[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 141 (Tuesday, November 18, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6029-S6053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TO APPROVE THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of S. 2280, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2280) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 6\1/2\
hours of debate equally divided between proponents and opponents of
this measure.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I have a parliamentary inquiry. I am confused because
Senator McConnell called the bill the Cassidy Keystone bill, and I
thought we were debating the Hoeven-Landrieu bill. Could you tell me
which bill it is, because that is very important.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering S. 2280.
Mrs. BOXER. So we are considering the Hoeven-Landrieu bill. I just
wanted that to be clear.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Today we vote on S. 2280, introduced by myself and
Senator Landrieu. There are actually 54 sponsors on the legislation
with us. So we have a total of 56 sponsors of this bipartisan bill.
That is the same bill that has been passed in the House of
Representatives. That was passed on Friday--the same version. The prime
sponsor in the House was Representative Cassidy.
The bill we vote on today, S. 2280, is approval of the Keystone XL
Pipeline. We have actually passed legislation on the Keystone XL
Pipeline before. This is not the first bill. In 2012, we passed
legislation that required the President to make a decision on the
Keystone XL Pipeline. We attached it to the payroll tax holiday. At
that time the President turned down the pipeline project.
So today we have submitted a number of different pieces of
legislation, but this legislation actually has Congress approving the
Keystone XL Pipeline.
When the President turned down the project, what we did was we went
back and we did the research.
Under the commerce clause of the Constitution, Congress has the
authority to oversee commerce with foreign powers, with other
countries.
So in this situation, Congress has the authority to approve the
Keystone XL Pipeline crossing the border from Canada into the United
States, and that is
[[Page S6030]]
what we crafted in this legislation. So rather than the President
making a national interest determination, which he seems to be
unwilling to do--and I say that based on his actions--we have now been
at this for about 4 years in this Senate trying to get approval. But
this project has been in the application process for 6 years.
I was Governor of North Dakota in September of 2008 when the
TransCanada Corporation applied for a permit to get approval to build
the Keystone XL Pipeline. They had already built the Keystone pipeline,
so they were applying for approval to build the sister pipeline, the
Keystone XL Pipeline. It started in September of 2008, and 2 years went
by. We started actually working on it in about 2011 in the Senate, as I
say, and we passed legislation, trying to get the President to approve
it. But it has now been--and I can show a chart with the time line, but
it is a little hard to see--6 years in the permitting process.
The time has come to act. The time has come to act, and that is what
this legislation is all about. It provides approval of the Keystone XL
Pipeline so they can move forward and it can be constructed.
We have debated this issue in the Chamber for almost 4 years. So we
have gone through all of the merits, and we will do that again today.
We have not only come to an agreement on getting a vote, but we have
also come to an agreement on the parameters for the debate. It is 6
hours of debate, with 3 hours for the proponents and 3 hours for the
opponents.
On the Republican side of the aisle we are taking 2 hours solely on
the proponent side because all 45 Republican Senators are in support of
the project, will be voting for the project, and will be making the
case for the project. On the majority side there will be 3 hours for
opponents of the project making their case and 1 hour for the
proponents making their case, and we will alternate throughout this
debate.
We will be having this debate today and we will make our case. I will
continue with my colleagues to make the case for the pipeline. There
will be Members of the majority party that will make that case and
there will be some Members, obviously, in opposition.
So I will reserve some of my time to speak later, but the point I
want to make at the outset is this is really about the American people
making this case. When we look at this project, it is about energy, it
is about jobs, it is about economic growth. It creates tax revenue to
help reduce the deficit and the debt. It doesn't cost 1 penny of
Federal money or government money. It is privately funded, and it is
about national security. It is about national security by helping us
build energy security in this country with our closest friend and ally,
Canada, working together with Canada so that we don't have to get
energy from Venezuela or from the Middle East or from other parts of
the world, and so we can produce at home.
That is not only a vitally important issue in terms of our economy
and being competitive in a global economy because energy is truly a
foundational sector for all the other industry sectors. When we have
low-cost dependable energy, we are more competitive as a country, but
it really is a national security issue.
I see the good Senator from Vermont is on the floor. He has a bill
that deals with how we handle surveillance and covert information,
given the terrorist threat we face. It is important that we do that
well.
But one of the ways to truly strengthen our country is to make sure
we are energy secure, to make sure we don't have to get oil from the
Middle East, to help our friends and allies in Europe so they are not
dependent on Russia for energy when Putin engages in the kind of
aggression he has. So when we talk about this energy issue, it is not
just jobs, it is not just the energy we get that makes us stronger in a
competitive global economy, it really is a national security issue, and
it is long past time to act. It has been 6 years.
Today we will have that debate again, and I hope at the end of the
day we will have the 60 votes that we need. We will find out this
evening when we vote.
Again, it comes back to what do the American people want. We are here
representing the American people. Overwhelmingly, in poll after poll
when they have been asked, 60 percent, sometimes 70 percent or more
say: Build the Keystone XL Pipeline. That is whom we work for.
I hope today, at the end of the day, that is the work we will get
done for the American people.
I see my cosponsor on the floor, and I would turn to the good Senator
from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my cosponsor and lead sponsor on the bill, a
former Governor and good Senator from North Dakota who has been a great
leader and partner with me on this bill.
As the American people have absolutely figured out, Democrats cannot
do anything alone and neither can Republicans. It has taken us a while
to figure this out in the Senate and in the House of Representatives,
but the American people figured this out a long time ago, just as they
figure out practical things such as how to keep a roof over their
heads, food on the table, and how to keep their kids moving forward
even through difficulty.
The American people are very smart. I trust them. I always have. I
have been honored to represent the people of Louisiana, 4.5 million
people, and I have done my very best to represent them in the time I am
in the Senate, and I hope to continue for years to come.
One of the things they know that is not clear to people here is that
it takes both parties working together, compromising, to get the job
done for them--not for us, for them--and I think we forget that a lot.
I am in a lot of meetings around here where people talk about what is
good for the Democratic caucus, what is good for the Republican caucus,
what is good for Leader Reid, what is good for Leader McConnell. It is
kind of interesting to me because the family I grew up in was all about
public service--not for ourselves but for the people we represent. That
is why I am on the floor today. That is why I have actually been on the
floor dozens of times on this bill and on similar bills.
This is the Keystone bill, which I have supported with Senator
Hoeven, literally for years. In fact, I have a letter from 2011 with
Orrin Hatch, who was the lead signer with me. Senator McConnell's
signature wasn't on the letter. Maybe he was busy that day and couldn't
sign it. But about 15 of us sent a letter in 2011 urging Secretary of
State Clinton--this is how far back it goes, and people can hardly
remember she was Secretary of State because now John Kerry is Secretary
of State--a long time ago saying it was very important for us to get
this pipeline built for any number of reasons. The main reason is that
it will signal a great sign that America understands that energy
independence for our Nation is possible for the first time ever.
When I mean energy independence, I mean energy independence for the
North American continent. We might be able to do it in just the lower
48. We might. Hawaii can contribute some. Alaska, clearly, can
contribute a lot. So we might be able to do it in the 50 States.
But I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that with our partners in
Canada and Mexico, this can be done and North America can be the super
energy powerhouse of the planet.
Why is that important? There are so many reasons. I will name two,
and then I am going to sit down and reengage in this debate because
Barbara Boxer, who is the lead opponent, wants and has indicated her
time on the floor, and I have more time later today.
But one of the reasons this is so important is because what people in
Louisiana want, what people in Texas want, what people in Mississippi
want, what people in New Jersey want, what people in South Dakota,
Illinois, Kansas, and Vermont want are good-paying jobs.
When a country or a continent, as blessed as we are, uses its
resources wisely to create wealth not only for those at the top, which
is what is happening now--just at the top--and the people at the top
are doing great. In the fancy restaurants I walk by I see--and
sometimes I am actually in them myself--people are drinking champagne.
They are buying new cars. I see
[[Page S6031]]
Mercedes, and other people see that. But the people in the middle class
in this country are really struggling, and our job as leaders is to
have our eyes on them, providing for them.
These energy jobs are not minimum wage jobs. They are not even $15-
an-hour jobs. They are not even $30-an-hour jobs. They are $45-an-hour
jobs. Our laborers--men and women who represent the middle class--some
are unionized, some are not, but all are hard working. I am going to
say that again. Some are unionized and some are not, but all are hard
working.
How would I know? Because I have stood in line with them at 4 or 5 in
the morning during a shift change. I do that a lot during my elections.
I do it regularly, but I do it a lot during election time. I have felt
their hands. I know how cold they are in the morning and how rough they
are because they work all day. Those people would expect us to work
longer than we do here. We have very short weeks--Tuesday through
Thursday. We take long lunch hours, long weekends. Most Americans think
we have completely lost it because they work hard, from morning until
night. Their hands are tough, and so they expect us to stand up for
them. That is why I am standing here.
I have been fighting for this because of energy independence for
America. I would know something about that because Texas and Louisiana
and Oklahoma--our area of the country--we are proud producers of
energy. We produce mostly oil, mostly gas, and a little bit of coal. We
generate a lot.
Just an FYI to everybody who thinks this pipeline is the end of the
world, we already have 2.6 million miles of pipe in America--2.6
million miles of pipe. We are only completing basically 1,000 miles.
What is everybody upset about? We have been building pipelines in this
country for a long time, and we need to build this one. This is about
energy independence, it is about jobs, and that is why I am here. This
is what the people want.
I am going to close with this. For the 25th time at least I am going
to say this because I want the record of the Congress to reflect the
truth, whether people acknowledge it or not. The record of this
Congress will reflect this to be the truth. Some of us, not just me,
have worked to get this bill to the floor for years, and it was blocked
by both majority leader Harry Reid and minority leader Mitch McConnell
for their own political reasons. Those reasons cleared up after the
election. They just cleared up.
