[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 134 (Thursday, September 18, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5729-S5733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, tomorrow is the sixth anniversary of the
application for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Six years. Six
years ago, September 19, 2008, the TransCanada company applied for a
permit for approval to cross the Canadian border to build the Keystone
XL Pipeline from Hardisty, Canada, down to Cushing and ultimately the
gulf coast, to provide not only oil from Canada but to move oil from
States such as my State of North Dakota, of light, sweet Bakken crude,
oil from Montana, to our refineries here in the United States. Six
years ago, that application was filed, effective tomorrow. So we are
here today to talk about the need not only for a decision on the
Keystone XL Pipeline but for approval of this vitally important
project.
The reality is we can make this country energy secure, energy
independent, working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. But to
do it we not only need to develop all of our resources, our energy
resources in this country, and work with Canada as they develop their
energy resources, but we need the infrastructure to safely,
effectively, efficiently, dependably move that energy to where it is
needed, to our consumers.
That is what the Keystone XL Pipeline project is all about. This is
truly about building the roads, the rails, the pipelines, the
transmission, the energy infrastructure we need as a vital part of our
energy plan for this country. We have bipartisan support. We have 57
Senators who support this legislation--57. The reality is I think by
next year we will have 60.
So while we sit here and wait--now for 6 years, effective tomorrow 6
years, waiting for a decision from the President on the Keystone XL
Pipeline--ultimately I believe this decision will be made by the
American people, as it always is and as it always should be. Because I
believe that after these elections in November as we go into next year
we will not only have 57 Senators who support this project, we will
have over 60.
Then Congress will pass legislation, a bill that we have submitted, a
bipartisan bill we have pending before this body right now. We will
pass it. We will attach it to something the President will not veto.
The House has already passed this legislation. Because over 70 percent,
I think in the most recent poll, of the American people want this
project. They want this project approved.
So here after 6 years--we are going to talk about some of the history
of this and all of the work we have done. But before I do that, I want
to turn to my colleague from Wyoming, somebody who is incredibly
knowledgeable when it comes to energy, somebody who has worked on
energy in all different aspects, somebody who truly understands that,
look, for the benefit of the American people to build our energy future
we not only need to produce that energy, we need the infrastructure to
transport it safely, effectively, and well.
I wish to call on the Senator from Wyoming for his remarks on this
sixth anniversary of the application, waiting for approval, waiting for
a decision from the administration on the Keystone XL Pipeline, for his
thoughts and for his comments. I turn to the good Senator from Wyoming.
Can the Senator give us his thoughts as to why this project is still
awaiting a decision from the administration, after the President told
us, told our caucus last year, at a caucus we had here in an adjacent
room, that we would have a decision by the end of 2013, why we are here
still awaiting a decision on behalf of the American people?
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate and want to salute the
significant leadership we have seen on this issue from the Senator from
North Dakota. He has been a stalwart fighter, very focused on this
issue, and focused on putting together a bipartisan coalition of
supporters. Americans want the jobs, they want the energy, they want
action. We have an opportunity, but we have been waiting 6 long years.
The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right. It was at a
meeting in the Republican conference where the President of the United
States came in. I asked the specific question: When will we expect an
answer so we can get moving with the jobs and the energy that
the American people are asking for?
President Obama said: Well, by the end of the year. He said that
almost a year and a half ago. It was the end of the year 2013 that the
promise was going to be fulfilled. Now here we are halfway--beyond
halfway--through 2014. Nothing yet. Not a thing from the White House, a
White House held hostage by environmental extremists who are trying to
block important jobs and important energy and this important project.
We are here in the Senate today and the majority leader is ready to
close this place down until after the elections. He closed it down--if
you count the number of days from the beginning
[[Page S5730]]
of August, all through August, a few days in session in September, but
most of September not in session, and then all of October up through
the election, you are talking 3 months, with the Senate in session for
just 2 weeks. It is embarrassing. Where is the accountability? We are
sure not getting it from the majority leader. The majority leader ought
to bring this for a vote today. But he is not going to. He is going to
shut down the Senate today, making sure these jobs are not there, that
the energy is not there for the American people. The Keystone XL
Pipeline bipartisan support is an excellent example of a project that
could help us from the standpoint of energy security, from the
standpoint of economic growth, the standpoint of helping our economy
getting people back to work.
