is 
why today I am joining with my friends--Senators Enzi, Cornyn, Rubio, 
Toomey, Thune, Johanns, Isakson, and Leader McConnell--to introduce the 
No Bonuses for Delinquent IRS Employees Act--a bill that really should 
be unnecessary. I thank my colleagues for joining me and, more 
especially, Senator Enzi, who has done a great deal of work on this and 
helped expose this from the first.
  Our bill is pretty simple. It will prohibit the IRS from providing 
any performance award to any IRS employee who owes an outstanding 
Federal tax debt for failing to pay their taxes.
  Nobody likes to be audited. Nobody likes to get that phone call from 
the IRS. Nobody likes to see the taxman at the door. And then if the 
taxman says: I am sorry, you owe X for a violation of Y, and you find 
out this individual got a performance bonus even though he or she fails 
to meet the tax obligations they face, that is rather incredible.
  Given what we know about recent IRS actions--and the growing 
discontent with the agency I hear from Kansans every day--continuing to 
award personnel bonuses to employees who have outstanding tax 
liabilities or have violated the tax laws is beyond comprehension and 
outrageous and should be stopped.
  This is not a partisan issue. It is just plain common sense. The IRS 
should not be in the business of awarding bonuses to its agents who are 
unable or unwilling to abide by the tax laws they are directed to 
uphold--simple as that.
  So I call upon all my colleagues to support the No Bonuses for 
Delinquent IRS Employees Act and will ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  In closing, I would like to point out this issue has been well-
documented in a 26-page report by the inspector general. I thank the 
inspector general for the work he has done. Right on the first page it 
says: ``The Awards Program Complied With Federal Regulations, but Some 
Employees With Tax and Conduct Issues Received Awards.'' Most IRS 
employees complied with Federal regulations, but some employees with 
tax and conduct issues still received awards. That is an oxymoron.
  Then, if you skip to the back, there are some recommendations. The 
recommendation is for corrective action. This is what it says:

       The IRS Human Capital Officer--Daniel Riordan is the IRS 
     Human Capital Officer--will conduct a feasibility study. But 
     they do not have to take action right away. They just want to 
     discuss the feasibility of a study--by June 30 of this year--
     just a couple months away--for the implementation of a policy 
     requiring management to consider a policy change.

  It does not say just to do it; it says just consider whether conduct 
issues resulting in disciplinary actions should be made part of the 
performance evaluation, especially the nonpayment of taxes owed to the 
Federal government, prior to awarding performance and discretionary 
awards.
  Daniel Riordan has received marching orders from the Inspector 
General to conduct a feasibility study by June 30, to determine whether 
the IRS should even consider whether disciplinary actions, including 
the nonpayment of taxes owed to the Federal Government, should be part 
of the evaluation as to whether an employee should be eligible for a 
performance award.
  We really do not need this legislation. We have introduced it to 
force action. The inspector general says: Let's have action. On 26 
pages, he says: Let's have action.
  So to Daniel Riordan, I have the following advice--before we get 60 
people on this and pass a bill, why don't you just go ahead and do it. 
Do not conduct a feasibility study. We have all the evidence right 
here. If you would just change the current policy, it would remove yet 
another problem, another unfortunate asterisk when we think of the IRS.
  I want to thank my colleagues for cosponsoring this legislation and 
again ask for its immediate consideration.

                          ____________________