Mitch McConnell couldn't bring this bill to the floor without
allowing a vote on the EPA coal regulation. Barbara Boxer knows this--
this is the truth--and she wouldn't allow the vote because she is
adamantly opposed to having a vote on EPA. I respect that. I respect
her. Everyone here knows that is the truth.
Harry Reid didn't want this vote to come up because there were one or
two Members of our caucus who had a serious issue with this being voted
on. I knew that. As part of a team--and I try to be part of a team, but
I am independent--I knew the results of the election, with Senator
McConnell winning and some of our Senators, unfortunately, my dearest
friends, losing, that we had an opportunity, and so I took that
opportunity and I called for this vote--not Harry Reid, not Mitch
McConnell, I called for it, and I think it is worth fighting for.
The last thing I want to say is that Thanksgiving is coming up and
Christmas is coming up, and it is a shame this Congress has not
delivered more in the last 5 or 6 years for the middle class. We say we
try. I am not sure we are trying hard enough. So I am going to lead by
example. It is the way I was raised. We are going to truly try today.
This is one of the first debates I have been in, in 8 years at least,
where the outcome is uncertain. All the rest of the stuff we do here is
preset, preordained. It is similar to theater for the American people.
We usually know the outcome of the vote before we take it because the
deals are all cut.
So I brought this bill to the floor, knowing in my heart we have 60
votes. I sure hope we have the courage that supports that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will be controlling the time in
opposition, very strong opposition, to this legislation. Before I yield
to the first debater on our side, who will be Chairman Leahy--and I am
very honored that he will be--let me just say before Senator Landrieu
leaves the floor that Senator Landrieu is the only reason we are
debating this today. So anyone who wants to play games about this and
name this bill the Cassidy bill, that kind of is a joke because I
believe I am correct that he introduced it November 12 of this year and
the Hoeven-Landrieu bill was introduced in May. But setting politics
aside, let the Record be clear forever that this debate would not be
before this body were it not for Senator Landrieu's insistence. I want
that to be clear.
Secondly, we will hear today, I think, a terrific debate because the
people who support this think not only that this is a good thing for
the country--to build the Keystone XL Pipeline--they think it is a
great thing for this country. I have great respect for them. On the
other side, we have those of us who think it is not a good thing for
this country, it is not a good thing for jobs, it is not a good thing
for energy independence because it will be exported, all that oil, and
it is actually dangerous.
In my case, I was thinking, what does ``XL'' stand for? They named it
the Keystone XL. It has no meaning, but to me it is extra lethal. My
debate will show why, as we analyze the tar sands oil that will be
coming into this Nation, 45 percent more than we have now, the risky
business that it has proven to be and what the health costs are for our
people. That is not me speaking, those are nurses and doctors saying
so. I haven't even gotten into climate and all the other issues.
At this point I yield 5 minutes to my friend Senator Leahy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from
Louisiana has the majority of votes in this body for the Keystone
Pipeline, and that is a compliment to her hard work in getting from a
minority of votes to a majority of votes.
I will not be one of them, as she knows, because I represent what is
the view of my fellow constituents in Vermont. I strongly oppose the
fast-tracking of this process.
This pipeline poses considerable safety and environmental risks here
in the United States, and it threatens the natural landscapes that are
in the heartland of America. We feel this pipeline is one of the most
striking examples of the unquenchable thirst for oil that is destroying
our environment. We feel that destruction is going to move forward
unless and until we get a comprehensive national energy plan. This
pipeline will not lead us towards that. It leads us to an energy policy
of the past instead of a sustainable energy future, while
simultaneously accelerating our impact on the climate. These tar sands
require an energy-intensive process, complete with pollutants and
harmful emissions to get them out of the ground, to extract them, and
to refine them.
We should not rubberstamp a project like this that poses such serious
risks to the Nation's and the world's environment, and to our
communities' safety. I was astounded by the fact that in its first year
of operation the existing Keystone Pipeline--billed as you recall as
the safest pipeline in history when it was built just a few years ago
in 2010--spilled 12 times in its first year of operation. That is more
than any other pipeline in U.S. history.
The worrisome part about these spills is that tar sands oil is harder
to clean up. Ask the communities along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.
It has cost more than $1 billion so far--$1 billion so far--to clean up
a tar sands spill in 2010. Now, more than 4 years later, it is still a
mess, and landowners continue to wait for help in restoring their
property and to rebuild the ravaged pipeline.
We do not need more empty assurances from the oil industry. Before
the Valdez spill in Alaska, Exxon executives told us their oil tankers
were safe. We heard similar promises from BP, which insisted that it
could handle an oil spill in a deep-water drilling operation. The
images from both of those spills are still fresh in our memories.
I realize that proponents argue that this pipeline will create jobs
and will
[[Page S6032]]
help our energy security here in the United States. But this pipeline
will bypass refineries in the Midwest instead of heading to American
gas stations to help lower the price of gas here at home. It will head
straight for the coast so the oil can be used in export markets, pumped
onto ships headed for China. That may be good news for the Chinese, but
it is not good news for the American people who are stuck with the
safety risks, the health challenges, future environmental disasters,
and the rapid acceleration of our contribution to climate change.
These facts are clear: The Keystone pipeline significantly worsens
the problem of carbon pollution, and it is not in our national
interest. The Presidential Permit should be denied, not fast-tracked by
Congress here today.
So I will not be among the majority who will vote for it today.
USA Freedom Act
On another matter, while I have the floor, the distinguished
Republican leader spoke against the USA FREEDOM Act earlier this
morning. Unfortunately, he was too busy to respond to a couple of
simple questions, even though he was asked to. But I would note that
last year, Americans learned that section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act
had been secretly interpreted for years to allow the bulk collection of
telephone records. Unlike the comments made earlier that there were no
hearings on this, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 came about after numerous
congressional hearings, including six--six--public hearings in the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
At least two panels of independent experts have concluded that the
bulk collection program has not been essential or even a key part of
keeping our country safe. We now have wide bipartisan agreement in the
Senate and the House that the bulk phone records collection program is
not essential, it violates Americans' privacy, and it has to end. So
the question before Congress is not whether to end the program, but
when and how.
The USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 ends the NSA's bulk collection program,
but does so responsibly. The bill contains key reforms to safeguard
Americans' privacy by prohibiting the indiscriminate collection of
their data. It also provides for greater accountability and
transparency of the government's surveillance programs, and it improves
the FISA Court. The bill also ensures that the intelligence community
has the tools it needs to keep our country safe.
This legislation is the result of several months of intense
discussions and deliberations with the intelligence community and
stakeholders across the political and economic spectrum. It has the
unprecedented support of the Director of National Intelligence, the
Attorney General, American technology companies, and privacy and civil
liberty groups ranging from the ACLU and EEF to the NRA and
TechFreedom, as well as the Director of NSA and lawmakers from all
parts of the political spectrum who support it.
We cannot afford to delay action on these reforms any longer, as the
American people continue to demand stronger protections for their
privacy. Unfortunately, some would rather use scare tactics than
legislate. Some would have us wait while American businesses continue
to lose tens of billions of dollars in the international marketplace.
Or we could even wait until we are facing down the expiration of
Section 215 in a matter of months, thereby creating dangerous
uncertainty and risk for the intelligence community.
The American people have had enough delay; they want action and real
reform. It is time to get back to work, to show leadership, and to
govern this country responsibly. The USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 is an
opportunity to do just that.
Let us get it done now, when it can be done.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
several letters and editorials in support of the USA FREEDOM Act of
2014.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, September 2, 2014.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy: Thank you for your letter of August
19, 2014, asking for the views of the Department of Justice
and the Intelligence Community on S. 2685, the USA FREEDOM
Act. We appreciate your extensive efforts to develop a bill
in coordination with the Administration, privacy and civil
liberties advocates, and representatives from the
communications providers that builds upon the good work done
by the House in its bill passed on May 22, 2014. As discussed
below, the Intelligence Community believes that your bill
preserves essential Intelligence Community capabilities; and
the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence support your bill and believe that it
is a reasonable compromise that enhances privacy and civil
liberties and increases transparency.
The USA FREEDOM Act bans bulk collection under a variety of
authorities. In particular, the bill permits collection under
Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act using a specific selection
term that narrowly limits the scope of the tangible things
sought to the greatest extent reasonably practicable,
consistent with the purposes for seeking the tangible things.
Recognizing that the terms enumerated in the statute may not
always meet operational needs, the bill permits the use of
other terms, provided there are court-approved minimization
procedures that prohibit the dissemination and require the
destruction within a reasonable period of time of any
information that has not been determined to satisfy certain
specific requirements. We believe that this approach will
accommodate operational needs while providing appropriate
privacy protections.
The bill also provides a mechanism to obtain telephone
metadata records in order to identify potential contacts of
suspected terrorists inside the United States. The
Intelligence Community believes that, based on communications
providers' existing practices in retaining metadata, the bill
will retain the essential operational capabilities of the
existing bulk telephone metadata program while eliminating
bulk collection.
The bill also increases transparency by expanding the
amount of information communications providers can disclose
and increasing public reporting by the government. Although
balancing national security and the public's legitimate
interest in additional transparency can be difficult, we are
comfortable with the transparency provisions in this bill
because, among other things, they recognize the technical
limitations on our ability to report certain types of
information.
We note that, consistent with the President's request, the
bill establishes a process for the appointment of an amicus
curiae to assist the FISA Court and FISA Court of Review in
matters that present a novel or significant interpretation of
the law. We believe that the appointment of an amicus in
selected cases, as appropriate, need not interfere with
important aspects of the FISA process, including the process
of ex parte consultation between the Court and the
government. We are also aware of the concerns that the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts expressed in a
recent letter, and we look forward to working with you and
your colleagues to address those concerns.
The USA FREEDOM Act represents the result of extensive
discussions and deliberations and has the support of a wide
range of interests. Admittedly, it is possible that there are
additional impacts that we will be able to identify only
after we start to implement the new law. You have our
commitment to notify Congress if we determine that the new
law is impeding the Intelligence Community's ability to
protect national security. Overall, the bill's significant
reforms should provide the public greater confidence in our
programs and the checks and balances in the system.