But yet the majority leader is not going to allow a vote today, 6
years in the waiting on this specific important project. I would say to
my friend and colleague from North Dakota, I know our friends and
colleagues from Oklahoma and Georgia are here on the floor. I want to
hear their comments as well. I salute the Senator from North Dakota for
his continued leadership, for his focus, and for continuing to work to
make America better, in terms of jobs, in terms of the economy, and in
terms of energy. I know the Senator will not stop until we finally get
this project approved, completed, and constructed.
Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank the Senator from Wyoming for his
diligence and for his work. This is a bipartisan issue. We have
legislation now with 57 supporters that is pending before this body. In
fact, we have passed this legislation. We actually had passed very
similar legislation, different only in the respect that it called on
the President to make a decision--this was back in 2012. I think we had
73 votes on this issue. The difference is, the pending bill we have
provides congressional approval because the President once again
delayed the decision when we passed legislation calling on him to make
the decision earlier. So now we have come back with binding
legislation, after doing congressional research. This bill makes the
decision congressionally under the commerce clause that gives Congress
the ability to oversee commerce with foreign nations.
Simply what this does is we say to our closest friend and ally,
Canada--TransCanada is a Canadian company--that: Yes, you can cross the
border with this pipeline, which is the latest, greatest technology we
have for pipeline transport.
Let me show one other chart here, so people understand. When we are
talking about pipelines, oil and gas pipelines in this country, this
gives you a little sense of the pipelines we have--thousands of
pipelines, millions of miles of pipelines that move oil and gas around
the country, from where it is produced to the consumers who very much
need it. So that gives you a sense of all of the pipelines we have.
Now we are talking about one that has the latest and greatest
technology that we are seeking to get approved. To put this into some
context, the project we are seeking to have approved is the Keystone XL
Pipeline. The reason XL is because the Keystone Pipeline is this
pipeline here, which goes from Hardisty up in Alberta down to the
Patoka, IL, area as well as Cushing. That is the Keystone Pipeline. So
I want to make sure there is no confusion. That is the Keystone
Pipeline. That was approved in 2 years and built in 2 years.
So in 2006 the TransCanada company--I was Governor of North Dakota at
that time. You can see it runs right through North Dakota. Obviously
these things are immensely important. We are now the second largest
oil-producing State in the Nation. We produce over 1 million barrels of
oil a day--light sweet crude, second only to Texas. We have to get that
to our markets and to refineries.
I started working on these projects when I was Governor. In 2006,
TransCanada applied for approval of the Keystone Pipeline. Originally
that was supposed to carry 640,000 barrels a day. I think it now
carries 750,000 barrels a day. That application was applied for in
2006. It was approved in 2008. The pipeline was built and came online 2
years later. So 2 years to permit, and 2 years to build--4 years total.
When TransCanada applied for a second permit in 2008 for a sister
pipeline, Keystone XL, it seemed pretty logical that it was going to be
approved, particularly when the initial project had been approved in 2
years, built in 2 years. This is the actual pipeline infrastructure we
have. When they wanted to build the sister pipeline, 830,000 barrels a
day, it seemed kind of pretty logical they would go through the process
and get it approved.
On September 19, 2008, they applied for that approval to move oil
from Hardisty, pick up additional oil in North Dakota, Montana, take it
down to Cushing and down to the refineries in the gulf, and get oil
over to the refineries in Louisiana. September, 19, 2008. Tomorrow is
September 19, 2014. Six years later, no decision.
I wish to turn to my colleague, the senior Senator from the great
State of Oklahoma. Cushing is a hub for oil from all over the country.
It is vital that we are able to move oil in and out of there, because
that is a huge transition point between where we produce oil, including
our region, but from all over the country and Canada and move it to
refineries where it is distributed throughout the country. So we need
to be able to move product in and out of Cushing, which is truly a hub
for the Nation. That is exactly what this pipeline does.