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General.
James R. Clapper,
Director of National Intelligence.
____
Reform Government Surveillance
Open Letter to the Senate: The Senate has an opportunity
this week to vote on the bipartisan USA Freedom Act. We urge
you to pass the bill, which both protects national security
and reaffirms America's commitment to the freedoms we all
cherish.
The legislation prevents the bulk collection of Internet
metadata under various authorities. The bill also allows for
transparency about government demands for user information
from technology companies, and assures that the appropriate
oversight and accountability mechanisms are in place.
Since forming the Reform Government Surveillance coalition
last year, our companies have continued to invest in
strengthening the security of our services and increasing
transparency. Now, the Senate has the opportunity to send a
strong message of change to the world and encourage other
countries to adopt similar protections.
Passing the USA Freedom Act, however, does not mean our
work is finished. We will continue to work with Congress, the
Administration, civil liberties groups and governments around
the world to advance essential reforms that we set forth in a
set of principles last year. Such reforms include: preventing
government access to data without proper legal process;
assuring that providers
[[Page S6033]]
are not required to locate infrastructure within a country's
border; promoting the free flow of data across borders; and
avoiding conflicts among nations through robust, principled,
and transparent frameworks that govern lawful requests for
data across jurisdictions.
Now is the time to move forward on meaningful change to our
surveillance programs. We encourage you to support the USA
Freedom Act.
AOL, Apple, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Google,
LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo.
____
November 14, 2014.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Leahy and Grassley: The USA Freedom Act, now
under consideration in the Senate, is broadly consistent with
the recommendatins we made last year in our report on how to
safeguard both liberty and security in a rapidly changing
world.
Specifically, we note the close similarity of the bill with
our first recommendation, that orders under Section 215
should be issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court about particular individuals and only where there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the particular information
sought is relevant to an authorized investigation.
Sincerely,
Richard Clarke,
Michael Morell,
Cass Sunstein,
Geoffrey Stone,
Peter Swire.
____
[From the Washington Times, Nov. 14, 2014]
Bipartisanship in Defense of the Constitution
Reining in the NSA is something that all Americans can embrace
(By Chris Cox and Laura Murphy)
Washington politicians are squaring off for another round
of confrontation following an election in which millions of
American voters demanded an end to the squabbling and a
commitment to actually solving the many problems facing the
country. There are, of course, issues on which agreement
shouldn't be expected, but there are others on which there
should be broad agreement, regardless of party and ideology.
As representatives of two organizations, the National Rifle
Association (NRA) and the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), with very different perspectives on some issues, we
are joining together today because of our belief in the
constitutional guarantees of free speech and privacy and our
concern that both could be lost unless we rein in
governmental surveillance and monitoring that characterizes
life in this country.
The NRA last year joined the ACLU in court proceedings
aimed at limiting the surveillance of private citizens in the
name of national security. While we agree that government
should have the power it needs to protect the American people
from terrorist threats, those charged with doing so must be
accountable and play by the rules set down by the Founders in
the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
Our lawsuit involved the National Security Agency's program
to collect what the government likes to call ``metadata,''
including records of phone calls made by every single
American. That data can paint an intimate portrait of
someone's life--who they talk to, the organizations they
support and who their friends are. However, that same
information can be used to target innocent Americans involved
in perfectly legal activities that our government doesn't
happen to like.
For example, by using metadata, the government can identify
and track most gun owners by tracing contacts with gun
ranges, firearms retailers and the like, facilitating the
establishment of the national firearms registry that gun
owners fear and federal law prohibits. It can also be used by
government officials to get information on journalists or any
activists that are critical of government policies.
In our view, current surveillance practices violate the
First and Fourth Amendments and threaten other rights, such
as those guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and they are not
making us any safer. President Obama's own review panel and
the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board have found
that these call-records programs have not provided any
crucial information in even one terrorism case. Even James R.
Clapper, the nation's director of national intelligence,
supports legislation known as the USA Freedom Act, a modest
reform proposal that brings current practices more in line
with what the Constitution requires.
While there is much the Senate shouldn't or needn't do
during the ``lame-duck'' session, the USA Freedom Act is
badly needed legislation that has bipartisan support and will
protect the rights of all Americans. The NRA and the ACLU,
along with many members of Congress from both parties,
support these reforms and they should be enacted, without
weakening amendments, by the Senate and sent to the White
House as soon as possible.
Public frustration with Congress is heightened when
essential and widely supported legislation such as the USA
Freedom Act languishes and dies for reasons that defy common
sense. It's happened before. After all the rhetoric and after
the case is made, nothing happens. If the Senate can't pass
and the president can't sign a widely supported package of
reforms to protect the basic constitutional rights of the
American people, is it any wonder that Americans of both
parties conclude that Washington is simply dysfunctional?
Every day that the Senate fails to vote on these reforms is
a day in which law-abiding citizens have reason to fear that
the constitutional protections so dear to the Founders and so
crucial to the functioning of a free society no longer apply.
That is a fear the Senate can begin to correct by passing the
USA Freedom Act before the end of this year.
____
[From the Washington Post, Nov. 17, 2014]
The Senate Should Approve a Bipartisan Proposal to Reform the NSA
(Editorial)
The Senate is set to vote Tuesday on the USA Freedom Act,
the most promising National Security Agency reform proposal
before Congress. Neither national security hawks nor civil
libertarians get everything they want from the legislation,
which means it could fail to get the 60 votes it needs to
advance, or it could get pulled too far in one direction or
another during an open amendment process after that. Either
road to demise would be unfortunate: The bill deserves to be
approved, reconciled with a House-approved version and sent
to President Obama.
The headline of the Senate's bill, sponsored by a varied
group of Democrats and Republicans with Sen. Patrick Leahy
(D-Vt.) in the lead, is that it would end the government's
bulk collection of so-called metadata--phone calling records,
for example. In its place, the bill would give the government
authority to demand calling records from phone companies in
specific cases, if the collection is ``narrowly'' limited.
Even then, the government would have to discard information
lacking bona-fide intelligence value, and its metadata
collection operations would be subject to more oversight.
That's fine, but bulk metadata collection is not the most
important issue the bill addresses. The act would bring
change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which
helps oversee the NSA's activities. The court, which
generally hears only the government's side of any issue,
would get balance from a panel of advocates tasked with
arguing for civil liberties when the judges are considering
important questions of law. The proposal also foresees
appeals courts reconsidering more FISA cases, and the bill
would press for major court decisions to be released.
The bill would enable a more orderly and informed debate on
NSA activities as well. It would require the government to
release much more information on how much it is using various
authorities and, crucially, on how many people's information
it has swept up in the process. It also harmonizes the
expiration of many surveillance authorities. Americans, then,
would have more information to assess surveillance activities
and a single date on which surveillance policy will be up for
debate.
Technology companies have come out strongly in favor of the
plan, as have many--though not all--civil liberties
advocates. So, too, has the Obama administration. Though the
intelligence community would have to change its behavior--
significantly in certain programs--it would get clear legal
authorities that it wants and an extended expiration timeline
for some of them. It would also maintain its core, foreign-
focused surveillance authorities without much change. Therein
lies the bill's careful balance. As the Senate works on the
proposal over the coming days, it should preserve that
delicate and authentic compromise.
____
[From the New York Times, Nov. 17, 2014]
A Crucial Vote on the Surveillance Bill
(Editorial)
The Republican Party is so badly fractured that it is
impossible to tell what steps it will take on domestic
surveillance once it assumes control of Congress in January.
Its rising libertarian wing wants to crack down on abuses of
Americans' privacy, but many of its leaders express full
support for any action the intelligence agencies want to
take.
That's why it's important that the Senate break a
filibuster on the USA Freedom Act, which would reduce or end
the bulk collection of telephone records, in a vote scheduled
for Tuesday afternoon. If the bill doesn't pass in the
current lame-duck session of the Senate, still controlled by
Democrats, it may never get past the 60-vote hurdle in the
next session of Congress.
The bill, sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of
Vermont, would require the National Security Agency to ask
phone companies for the records of a specific person or
address when it is searching for terrorists, instead of
scooping up all the records in an area code or city. It would
force the agency to show why it needs those records, and to
disclose how much data is being collecting.
The bill would also create a panel of advocates to support
privacy rights and civil liberties in arguments before the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; currently, there is
no one to offer opposition to government requests before the
court. The government would have to issue clear summaries of
the court's most significant rulings.
[[Page S6034]]
Not every potential surveillance abuse is addressed in the
measure. For example, it leaves open the possibility of
``backdoor'' searches of American data that investigators
come across when searching for the communications of
foreigners. It exempts the F.B.I. from transparency on
searches. And it is not clear whether the government believes
there is some other hidden legal authority for bulk
collection other than the one addressed in the USA Freedom
Act.
Nonetheless, the bill is a good way to begin restoring
individual privacy that has been systematically violated by
government spying, revealed through the leaks provided by
Edward Snowden. It has been supported by the American Civil
Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and
other privacy watchdogs. On Sunday, a group of the biggest
technology companies--including Google, Microsoft, Facebook
and Twitter--endorsed the bill because it allows more
disclosure of the demands for information made of them by the
government.
In addition to Senate Democrats, the bill is supported by
some hard-right Republicans, including Ted Cruz of Texas and
Mike Lee of Utah. But Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who will
soon be the Senate majority leader, has supported the
N.S.A.'s spying on Americans. That's a good a reason to pass
it before a new Senate can water it down.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor, and I thank the distinguished Senator
from California for giving me this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee for his remarks. They mean a lot.
I want to put this vote into perspective. This is a major decision.
People sometimes say: Oh, what is the big deal. It is a little
pipeline. We build pipelines all the time. Well, it is a major
decision, and I know each of us, regardless of our party, before we
cast a major vote, thinks about whether our vote is going to make life
better for our people we represent, the people who send us here and who
count on us every day. I am going to do everything in my power to make
the case that building the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is going to
make life worse for the people we represent and those generations to
follow because I think I will prove today that misery follows the tar
sands.
I said before it is called Keystone XL--extra lethal--not extra large
but extra lethal. Senators should ask themselves three questions before
they cast their vote on the Hoeven-Landrieu bill. First, why does it
make any sense for the Senate to force the approval of a project that
will bring millions of barrels of the dirtiest pollution you could
think of into America? Why do we want to bring barrels of filthy,
dirty, dangerous pollution into America? This isn't an ordinary
pipeline. This pipeline is carrying tar sands oil, which is, in fact,
the most polluting kind of oil and I am going to tell you why. This
isn't hyperbole.
Tar sands oil contains levels of toxic pollutants and metals that are
much higher than conventional crude oil. I want to make this case.
President Obama said when he became President that he would do
everything in his power to make us energy efficient and to make us
energy independent, and he has worked on both fronts. We have seen a
tremendous rise in domestic oil production. It is not tar sands oil. It
is not filthy oil. Conventional crude oil is different than the tar
sands. The tar sands have 11 times more sulfur and nickel, 6 times more
nitrogen, and 5 times more lead. Let me say that again.
Before we invite a 45-percent increase in this filthy, dirty oil,
let's take a look at what this tar sands is. It has got more sulfur and
nickel and nitrogen and more lead.
I know my colleague who is sitting in the chair cares deeply about
environmental justice, and in the course of my presentation I am going
to show what happens in places such as Port Arthur, TX, in minority
communities when this oil is refined. We can show that photograph now.
What I am trying to impress on the body today is I am proving the
point that I am making. The facts are the facts are the facts. This is
what it looks like in Port Arthur, TX. This is what the kids have to
put up with. Here is a playground in a low-income community, and I had
the activists from Port Arthur, TX, here saying, please, please,
please, protect us from this oil.
Now these dangerous pollutants I cited and these metals can be very
harmful to human health. Sulfur dioxide penetrates deeply into
sensitive parts of the lungs and it causes respiratory diseases such as
emphysema and bronchitis. You will not hear a word about that from the
proponents, but this needs to be looked at. This is why I stood with
the nurses, that is why I stood with the public health doctors, to say
time out for a minute here.
What are we doing to our people that we are saying we are helping
with the tar sands?
It aggravates heart disease, leading to increased toxic emissions and
premature death. Nitrogen dioxide increases symptoms in people with
asthma. When I go to the various schools in my State, I ask the kids:
How many of you have asthma or how many of you know someone who has
asthma? Almost half the class raises their hands, if not more.
Tar sands will exacerbate that problem. We know how dangerous lead
is, how long it took us to get lead out of paint. It adversely affects
the nervous system, the kidney function, the immune system, the
cardiovascular system. Misery follows the tar sands. The Keystone XL--
extra lethal--pipeline.
We are talking about huge quantities coming through this pipeline--
830,000 barrels of filthy tar sands oil coming across the Canadian
border heading down to our gulf coast region every single day--again, a
45-percent increase in the tar sands oil, a 45-percent increase in
those heavy metals and those dangerous pollutants. This project could
be just the beginning.
We already know again, misery follows the tar sands from the
extraction to the transportation to the refining to the waste disposal.
Let me show you a picture of petcoke, petroleum coke.
Again, it is an environmental justice question, because what we have
is what is left after the refining, and it gets sent all across the
country. This is a picture of petcoke piles in Chicago. Senator Durbin
is going to talk more about this. This is a serious environmental
hazard. The poison that is in this residue in a windstorm just blows
around and we have stories in the press in Chicago of a Little League
game being interrupted because the petcoke was blowing all over the
field, and the kids were getting pitch black with the petcoke.
So, yes, I have stood with doctors and nurses and people in these
communities who have faced harm along each step of the tar sands oil
process. These are cancer-causing pollutants. So when somebody tells
you: Oh, this is nothing. This is a pipeline. We have a lot of
pipelines. This is nothing. No big deal. Why are you fighting? Why are
you standing up here? Why did I demand 3 hours of time in opposition?
Because this is a dangerous project.
Why should we vote to force the approval of a project that would
bring this dirty, polluted tar sands into the United States when we
know it is the most difficult type of oil to clean up in case of a
spill?
According to the EPA, tar sands oil creates especially difficult
challenges to clean up when the pipelines rupture because it is so
heavy it sinks to the bottom of the water. You only have to look at the
spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010 which they still haven't
cleaned up.
In Mayflower, AK, in 2013, we will show you a picture from there.
This is what happened when there was a spill. These spills are not
cleaned up. This came right into residential communities. So again,
dirty, filthy oil and the toughest to clean up in case of a spill. We
know as sure as I am standing here if this is built there will be a
spill, because that happens; and it has already happened in 2010 and in
2013.
Of the projected 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil, most of it isn't
going to our domestic use. And that is the other question. Why would
you want to bring this dirty, polluted tar sands oil that you cannot
clean up into our country if practically all of it is going to be
exported? And we will have to bear the burdens of the refining, the
filth in the air, the petcoke in our cities, as we see the products
being exported to other countries.
Now I could stop here--I am sure the proponents wish I would, but I
am not, because if you are not convinced this is an enormous mistake, I
have got five reasons--a deeper look at the health of our people. I
have already said tar
[[Page S6035]]
sands is the filthiest oil on the planet. And I have already told you
that I have stood with nurses and doctors to make this point. Downwind
from the tar sands extraction site and the refineries in Canada there
are significantly higher levels of dangerous pollutants and carcinogens
have been documented.
People living in the nearby communities are suffering. I have met
them. I have talked to them on the phone. They flew down here to stand
by my side to call attention to the health impacts. People living in
nearby communities are suffering higher rates of cancers linked to
toxic chemicals including leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. That is a
fact. The big oil companies won't talk about it. The Koch brothers
won't talk about it. My Republican friends won't talk about it. But I
am going to talk about it and I am going to enter into the Record a
University of California-Irvine, University of Michigan peer-reviewed
study documenting elevated cancer rates near tar sands processing
zones. This was a peer-reviewed article dated September 2013.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Atmospheric Environment--Air Quality in the Industrial Heartland of
Alberta, Canada and Potential Impacts on Human Health
(By Isobel J. Simpson, Josette E. Marrero, Stuart Batterman, Simone
Meinardi, Barbara Barletta, Donald R. Blake)
HIGHLIGHTS
Alberta's Industrial Heartland is Canada's largest
hydrocarbon processing center.
We characterize 77 volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
emitted in this region.
Dozens of VOCs, including carcinogens, were enhanced in the
industrial plumes.
Sources include propene fractionation, diluent separation
and bitumen processing.
Male hematopoietic cancer rates are higher in this region
than elsewhere in Alberta.
abstract
The ``Industrial Heartland'' of Alberta is Canada's largest
hydrocarbon processing center, with more than 40 major
chemical, petrochemical, and oil and gas facilities.
Emissions from these industries affect local air quality and
human health. This paper characterizes ambient levels of 77
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the region using high-
precision measurements collected in summer 2010. Remarkably
strong enhancements of 43 VOCs were detected, and
concentrations in the industrial plumes were often similar to
or even higher than levels measured in some of the world's
largest cities and industrial regions. For example maximum
levels of propene and i-pentane exceeded 100 ppbv, and 1,3-
butadiene, a known carcinogen, reached 27 ppbv. Major VOC
sources included propene fractionation, diluent separation
and bitumen processing. Emissions of the measured VOCs
increased the hydroxyl radical reactivity (kOH), a
measure of the potential to form downwind ozone, from 3.4
s-1 in background air to 62 s-1 in the
most concentrated plumes. The plume value was comparable to
polluted megacity values, and acetaldehyde, propene and 1,3-
butadiene contributed over half of the plume kOH.
Based on a 13-year record (1994-2006) at the county level,
the incidence of male hematopoietic cancers (leukemia and
non-Hodgkin lymphoma) was higher in communities closest to
the Industrial Heartland compared to neighboring counties.
While a causal association between these cancers and exposure
to industrial emissions cannot be confirmed, this pattern and
the elevated VOC levels warrant actions to reduce emissions
of known carcinogens, including benzene and 1,3-butadiene.
1. Introduction
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted from natural
biogenic sources such as vegetation and biomass burning, and
from anthropogenic sources such as the production,
distribution and consumption of fossil fuels, including
vehicular emissions (Guenther etal., 2000; Buzcu and Fraser,
2006). VOCs play key roles in the radiative forcing and
chemistry and of the atmosphere, for example producing
tropospheric ozone (O3) and secondary organic
aerosol (SOA) (Sillman, 1999; Robinson et al., 2007). VOCs
also control concentrations of the hydroxyl radical (OH)
(Guenther et al., 1995), the principal oxidizing agent in the
troposphere. Several halogenated VOCs are potent greenhouse
gases and cause stratospheric ozone depletion, and are
regulated under the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments
(MPA) (UNEP, 2012).
In addition to their influence on air quality and climate,
VOCs are of concern because of their potential health
effects. As examples. benzene and 1,3-butadiene are known
carcinogens (IARC, 2010). Biological evidence supports the
causal linkage between certain pollutants and certain
cancers, for example, between leukemia incidence/mortality
and exposure to benzene (Snyder, 2002; Forrest et al., 2005)
and 1,3-butadiene (Cheng et al., 2007; Kirman et al., 2010).
Increased rates of leukemia, melanoma and genotoxic risk have
been shown in petroleum workers and populations living
downwind of petrochemical facilities such as oil refineries
(Wong and Raabe, 2000; Whitworth et al., 2008; Barregard et
al., 2009; Basso et al., 2011), although elevated rates and
cancer mortality are not consistently observed (Tsai et al.,
2004; Axelsson et al., 2010).