I would turn to the senior Senator from Oklahoma. I would ask him:
Why in the world, given what I have described here--we have thousands
of pipelines, millions of miles of these pipelines. We have to get
product from where it is produced to refineries and to our consumers.
We cannot put it all on rail or you create incredible congestion that
leads to accidents and backlogs in shipping of other products. This is
the latest, greatest technology for pipelines, for the transport of
oil.
Why in the world--what rationale would there be not to approve this
pipeline?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me say first of all to leave that
chart up, because it shows very clearly that I might have the biggest
dog in this fight. I do not know. But I will say that Cushing, OK, has
more pipelines coming through, throughout the United States, than any
other city in America. That is where they all come through.
A few minutes ago the Senator from Wyoming was talking about what the
President said less than a year ago, that he was going to be
cooperating, we are going to do this thing, it will be the best thing
for America. He has not done it. But I will tell you what is worse than
that. This right here: because of this pipeline, the hub we have in
Cushing, OK--the President went to Cushing, OK; this was about a year
ago--over 2 years ago he did--he went there to affirm to the American
people that he is going to do all he can to make sure this pipeline
becomes a reality. Read this, I ask my friend from North Dakota. It
says:
I am directing my administration to make this project a
priority, to go ahead and get it done.
He has made this--I am not going to use the L word because it sounds
disrespectful, and I lose credibility when I do that. He is saying
something that is not true. He moved from that, and he has done
everything since that time to destroy the pipeline.
That was when they were talking about the southern leg. Well,
obviously the southern leg is not a problem because the southern leg
does not cross an international border, so the President couldn't stop
that even if he wanted to. So he was taking credit for that, but he is
certainly underestimating the people of Oklahoma. In fact, nobody
showed up when he was there. So that portion between Canada and Cushing
is where the problem began.
I am going to throw out something very briefly. I also did this
yesterday on the floor, but I think it is important.
There is a new surge of opposition to this that wasn't there before
this happened. Tom Steyer is a very fine person, I am sure--I don't
know him--but Tom Steyer has put up $100 million--his words, not mine--
$50 million of his own money, to do two things. One is to resurrect
global warming, which is dead. If we read the polls today, people have
caught on. It is now No. 14 out of 15 of the environmental concerns,
according to all the polling data. So he is trying to bring that up
again. The second thing he is trying to do is stop the Keystone
Pipeline.
[[Page S5731]]
I say to my friend from North Dakota, and I don't want to sound
disrespectful, but $50 million of that is his own money, and he has
that out there right now. I am going to quote him:
It is true that we expect to be heavily involved in the
midterm elections.
Fifty million of his own money.
We are looking at a bunch of . . . races. . . . My guess is
that we'll end up being involved in 8 or even more races.
The Keystone Pipeline would create 42,000 jobs and tens of thousands
more. If you look at my State of Oklahoma, about one-third of all those
jobs are in the State of Oklahoma.
Keystone is just the tip of the iceberg. When we look at this chart,
we can see all of the domestic energy resources that are being
developed around the county right now. We are going through a shale
revolution, and the only thing getting in its way is the Federal
Government.
Look at this next chart. I can remember back when people considered
the only oil States to be west of the Mississippi, the Western United
States. But with the Marcellus coming through, you could argue--and I
have seen the argument in the State of Pennsylvania, for example--it
provides the second-most jobs in that State. Yet they need to be aware
that this is what is happening in the United States.
If we look at this map, it shows what we could do if we also had the
Federal lands included in that. In fact, one of the shocking things we
hear when we talk about the Federal lands is that in the past 6 years--
and that is since President Obama has been there, and he has done
everything he could to retard the progress of oil and gas since he came
to office. The production on State lands is up 61 percent--that is in 6
years, up 61 percent--and natural gas is up 33 percent. However, on
Federal lands--land the President can affect--oil production is down 6
percent. How can production be up 61 percent on State lands and down 6
percent on Federal lands? I think that shows the commitment that is
there.