Established in the 1950s, the Industrial Heartland of
Alberta is currently a large (582 km\2\) industrial area with
more than 40 companies, including chemical, petrochemical,
and oil and gas facilities (http://
www.industrialheartland.com). It is situated about 30 km
northeast of Edmonton (53 deg.32'N, 113 deg.30'W; population
812,000) and a few km northeast of Fort Saskatchewan
(53 deg.43'N, 113 deg.13'W; population 19,000) in an
otherwise rural farming area Alberta (Fig. 1 and Fig. S1).
The Industrial Heartland is the largest hydrocarbon
processing region in Canada, and major land holding include
Shell Canada, Dow Chemical Canada, and Provident Energy &
Williams Energy Canada (now Pembina Pipeline & Williams
Energy Canada) (http://www.industrialheartland.com). Their
products include ethane, propane, propene, butane, styrene,
hexane, benzene, heavy aromatics, synthetic crude oil and
condensate (AIHA, 2012). For example, Shell Scotford is the
largest land holding in the Heartland and includes a chemical
plant, a refinery, and an upgrader that separates diluent and
processes bitumen from oil sands mined approximately 450 km
to the north, with a current processing capacity of 255,000
barrels/day (AIHA, 2012).
Industrial emissions in the Heartland affect the local air
quality, for example causing intermittent odor episodes in
the nearby community of Fort Saskatchewan. However, there
have been very few independent, peer-reviewed analyses of air
quality in the region. Thirty VOCs were measured in the
Heartland from 2004 to 2006, and elevated VOC levels were
attributed primarily to industry followed by vehicles (Mintz
and McWhinney, 2008). Air quality is monitored locally by the
Fort Air Partnership (FAP), a multi-stakeholder group with
members from industry, government and the public (http://
www.fortair.org). Though the FAP data have not been published
in the peer-reviewed literature, they show several
exceedances of Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO)
in 2010 for PM2.5, SO2, NH3
and NO2 (FAP, 2010). There were no reported
O3 exceedances in 2010 both for AAAQO standards
(82 ppb in 1 h) and for Canada-Wide Standards (65 ppb in 8
h). The annual O3 average for 2010 was 22 ppb, and
a maximum 1-h O3 value of 72 ppb was recorded in
June (FAP, 2010).
Here we present concentrations of VOCs and carbon monoxide
(CO) measured in the Industrial Heartland in August 2010, and
we discuss potential impacts of industrial VOC emissions on
air quality and on human health in the local population.
2. Methods
2.1. Ground-based air sampling
Previously our group identified VOC emission hot-spots
within a 12 12 km region of the Industrial Heartland, during
a grid study on April 10, 2008 (n = 58) as part of an
Environmental Impact Assessment in the Heartland (unpublished
data). For example, maximum levels of benzene, ethylbenzene
and styrene downwind of the Shell Scotford complex were 1.6,
2.0 and 4.0 parts per billion by volume (ppbv,
10-9), respectively, or 19, 435 and 6070 times
higher than local background concentrations measured on the
same day. During the 2010 study the sampling strategy focused
on these emission hotspots. Speciated VOC measurements were
obtained by collecting whole air samples (WAS) into evacuated
2 L stainless steel canisters, followed by analysis at our
University of California, Irvine (UC Irvine) laboratory using
multi-column gas chromatography (see Supplementary material).
Individual air samples were collected concurrently at an
upwind farm and downwind of several Heartland industries
throughout the day and evening of August 12 and 13, 2010 (n =
80; Fig. 1). In many but not all cases, strong odors were
associated with samples collected downwind of industrial
activity. Because the sampling campaign occurred over a
limited 2-day time frame, the results are not intended to
represent an assessment of conditions over longer time
scales.
Based on climate data from 1990 to 2002, the predominant
wind direction in the Fort Saskatchewan area (Strathcona
County) is from the southwest (SW) quadrant in fall and
winter, the northwest (NW) and southeast quadrants in spring,
and NW in summer (McCallum et al., 2003). During this study
most of the sampled air masses arrived from the NW--i.e., not
from Edmonton to the SW--at a median wind speed of 15 km
h-1 or a moderate breeze (Fig. 52). Therefore we
do not expect emissions from Edmonton to be a confounding
factor in this study. The temperature ranged from 14 to 21
deg.C (http://www.casadata.org/Reports/SelectCategory.asp)
and conditions were overcast with occasional drizzle and
rain--in other words not ideal for active in situ
photochemistry.
2.2. Laboratory analysis
Each air sample was returned to UC Irvine and analyzed
within 10 days for CO and 77 VOCs, including C1-
C10 hydrocarbons, C1-C2
halocarbons, C1-C5 alkyl nitrates and
C1-C2 sulfur compounds. Our analytical
procedures and calibration protocols are described in
[[Page S6036]]
the Supplementary material. The detection limit of our
measurements varies by compound and ranges from 0.005 to 100
pptv (Tables SI-S3). The measurement precision and accuracy
also vary by compound and are 3% and 5%, respectively, for
alkanes, alkenes and aromatics. Rigorous sensitivity tests
have shown that most measured VOCs are stable within our
canisters, though oxygenated hydrocarbon levels can increase
or decrease at a rate of a few percent per day, which is
reflected by their more poorly constrained precision and
accuracy (Tables 51-53 ).
2.3. VOC data analysis
Trace gas concentrations typically vary with factors
including season and latitude. During this study the
background VOC concentrations showed little diurnal
variability for most compounds (Fig. S3), and the upwind farm
samples were used to calculate the average local background
concentrations for this latitude and time of year (n = 8).
Because the plume samples were collected outside the
perimeter of the industrial facilities, perhaps 500 m or more
downwind of the emission source, the extent to which the
plumes had become mixed and diluted with background air
before being sampled is unclear. As a result the industrial
plume averages were calculated as the average of the top 10th
percentile concentrations for each species (n = 8). We note
that these industrial plume values will be less concentrated
than stack samples.
2.4. Human health data analysis
To investigate potential impacts of exposure to industrial
pollutants on human health, in particular cancer incidences,
two memos, tables and figures were obtained from the Alberta
Cancer Board (Chen, 2006, 2008) under the Canadian Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act. These
documents provide limited analyses of cancer incidences in
the region, specifically comparing the three-county area of
Fort Saskatchewan, Strathcona County and Sturgeon County
(Fig. 1) to the rest of the Edmonton-area health region, and
also to the rest of Alberta. Currently Fort Saskatchewan
houses 18 major industries, Strathcona County has 16
industries, and Sturgeon County has 9 industries (AIHA,
2012).
Based on surveillance data from 1994 through 2006
(inclusive), Chen (2008) remarks that the age-standardized
incidence rates for male hematopoietic cancer and male non-
Hodgkin lymphoma in the three-county area are elevated with
respect to the two comparison areas. We extended this
analysis by computing the mean (tstandard error) standardized
incidence rate for male hematopoietic cancers in the three-
county region using two five-year periods (1997-2001 and
2002-2006) that help to reduce the year-to-year fluctuations
in cancer cases (since the population is relatively small).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. VOC concentrations
Complete results for the 2010 sampling campaign are
summarized in Tables 51-53. With the exception of methane
(CH4), which is long-lived and relatively abundant
in the atmosphere, background VOC levels ranged from sub- or
low- parts per trillion by volume (pptv, 10 -12)
up to low ppbv levels. By comparison, concentrations of many
VOCs were clearly elevated in the industrial plumes compared
to background values (Tables S1 and S2). Of the 77 measured
VOCs, 43 were very strongly enhanced in the plumes, with
concentrations spanning roughly 1 to 4 orders of magnitude
(Fig. 2a-f and Fig. S4a-c). These compounds include all 14
aromatics that were measured, 12 alkanes, 6 alkenes, 5
oxygenated compounds, 5 halocarbons and ethyne (Table S1).
After CH4, the most abundant VOCs in the
industrial plumes were, in descending order, propene (maximum
of 107 ppbv), i-pentane (103 ppbv), n-pentane (97 ppbv),
acetaldehyde (74 ppbv) and 2- methylpentane (62 ppbv). By
comparison, their average background levels ( 1s)
ranged from 0.031 0.013 ppbv to 1.4
0.8 ppbv, or factors of 55-1980 lower. The most strongly
enhanced compounds were methyl tert-butyl ether (enhanced by
up to a factor of 6194), ethylbenzene (6179), 3-methylpentane
(4414), trans-2-butene (3609) and 2,3-dimethylbutane (3048).
An additional 15 compounds showed small-to-moderate,
statistically significant enhancements (up to 1.06-2.8-fold)
in the industrial plumes compared to background values (Table
S2). These include CH4, two sulfur compounds (DMS,
OCS), three methyl halides (CH3I,
CH3Br, CH3Cl), three brominated
compounds (CH3Br, CH2Br2,
CHBr3), four long-lived halocarbons (9-26 years;
HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, HCFC-22, CCl4), and three
short-lived solvents (1-5 months; acetone, methyl acetate,
CHCl3) (Fig. S2d-f). With the exception of
CH4, their plume averages remained below 1 ppbv
(Table S2). Although carbon tetrachloride (CCl4)
is restricted under the MPA, the precision of these
measurements is 1% (about 0.8 pptv at the measured mixing
ratios), and CCl4 shows clear and measurable enhancements in
industrial plumes downwind of Dow and Shell compared to the
background of 89.4 0.4 pptv (Fig. S2f).
We speculate that these elevated plume concentrations are
due to emissions from pre-existing reservoirs.
Carbon monoxide and the remaining 19 of 77 measured VOCs
showed similar concentration ranges in both background air
and plumes, and were not appreciably impacted by industrial
emissions (Fig. S3a-d). This group comprises a number of
halocarbons (CFCs, halons, CH3CCl3,
HFC-134a, 1,2-dichloroethene), biogenic compounds (isoprene,
a-pinene and b-pinene) and alkyl nitrates (Table S3). Several
of the halocarbons are restricted under the MPA, and their
lack of industrial emission is not surprising (Fig. S3a).