ICF International is a well-respected consulting firm. It is not
Republican or Democratic. They recently released a report that says
U.S. companies will need to invest $641 billion over the next 20 years
in infrastructure to keep up with growing oil and gas production. What
does that mean for jobs? According to the analysis, spending on these
new pipelines alone will create 432,000 new jobs. It goes on and on
talking about this.
I asked the same question: How could it be--6 years ago I thought
that this was a piece of cake, that this was going to be done. What is
the argument against it? There are people who fight against fossil
fuels. That is alive and well. But they know they are going to be
producing it anyway, and if it goes to China--and there are already
discussions; that is public record--if it gets to China, they are going
to have to go through the refining process, and they don't have any
restrictions on emissions in China. So the argument is that if they do
it, there are going to be more emissions--if they find that to be so
offensive--than if we do it here in the United States where we have the
capability to produce and have the jobs here.
When I go back to Oklahoma, people say: What are the arguments
against it? I try to explain the argument they are using, but they
don't buy it. Of course, I am in Oklahoma talking to normal people.
Anyway, good luck. We are going to do all we can do to make this a
reality. We are going to win this eventually, but I am afraid we have
the opposition of this administration, and unless we get that turned
around, we will have to wait for another President.
Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to thank the Senator from Oklahoma and pick
up on a point he made very well. He made of number of points that are
extremely compelling, but one of the points he made is that overall,
since about 2008, 2009, that area, our oil production in America is up
40 percent. So people say: Well, we are producing 40 percent more oil
than we did in 2008, the end of 2008, so that is good. That is reducing
the amount of oil we have to import into this country. We were below 50
percent. Now we are closing in on 60 percent and more oil that we
produce. Together with Canada and Mexico, we are up over 75 percent, in
terms of the oil that we consume, we produce in this country or get, as
I say, from our closest allies and working on getting to 80 percent.
Well, people would say that is very good, but the Senator from
Oklahoma made a very important point. Understand that is because we are
up 60 percent in oil production on private land--on private land. We
are actually down in terms of our production on public land; we are
down between 6 and 7 percent. So when you net the two, we are up about
40 percent, but that is because we are up about 60 percent on private
land.
I will give an example of how that works on the ground. In North
Dakota 90 percent of the land is privately owned, so our oil production
is growing tremendously. As I said, we are at about 1.1 million barrels
a day and on our way to 1.4 million barrels a day in a few more years.
In Alaska, on the other hand, production is going down because their
land is 90 percent public land and a very small percentage is private
land. They can't get the permits and they can't build the
infrastructure, so the amount of oil they produce is declining. The
Alaskan pipeline can carry 2 million barrels of oil a day. It is down
to less than 600,000 and declining. This is at a time when we are still
getting oil from the Middle East and we are dealing with entities like
ISIL, with terrorism, and with instability. How can we continue to be
dependent on getting oil from the Middle East when we can produce that
oil right here in our country and in Canada? I would ask the good
Senator from Oklahoma to comment for a moment on the technology that is
enabling us to do so.
Hydraulic fracturing--I think the first well hydraulically fractured
in this country was in about the 1950s in Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. My friend is correct. It was 1948 in Duncan, OK.
Mr. HOEVEN. So I ask my friend from Oklahoma to talk for a minute
about the technology and what that means for the future of this country
and energy security.
Mr. INHOFE. Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling are to be
credited for this shale revolution we are going through now. We hear
this administration--knowing the American people want to use this
abundance of good, clean, natural gas and oil--sounding supportive of
that, but he has done everything he can to retard our efforts to
continue to use, as we have since 1948, hydraulic fracturing.
This is interesting because the first Director of the EPA who was
chosen and confirmed during the Obama administration was Lisa Jackson.
I asked her the question live on TV during one of our committee
hearings--I said: Hydraulic fracturing--people are creating problems
with this. Yet we have never had a problem, and it all started in my
State of Oklahoma. Has there ever been a documented case of groundwater
contamination with hydraulic fracturing?