Although the pinenes have previously shown an unexpected
association with industrial emissions from oil sands
operations near Fort McMurray (Simpson et al., 2010), an
industrial signature was not evident here (Fig. S3b). Carbon
monoxide was not enhanced in the industrial plumes (Fig.
S3c), showing that combustive sources (including vehicular
emissions) did not significantly impact the measured plumes.
Alkyl nitrate levels remained in the low pptv range (Fig.
S3d), indicating little evidence of secondary photochemistry.
This is most likely explained by a combination of unfavorable
conditions for in situ photochemistry (Section 2.1) and the
short travel time from plume emission to sample collection.
For example, an emitted plume could reach the sampling sites
in as little as a few minutes based on a wind speed of 10-20
km h-1 (Section 2.1) and a downwind sampling
distance of 500 m.
3.2. Emission signatures
Based on linear correlations among the measured VOCs using
least squares linear fits (Simpson et al., 2010), the emitted
VOCs fell into at least five distinct correlating groups.
First, the C3-C4 alkenes were strongly
correlated (0.99 r2 1.00), driven by high
concentrations measured downwind of the Provident/Williams
facility (Fig. 2a), which includes a natural gas liquids and
propene fractionation project and produces C2-
C4 alkanes and C3-C4 butenes
(AIHA, 2012). Remarkably, the maximum propene level (107
ppbv) was almost double that measured in the Houston-
Galveston Bay area (56 ppbv), even though Houston is both a
much larger metropolitan area than Fort Saskatchewan and the
largest petrochemical manufacturing center in the United
States (Ryerson et al., 2003; Gilman et al., 2009).
Second, the C5-C7 alkanes and
methacrolein were highly correlated (0.81 r2
1.00), with largest concentrations downwind of Shell
Scotford, which separates diluent and processes bitumen
(Section 1), and Access Pipeline, which produces diluent and
blended bitumen (Fig. 2 band Fig. S4a). The maximum n-hexane
level (52 ppbv) was 2.5-17 times higher than maximum values
measured in some of the world's megacities (Beijing, Mexico
City, and Tokyo) (Parrish et al., 2009), although lower than
the maximum levels measured during a ship-based study in
Houston/Galveston Bay (81 ppbv) (Gilman et al., 2009).
Simpson et al. (2010) associated elevated levels of
C4-C9 alkanes with emissions from oil
sands and its products and/or diluent, and this second group
of VOCs is consistent with a diluent/bitumen signature. Even
though methacrolein and methyl vinyl ketone are both major
isoprene oxidation products (Montzka et al., 1993) they were
uncorrelated during this study (r2 0.01). Because
the maximum methacrolein level (20 ppbv) far exceeds the
amount that isoprene oxidation chemistry can explain, its
excess concentrations are attributed to industrial emissions.
Third, acetaldehyde (Fig. 54b), i-butane (Fig. 2c) and n-
butane were correlated strongly with one another (0.88
r2 0.98) and somewhat with the C3-
C4 alkenes (0.58 r2 0.68). Maximum
levels of all three compounds (26-74 ppbv) were measured
downwind of Provident/Williams, which produces C2-
C4 alkanes (AIHA, 2012); Shell Scotford, which
lists C3-C4 mix as a product; and
Access Pipeline. Surprisingly, the maximum butane levels were
comparable to those in central Mexico City during the mid-
1990s when liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) was a major source
of butanes and contributed to poor air quality (Blake and
Rowland, 1995). The characteristic emission ratio of i-
butane/n-butane is 0.2-0.3 for vehicular exhaust, 0.46 for
LPG, and 0.6-1.0 for natural gas (Russo et al., 2010 and
references therein). Here the average (1s) ratio
in the top 10% of plumes (based on the highest i-butane and
n-butane concentrations) was 0.47 0.18, similar
to that for LPG and to that measured downwind of the oil
sands industry (0.42 0.03) (Simpson et al.,
2010), suggesting that the i-butane/n-butane ratio for
various petrochemical processes resembles that for LPG. The
main global source of acetaldehyde is photochemical
hydrocarbon oxidation, with a relatively small industrial
source (Singh et al., 2004; Millet et al., 2010). Here,
however, the very high acetaldehyde levels cannot be
explained by secondary photochemical production (Section 3.1)
and they are attributed to direct industrial emission from
various facilities. For example, the Shell Scotford chemical
plant reportedly released 3.9 tonnes of acetaldehyde in 2010
(NPRI, 2012).
Fourth, toluene and the xylenes correlated strongly with
one another (0.79 r2 0.98) and with the second
group of compounds (0.60 r2 0.89). The highest
levels of toluene and the xylenes (2.7 ppbv and 0.65-3.4
ppbv, respectively) were measured downwind of the Shell
Scotford complex (Fig. S4c), which lists heavy aromatics
among its products. The maximum toluene level was 69 times
higher than background (Table S1), but lower than maximum
values in megacities such as Mexico City, Tokyo and Beijing (
10 ppbv) and near major petrochemical complexes in Texas and
Spain (16-77 ppbv) (Gilman et al., 2009; Ras et al., 2009).
Fifth, n-octane and the C9 aromatics
(ethylbenzene, trimethylbenzenes, n-
[[Page S6037]]
propylbenzene) correlated strongly (0.74 r2
1.00), and with highest concentrations downwind of the Shell
Scotford complex. The maximum ethylbenzene mixing ratio (23
ppbv; Fig. 2d) was much larger than for other compounds in
this group (0.22-0.83 ppbv), indicating clear emissions of
this possible carcinogen. The Shell Scotford refinery
manufactures a range of products including gasoline, diesel
and jet fuel, and reportedly released 0.562 tonnes of
ethylbenzene in 2010 (NPRI, 2012).
Other chemicals were clearly emitted but did not
necessarily correlate strongly with other VOCs. Ethane and
propane were moderately correlated (r2 = 0.62),
with highest levels measured downwind of Keyera and
Provident-Williams (ethane and propane) and Dow Chemical
(ethane only). The maximum propane mixing ratio (45 ppbv) was
lower than in Houston/Galveston Bay) (347 ppbv) (Gilman et
al., 2009). Benzene showed some correlation with ethylbenzene
(r2 = 0.58) and the highest benzene level (6.6
ppbv; Fig. 2e) was measured downwind of Shell Scotford, which
produces benzene and reportedly released 2.5 tonnes of
benzene from its refinery in 2010 (NPRI, 2012). The highest
1.3-butadiene level was also measured downwind of the Shell
facility (27 ppbv; Fig. 2f), though 1,3-butadiene is not
listed in the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) for
Shell. The combustion tracers ethene and ethyne were only
weakly correlated (r2 = 0.52) and their highest
concentrations were measured downwind of Dow, which produces
ethene. Ethene/ethyne ratios of 1-3 and 10-30 are
characteristic of tailpipe emissions and petrochemical
facilities, respectively (Ryerson et al., 2003). Here the
ethene/ethyne ratio was 9.7 1.0, which confirms
the industrial rather than vehicular nature of the observed
plumes.
3.3 Air quality impacts
The contribution of individual VOCs to O3
formation is a function of their concentration and their
reactivity towards OH, and can be expressed as the total OH
reactivity (kOH) Kovacs et al., 2003; Mao et al.,
2010; Kim et al., 2011):
kOH =
(kOH+VOCi[VOCi] +
kOH+CO[CO] +
kOH+NO[NO]+kOH + NO2[NO2]
+...) (1)
Here kOH is used to evaluate the relative
contributions of CO and the measured VOCs to downwind
photochemistry. Because we did not measure nitrogen oxides
(NOX), which can contribute 15-50% to
kOH in cities such as Houston, Mexico City and New
York (Mao et al., 2010), the reactivity reported here is
likely underestimated and is understood to be only for the
measured species, rather than total OH reactivity.
The OH reactivity in background air was 3.4 s-1,
similar to clean air values of 1-3 s-1 (Kim et
al., 2011; Lou et al., 2010). Not surprisingly, isoprene was
the primary contributor to kOH in background air,
followed by CO, acetaldehyde and CH4 (Fig. 3a). By
contrast, kOH in the top 10th percentile of data
with highest VOC loadings was 62 s -1, or 18 times
larger than background. Even though we have missing
reactivity, this plume kOH value is already
comparable to levels in polluted megacities such as Mexico
City, Tokyo and Hong Kong/Guangzhou, which typically range
from 10 to 100 s-1 (Lou et al., 2010 and
references therein). Because of their abundance and
reactivity, propene, acetaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene were
responsible for more than 50% of kOH in the
plumes, while alkanes contributed another 23% (Fig. 3b).
These results show some similarity to airborne studies in
the greater Houston area, where propene and ethene were
identified as the two VOCs primarily responsible for rapid
O3 formation (Ryerson et al., 2003; deGouw et
al., 2009) and alkene emissions from petrochemical
facilities are the primary source of formaldehyde, also an
O3 precursor (Parrish et al., 2012).
Despite the abundance of VOC precursors and strong OH
reactivity in the industrial plumes, no O3
exceedances were measured in the Fort Saskatchewan region in
2010 (Section 1). In general, the highest monthly
O3 averages occur during spring, and the highest
1-h O3 averages occur during hot summer afternoons
when wind speeds are low (FAP, 2010). Ozone levels are lower
within the center of the Heartland airshed, likely due to the
presence of NOX which lower O3 concentrations
through titration (FAP, 2010). Simpson et al. (2010) also
found relatively low levels of O3 downwind of the
Alberta oil sands because titration with NO exceeded
O3 production on the short time-scale since
precursor emission. Overall, it appears that industrial VOC
sources in the Fort Saskatchewan area are emitted into a
relatively clean background for O3, and local
O3 exceedances are not common.
3.4. Gaps in VOC emission reporting
Although 43 of 77 measured VOCs were strongly elevated in
the industrial plumes compared to local background
concentrations, only 16 were quantified in the 2010 NPRI for
the industries discussed in this paper (ethene, propene, 1,3-
butadiene, 1,2-dichloroethane, n-hexane, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, total xylenes, styrene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene,
acetaldehyde, carbonyl sulfide, chloroform, trichloroethene,
HCFC-22; NPRI, 2012), with individual companies reporting 0-
10 VOCs. As a first example, while strongly elevated levels
of at least a dozen C2-C8 alkanes were
detected downwind of several Industrial Heartland facilities
(Table S1, Fig. 2b-c and Fig. S4a), only n-hexane is included
in the NPRI. The VOCs reported in the NPRI include light
alkenes and are weighted towards aromatic species, yet our
study shows that alkanes are a leading contributor to
kOH in the Heartland (Fig. 3b). Second, while 1,3-
butadiene is a known carcinogen, emissions of this VOC are
reported by only one of the companies considered here.
Even when emission rates are reported, they require
verification to ensure that the reporting is accurate. For
example, recent NPRI listings of VOC emission rates
(including benzene) from an unnamed Canadian refinery were
found to be underestimated by 15-18-fold (Chambers et al.,
2008). In addition to improved reporting of speciated VOCs in
the NPRI or other publically available inventories,
especially 1,3-butadiene and light alkanes, we recommend
independent air quality monitoring and VOC emission estimates
in the Heartland region so that emitted compounds can be
externally identified, quantified and reported in the peer-
reviewed literature.
3.5. Human health impacts
Of the 77 VOCs measured here, at least 10 are either known
human carcinogens (Group 1: benzene, 1,3-butadiene), probable
carcinogens (Group 2A: trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene),
or possible carcinogens (Group 2B: carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, dichloromethane,
ethylbenzene, isoprene, styrene) (IARC, 2010). Of these, 1,3-
butadiene and ethylbenzene were the most abundant in the
industrial plumes, with maximum levels of 23-27 ppbv, or 3-4
orders of magnitude larger than their background values
(Table S1).
An analysis of cancer incidences in the Industrial
Heartland shows elevated incidence rates of male
hematopoietic cancers in the three-county area where the
industries are located (Fort Saskatchewan, Strathcona County
and Sturgeon County) compared to neighboring regions for both
1997-2001 and 2002-2006, although the error bars are large
due to small sample sizes (Fig. 4). Several steps would help
to confirm such trends and possibly provide a more direct
link between these cancers and emissions of toxic VOCs in the
Heartland: improved estimates of VOC emissions and exposure
estimates that included more detail and historical data;
better cancer surveillance that included regular evaluations,
breakdown by cancer type (e.g., myelogenous, monocytic and
lymphocytic leukemias) and geocoding of cases; collection of
potential covariates and confounders (e.g., residence and
work history); and use of statistical and epidemiological
techniques to investigate spatial, temporal and exposure-
related patterns of disease in the community.
Elevated risk of hematopoietic cancers has also been found
in other populations living downwind of industrial
facilities, even at relatively low VOC exposures. For
example, leukemia incidence an exposed population living near
a large Swedish oil refinery known to emit benzene and other
VOCs was significantly elevated (33 cases vs. 22 expected
cases) compared to local controls (50 cases vs. 56 expected),
despite an estimated refinery contribution to annual average
VOC concentrations of only 0.63 ppb for benzene and 0.23 ppb
for 1,3-butadiene (Barregard et al., 2009). The authors note
that risk estimates extrapolated from high-level exposure
would not predict an increase of leukemia at low VOC
exposures, and they suggest that risk estimates using
standard carcinogenic unit risk or slope factors do not
adequately represent true risks from much lower exposures. As
a second example of a population-based study, higher exposure
to benzene and 1,3-butadiene in 886 census tracts surrounding
Houston, Texas was associated with increased incidence of
childhood lymphohematopoietic cancers (Whitworth et al.,
2008). Some of the highest exposures occurred in the Houston
Ship Channel area, which contains a large number of petroleum
and chemical industries.
Recommended exposure limits and risk-based criteria evolve
as our understanding of the chemical toxicity of carcinogens
improves. Using benzene as an example, the recommended
exposure limit relevant for occupational settings has
decreased from 100 ppm in 1947 to 1 ppm (Wong et al., 1999;
McHale et al., 2010; Smith, 2010); the 1-h average ambient
air quality guideline in Alberta is 9 ppb (Chambers et al.,
2008). However, adverse health outcomes, including
hematological changes and gene perturbations, have been
reported at exposure levels below 1 ppm (McHale et al., 2010;
Qu et al., 2002; Lan et al., 2004; Xing et al., 2010).
Indeed, recent literature suggests that there is probably no
safe exposure level to benzene because it does not appear to
have a functional low-dose threshold, and because the effects
of exposure appear to be additive in a linear or supralinear
fashion (Smith, 2010). Further, in environmental settings (as
compared to workplace), exposure to compound mixtures rather
than a single compound at a time is common, and simultaneous
exposure to complex mixtures, including multiple carcinogens,
may involve interactions and possibly synergistic effects on
target organs or systems at low exposure (Basso et al.,
2011). Although VOC levels were significantly elevated above
concurrent local background values in the Heartland,
concentrations remained below existing guidelines for short-
term exposure. Guidelines for long-term exposures generally
use a risk-based approach, and there is considerable
uncertainty regarding the unit risk factors that describe the
toxicity of a chemical (or mixture) for the public and
susceptible individuals, as well as debate over what is
acceptable or protective. (A number of U.S. state and federal
rules use individual lifetime cancer risks in the range of 1
in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000.)
[[Page S6038]]
The elevated incidence of cancers within the Industrial
Heartland that are known to be linked to VOCs released in the
region raises questions regarding whether ambient levels,
emission controls, and risk calculations are adequately
protective of public health. In addition, on-site workers may
be at increased risk because of their closer proximity to
emission sources. While several factors might well explain an
observation of increased cancer rates, e.g., variability of a
population's genetic makeup, differences in dietary or
lifestyle factors, and statistical variability, it is also
important and responsible to improve health surveillance and
VOC exposure measurements, to utilize epidemiological studies
that can better link environmental factors to disease, and to
reduce exposures to pollutants that might plausibly be
related to adverse health impacts.
4. Conclusions
Ambient monitoring in the Industrial Heartland of Alberta,
the largest hydrocarbon processing region in Canada, showed
remarkable enhancements in VOC concentrations. Even though
the Heartland is situated within a generally rural area, many
maximum concentrations were comparable to those measured in
the world's largest cities. Thirty VOCs were present at
levels above 1 ppbv, and maximum propene and i-pentane levels
exceeded 100 ppbv. Some of the largest VOC excesses were
measured in samples designated as ``no smell'', showing that
absence of odor does not necessarily indicate good air
quality. The industrial plumes showed distinct chemical
signatures that varied not only between facilities but also
within individual facilities. An analysis of OH reactivity in
the plumes suggests that propene, acetaldehyde and 1,3-
butadiene have the greatest potential to form downwind
O3.
Excess numbers of hematopoietic cancers were observed in
the same region that emits substantial quantities of complex
mixtures of industrial pollutants, including several VOCs
that are known to cause these cancers. While there are many
factors that preclude a causal linkage, including a lack of
exposure history for the local population and uncertainties
associated with the health impacts of low exposures to
multiple compounds, we suggest that immediate reductions in
emissions of known carcinogens such as benzene and 1,3-
butadiene are warranted and prudent.
Acknowledgments
Laboratory analysis was performed by Brent Love and Gloria
Liu Weitz. Barbara Chisholm provided logistical support. The
authors thank Jo-Yu Chin for her comments, and Verona Goodwin
and two local residents for their assistance during sampling.
Field work and laboratory analysis was funded by the Tides
Foundation.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.09.017.
Mrs. BOXER. Once it leaves Canada and is transported to refineries in
the United States, the tar sands would increase the pollution in
already plagued communities such as Port Arthur, which I showed you and
I will show you again.
Port Arthur is already refining tar sands oil. This is going to
greatly increase the amount of tar sands oil they are going to be
refining. They are on the EPA's list of cities with dangerous ozone
levels, people suffering from asthma, respiratory ailments, skin
irritations, and cancer.
The oil companies aren't going to tell you about this and the Koch
brothers aren't going to tell you about this and my Republican friends
aren't going to tell you about this, but I am going to tell you about
this. Tar sands will add another threat to Port Arthur and other
communities that are already in distress.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article
describing health problems experienced by families living near Port
Arthur refineries, and it is entitled ``Everyone Deserves Clean Air and
Equal Protection From Pollution,'' dated August 12, 2014.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Chron, August 12, 2014]
Everyone Deserves Clean Air and Equal Protection From Pollution
EVERY ONE SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT TO BREATHE CLEAN, SAFE AIR
(By Hilton Kelley and Anne Rolfes)
Would you want your child to live next door to an oil
refinery and face an increased risk for cancer, heart or
breathing problems?
Millions of Americans live very close to some 150 oil
refineries in 32 states, including our home states of Texas
and Louisiana, and have an increased cancer risk because of
the air pollution coming from refineries. Those most
vulnerable to this pollution are disproportionately black,
Latino, children and lower income.
Port Arthur, for instance, is home to eight major oil and
chemical industrial sites, including oil refineries.
And cancer deaths in Jefferson County, where Port Arthur is
located, are 40 percent higher among African Americans than
they are for the average Texan, according to the Texas Cancer
Registry.
Children in the predominantly Latino Manchester
neighborhood of Houston--home to a Valero Refinery--have a 56
percent greater chance of getting leukemia than children who
live elsewhere, according to researchers from the University
of Texas School of Public Health.
By conservative estimates, oil refineries emit more than
20,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants each year, including
cancer-causing benzene, lead and hydrogen cyanide.
This public health and environmental problem must be
addressed. Everyone should have an equal right to breathe
clean, safe air, including the people who live nearest the
country's oil refineries. Now, there's a possibility of
meaningful change nationwide. For the first time in nearly
two decades, the EPA has proposed updated standards to reduce
oil refineries' toxic air emissions. The current federal
standards do not require the most recent and up-to-date
technology that would limit hazardous air pollution and fail
to protect public health. For example, the existing rules do
not require refineries to monitor the hazardous pollutants
they emit at the edge of the property where refineries are
situated--called the fenceline--which would provide a more
accurate measure of the pollutants that are really going into
these communities.