Her answer, I say to my good friend from North Dakota, was no.
So we have the Obama administration saying there is no problem with
it. Yet they are doing everything they can to federalize jurisdiction
over hydraulic fracturing, with the idea that would make it much more
difficult to take advantage of this revolution we are in the middle of.
Mr. HOEVEN. I again thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
Since 1948, with the first well hydraulically fractured--there have
been no cases of contamination since 1948. We are now using this
hydraulic fracturing with the latest new greatest technology where, on
one pad, on one what we call eco-pad, we will now drill down as many as
18 wells. These wells will have--we go 2 miles underground, and then we
drill laterals 3 miles long. Eighteen wells all on one site. Think of
how much we have reduced the environmental footprint with that
technology. Think of how much less ground disturbance there is. You are
covering 1,280 acres. In the old days--and again maybe my friend from
Oklahoma would like to think of how many wells they would have had to
drill and how much infrastructure and well derricks and pumpers they
would have to have all over the landscape, and now we do it on one pad
covering 1,280 acres going out 3 miles in all directions from one eco-
pad. So it is not just about energy,
[[Page S5732]]
I would say to my friend from Oklahoma, it is also better environmental
stewardship.
Mr. INHOFE. It is also about technology. All of the environmentalists
or extreme environmentalists who are trying to stop or fighting this
war against fossil fuels, they ought to be rejoicing that we have this
technology now.
When we talk about the number of wells, it it is now past 1 million
wells that have been drilled using hydraulic fracturing. By their own
admission, there has never been one documented case of groundwater
contamination. So the answer is that there is no reason not to do it.
This is our opportunity to be independent. We could be independent in
a matter of weeks if we had the opportunity to export.
It is not just private land, it is private and State land. All of the
increase we have had, the 63 percent we talk about, is all private and
State land. How is it possible that increase could take place on State
land while on Federal land it goes down 6 percent? That tells the whole
story.
Mr. HOEVEN. I have one more question for my friend from Oklahoma
before I turn to my good friend from the State of Georgia.
Answer, please, if you would. As we produce this energy
domestically--so we are producing energy here, we are creating jobs, we
are creating economic activity, we are creating revenue without raising
taxes from a growing economy. We are helping national security because
we are not getting oil from the Middle East or Venezuela or places that
are hostile to our interests. Now we are talking about environmental
stewardship. We are talking about minimizing the footprint with these
new technologies. Why would we not want to move that product as safely
as possible, with the latest, greatest type of pipeline, with the best
technology and the most safeguards? Why isn't that an environmentally
sound decision as well?
Mr. INHOFE. I have often said and many of the people who are very
conscious about the environment--as I am and others--have said this is
the answer. I remember years ago when I was very young, I worked in the
oilfields. I can remember there were small wells all over and, of
course, at that time there wasn't an effort. Now they have cleaned
things up, and nothing is greater in terms of the technology that has
come along for the environment than what we have experienced.
When we think about what is happening all over the world--I am glad
the Senator mentioned this--with ISIS and all of these problems we have
right now, I believe we are facing a greater threat right now
militarily than we have before. And that is where a lot of our energy
is coming from, and it doesn't have to.
A good friend of the Senator and a good friend of mine named Harold
Hamm--he is from Oklahoma, but he does a lot of work up there--I asked
him a question in relation to the President repeatedly saying: Well, if
we were to go ahead and develop this on Federal lands, it would take 10
years before that would reach the economy.
I was going to be on an unfriendly TV show, and I called up Harold
Hamm and I said: Harold, I am going to ask you a question, and be
careful in the way you answer it because I am going to use your name
and your answer on nationwide TV. If you were set up someplace like New
Mexico on Federal land that had not been touched before, how long would
it take that first barrel of oil to reach the economy?
Without hesitating, he said: Seventy days.
I said: Seventy days? Well, that is 10 weeks, not 10 years.
Then he went on to say what would happen each week for those 10
weeks. I have never been refuted since we used that.
In addition to all the arguments we are using, just think about what
our oil independence, our energy independence could be in this country.
It is all there for the taking. This is the key element to make that a
reality.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, who has been a leader
in energy for so many years.
This morning we were addressed by the President of Ukraine. Look at
their situation. Because they haven't developed their own energy
resources and because they don't have their own infrastructure, they
are now dependent--Ukraine is dependent, along with most of the
European Union, on Russia for their energy.
They get more than one-third of their energy from Russia. So at the
same time that Russia is invading Ukraine, the European Union is
reluctant to stand with the United States and our other allies on
strong sanctions to prevent that type of aggression. Why? Because they
get their energy from Russia.
So when we talk about building the infrastructure we need in this
country to work with our closest friend and ally, Canada, to make sure
we are energy secure and that we do not need to get energy from places
such as the Middle East or Venezuela or other places that may have
interests that are antithetical to ours, think about how important it
is for the security of our country with what is going on in the Middle
East with ISIL, and see what is going on in Ukraine and Eastern Europe,
and Russian aggression.
So I turn to our colleague from Georgia, who has also been a staunch
supporter of this project, and ask him what is going on in terms of
national security, the situation we face today, and why in the world
would we not be building--not only producing our energy resources in
this country but deploying these new technologies we are talking about
that produce energy with better environmental stewardship and building
the infrastructure to move it to our refineries and move it to our
consumers.
Why are we waiting 6 years for a decision that would enable us to do
that very thing on behalf of the American people?
Mr. ISAKSON. I am pleased to join with the distinguished Senator from
the State of North Dakota, and I am pleased to join with the Senator of
Oklahoma.
I am pleased to speak as an American from a State that is a net
consumer, not producer, of energy. The Senator's State is a great
producer of energy. Senator Inhofe's State is a great producer of
energy. Georgia is a great consumer. We don't have a lot of oil or
natural gas or coal, but I am here because I have a lot of experience
in my lifetime--a lot of it with national security issues and with
economic issues. Our ability or our failure to approve the Keystone
Pipeline and fracking is, very simply, professional malpractice.
I wish to refresh everybody's memory. This is the sixth anniversary
of a letter to the President of the United States. Do we know what it
is the 35th anniversary of? The Arab oil embargo.
I was a real estate salesman in 1970 when something called the misery
index was developed. Does the Senator know what the misery index was?
We had double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, and double-
digit interest rates. Why? Because the Arab oil embargo in the middle
1970s brought America to its knees.
This real estate agent salesman used to have to wait for 2 hours in a
line at an ExxonMobil station with a $10 bill to get my ration of
gasoline in the 1970s. Why? Because we depended on the Middle East and
OPEC to supply us with energy.
We sit here on the cusp of being a net producer of energy. We can use
it in our national defense, we can use it in our national security, and
we can use it in our economy. If we produced the energy that we know we
have available to us, and if we bring in the energy safely and
environmentally soundly, as we know we have available to us, we can
rule our foreign policy and our economy based on our own strength and
not as dependents on anybody else.
Thirty-five years ago is not just a time of the misery index, but it
was a time of failed U.S. foreign policy. Remember, it was the late
1970s when the Iranians took the American Embassy hostage in Iran and
for 445 days held the strongest military power in the world hostage.
Why? In large measure because they controlled petroleum to our country.
So it is a national security threat.
When the President of the Ukraine spoke today, he didn't say this,
but I will say it: If America was producing the oil and energy it could
with the Keystone Pipeline and with fracking, if we were exporting to
foreign countries, we could replace Russia in a heartbeat and be the
net supplier of energy to the Ukraine and to Germany.
[[Page S5733]]
So it is important to the national security of our country and the
employment of our people and the soundness of our economy that we do
hydraulic fracking for our natural gas in Haynesville and Marcellus,
and that we bring the pipeline oil from Canada-Keystone XL Pipeline in
to Houston and refine that petroleum with gasoline and energy for our
people.
The pipeline, to the Senator from North Dakota, is very interesting.
I ran the State Board of Education in Georgia for years. By law we
couldn't build a public school in Georgia if it was within 2,000 feet
of an underground pipeline. It is hard in Atlanta, GA, to find a piece
of land that isn't within 2,000 feet of an underground pipeline. Today
America's energy and petroleum flows rapidly and safely and
environmentally soundly in pipelines.
If we weren't using pipelines and we were bringing it on railcars or
trucks, we would be producing carbon out the kazoo because those
engines would burn petroleum to get the petroleum to Houston. By using
the pipeline, it is safe, it is sound, and it is secure.
I think it is basically professional malpractice for this country to
fail to approve the Keystone Pipeline or fracking because it hurts our
national defense, it makes us dependent on people we shouldn't be
dependent on, it hurts our economy, and one day the misery index could
come back. If it comes back, it will be because we are held hostage by
our own failed policy, not because somebody held us hostage because
they were strong.
I want a strong America. I want an America that has strong
leadership. I don't want to be a part of any professional malpractice.
I want to be a part of seeking the best for our American people--
bringing energy to our American people, and being the most competitive
economy in the world today.
I appreciate the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for yielding
me the time.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his
strong support and his clear understanding of why we need this project
and for putting the focus on national security.
In poll after poll two-thirds of Americans support this project. I
think in the final analysis the American people will make a decision
here. If the President after 6 years refuses to make a decision,
clearly his strategy is to defeat this project with endless delays,
just defeat by delay. So here we are in year 6 of the application
process.
I would turn to my colleague from Georgia and ask his thoughts on
this body's ability to step up and make the decision and approve this
project on behalf of the American people. What does the Senator
foresee? We have 57 who have signed on now. I believe we will get to
60. What is the Senator's sense of our ability to get this done for the
American people?
Mr. ISAKSON. If, before we left today and had a final vote on the CR,
the majority leader would let a vote come to the floor to get 60 votes
to go ahead and move forward on the Keystone Pipeline, in my belief it
would happen. For all the reasons I stated and what the American people
want and all the reasons the Senator stated, I quite frankly do not
understand why one single person in this administration would hold back
the Keystone Pipeline.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the State Department has five times
approved it; is that not correct?
Mr. HOEVEN. That is absolutely correct. We have the dates of the
approval of five different environmental impact statements right here,
all finding no significant environmental impact.
Mr. ISAKSON. So that is No. 1.
No. 2, there is no question that being independent in energy makes us
a stronger country in terms of our national defense and our foreign
policy; is that not correct?
Mr. HOEVEN. That is correct.
Mr. ISAKSON. No. 3, we will have more jobs, more employment, less
inflation, and a more vibrant economy if we were developing this
petroleum; is that not correct?
Mr. HOEVEN. That is correct.
Mr. ISAKSON. Then I think, knowing the quality and the intellect of
the 100 Members of the Senate, there is no doubt that if the leader
would bring that vote to the floor today, we would get more than 60
votes to move America forward and say: This Congress is ready to act.
We are not in professional malpractice; we in fact are doing good for
the American people. We want energy and we want it now.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the good Senator from Georgia.
I understand that our time has expired. I ask unanimous consent for 1
minute to wrap up this colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOEVEN. On the facts and on the merits--which is how we have to
make decisions for the American people--this is a project about energy,
producing energy here at home so we don't have to get it from the
Middle East. We know what is going on with the Middle East with ISIL
and other organizations that are creating huge problems and that are a
danger not only to this country but to the world.
It is about energy here at home and working with our closest friend
and ally, Canada. It is about jobs. The State Department itself says
more than 40,000 jobs are created with this project. It is about
economic activity, a $5.3 billion project and not one penny of Federal
spending, just private investment. It is about national security, as we
have talked about.
But it is also about congestion on our rails. It is about making sure
we don't try to move all this oil on rail so we have so much
congestion, we have accidents, and we have seen that happen. It is
about harvest and moving ag products from the heartland throughout the
country. It is about using the latest, greatest technology to make sure
we produce more energy more dependably and with better environmental
stewardship than without the project.
Six years. It is time for this body to step forward on behalf of the
American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
____________________