In recent years, some refineries have adopted new
technologies that reduce toxic air emissions and prevent
pollution spikes and accidents. These pollution control
methods are available and affordable, but they have not been
adopted throughout the industry.
Under the EPA's proposed standards, oil refineries would be
required to measure benzene, a carcinogen, at the fenceline
as it drifts into the local community and then make that data
publicly available. This is a significant proposal on a
problem that communities living near refineries have been
raising for years.
The proposed standards would require tighter controls on
emissions from storage tanks and other parts of refineries
that are major contributors to toxic air pollution.
The oil industry has objected to the new rules, claiming
that they are unnecessary and burdensome. In reality, the
EPA's analysis shows that the new rules will reduce toxic air
pollution by 5,600 tons each year and that the cancer risk
will be significantly reduced for 1 million people.
The costs to the industry will be negligible, according to
the EPA, but even if the costs were significant, it would be
worth it to save lives. It is not fair for children living
near refineries to bear the hidden costs of oil production--
in the form of cancer, asthma, birth defects and other
serious illnesses--when the industry could fix a lot of
problems and reduce the toxic pollution it creates.
The EPA's proposed rules on air pollution from oil
refineries are a welcome step forward. The agency should, in
fact, make the rule even stronger by doing more to protect
people from the real-world health consequences of living next
door to an oil refinery, by incorporating a fenceline
monitoring requirement that would employ the best current
technology to give neighborhoods a real-time, continuous
measure of pollution, not just a snapshot, and ensure
refineries quickly fix pollution problems.
____
[From USA Today, Oct. 20, 2007]
Texas Toxic Town Lures Industry While Residents Wheeze
(By Monica Rhor)
Port Arthur, TX.--There is a quiet battle for the future of
this industrial town, one of America's most polluted places.
On one side is ex-mayor Oscar Ortiz, who in the waning days
of his administration worried about one thing. But it wasn't
the toxic chemicals that spew from petrochemical plants, the
town's richest landowners, through the windows of its poorest
residents.
What rattled the white-maned, barrel-chested Ortiz, who ran
Port Arthur for nine years, was that someday the
petrochemical plants would go away.
``The only money here in the city of Port Arthur that
amounts to anything comes from industry, from petrochemical
companies,'' said Oritz, leaning back in his chair in an
office decorated with framed photographs of refineries. ``If
industry goes away, people might as well go away too because
there'll be no money. That's the continued salvation of this
city.''
Hilton Kelley, like Ortiz born and raised in Port Arthur,
is the opposition.
Kelley does worry about the toxic chemicals, the foul-
smelling air and the west side residents who suffer from
asthma, respiratory ailments, skin irritations and cancer. As
the city's most visible environmental activist, Kelley has
long campaigned for more restrictions on industrial
construction and stricter monitoring of plant emissions.
``I grew up smelling the S02 (sulfur dioxide) smell, the
chemicals. I remember seeing little kids with sores on their
legs, with mucus running in August. It's ridiculous what
we've had to deal with,'' says Kelley, a former actor with
the sonorous voice of a radio announcer. ``We're not trying
to shut doors of industry. We're just trying to push these
guys to do what's right.''
Ortiz calls Kelley an alarmist who likes to ``stir things
up'' in the minority community Kelley accuses Ortiz of
sacrificing the community's welfare in exchange for slim tax
revenue from the plants.
[[Page S6039]]
One man represents Port Arthur the way it has always been;
the other symbolizes a growing call for change.
But change, especially in a place like Port Arthur, never
comes easily.
``This city is not going to change. It is a refinery town--
tomorrow, next year, 100 years from now. It will always be a
petro-chemical area,'' says Ortiz.
And if its residents are getting sick from the pollution?
Well, says Ortiz: ``We've all got to die of something.''
Port Arthur, located next to the Louisiana line, sits in a
corridor routinely ranked as one of the country's most
polluted regions. Texas and Louisiana are home to five oil
refineries considered among the nation's 10 worst offenders
in releasing toxic air pollutants, emitting 8.5 million
pounds of toxins together in 2002.
Yet even here, Port Arthur stands out.
Its skyline is framed by the smokestacks and knotted steel
pipes of the refineries and chemical plants clustered along
the edges of the town. Flares from the plants glow red
against the night sky, as incinerated chemicals filter into
the air.
The smell of rotten eggs and sulphur hangs stubbornly over
the apartments and shotgun houses on the west side. Port
Arthur, population 57,000, is on the EPA's list of cities
with dangerous ozone levels, and the state has flagged its
excessive levels of benzene.
Many cities along the Texas Gulf Coast are dotted with
refineries. But the companies' high tax bills are used to
improve schools, create green space and bulk up city coffers.
Port Arthur waives most property taxes to lure industry.
Eric Shaeffer, a former EPA official who runs the
Environmental Integrity Project in Washington, D.C., a
nonprofit advocacy group, has written two studies on
pollution in Port Arthur. ``It's one of the worst I've
seen,'' he said.
The Veolia Environmental Services plant in Port Arthur
recently alerted incinerating nearly 2 million gallons of VX
hydrolysate, the wastewater byproduct of a deadly nerve gas
agent.
Besides the pollution the state and EPA allow as part of
the cost of doing business, the plants spew more toxins
during ``upset events''--unpermitted releases caused by
lightning strikes, human error, start-ups and shutdowns.
Plant officials cite statistics showing steady progress in
reducing some emissions, but Shaeffer cites a continuing
hazard.
Around 2 a.m. Thursday, a pipeline explosion sent ethylene-
fueled flames shooting 100 feet into the air. The Union
Carbide-Dow Chemical pipeline lies about a quarter-mile from
the nearest home, Kelley said. No injuries were reported, but
officials warned people to stay indoors.
``When you get releases, it really hits people tight in the
chest,'' said Shaeffer. ``It's one thing to be driving past
the plants on the highway. It's another thing for kids to be
out on the swing sets when there's a release.''
Jordan, 5, and Justin, 7, play on the swings at Carver
Terrace, the public housing project they live in next door to
refineries run by Motiva and Valero that produce half a
million barrels of oil a day and belch thousands of pounds of
pollutants into the air.
Jordan's lungs are so weakened from a lifelong battle with
asthma and bronchitis that he can't shout or call for help
like other children, says their mother, LaShauna Green.
He must inhale medicine every four hours through a plastic
mask that swamps his chubby face. Every two hours, he must
take one of seven prescription drugs that keep his air
passages from tightening.
Justin struggles to breathe after climbing just one flight
of stairs.
Those troubles vanished when the Green family left the area
for a year following 2005's Hurricane Rita. But two days
after their return to Carver Terrace, Justin was rushed to a
hospital twice in one day with respiratory attacks.
``When you start getting this kind of toxic chemical soup,
we don't really know what the combination of all these things
are doing,'' said Debra Morris, an assistant professor at the
University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston who studied
Port Arthur-area pollution.
Texas oil was first discovered near Port Arthur. For
decades, the region nurtured industrial build-up with
generous tax abatements. In return, the companies would
promise to pay later and to create local jobs.
Oritz defends the incentives as the only way to keep his
city alive.
``The one main substance that keeps the city floating is
the refineries,'' he said.
Refineries and chemical plants contribute about 67% of the
city's budget through some taxes, Ortiz said, Still, without
the abatements the city would have collected tens of millions
of dollars more.
The city of Port Arthur has at least 28 tax-abatement deals
with refineries and chemical plants. Surrounding Jefferson
County has at least six, including with Motiva, Total, and
Valero, which will pay no property taxes for the first two
years of a nine-year contract and then pay 10% of the taxes
it would owe for the next seven.
Motiva will pay no taxes on a $3.5 billion expansion
project for the next three years. Total taxes rise to $4.16
million by 2012.
Jeff Branick, assistant to Jefferson County executive Ron
Walker, says the Motiva expansion is expected to create
thousands of temporary construction jobs and 300 permanent
jobs; Valero's project is expected to create 40 to 65 jobs,
he said.
``It's going to be pumping a whole lot of money into the
local economy,'' Branick said. ``It creates hotel-motel tax
revenue and will be attracting people from the outside who
will be coming here to work and renting houses.''
Ortiz also points to a new development on Pleasure Island,
a resort with golf courses, new hotels and bustling shopping
centers springing up on the city's south side. All, says
Ortiz, spurred by the growth of the industrial complexes.
However, that prosperity bypassed Port Arthur's
predominantly black west side and central city neighborhoods
where singer Janis Joplin and sports legend Babe Zaharias
were raised.
``This town is like a forgotten grandmother. It helped
nourish the growth of the area, now all the wealth is moving
(out),'' said Kelley. ``It's not fair to leave this entire
community unnourished.''
Despite the development Port Arthur is not as prosperous as
other refinery towns. Its median household income is two-
thirds the Texas average; its homes are valued at less than
half the state average. Port Arthur public high school
students pass the test required for graduation at about half
the state rate.
By comparison, the Houston suburb of Deer Park--home to its
own refinery row--collects more taxes from its petrochemical
complex. Before the state equalized school funding, its
school district was nearly the richest in the state. The
median home price is 25% higher than the state average and
its median household income is 30% above the state average.
Both cities have roughly the same percentage of residents
in chemical or construction fields.
Kelley is not the only one raising questions about how
things are done in Port Arthur.
Some city officials have also started to question the
benefits of the tax abatement deals.
In most, companies promise to ``give Port Arthur residents
a fair opportunity to apply for employment'' but don't
require jobs go to city residents. One company's pledge to
use local labor and contractors defined ``local'' as covering
a nine-county region.
Councilman Michael Sinegal says he frequently hears from
residents who say they have been rejected for jobs at the
plants. Overall unemployment here is about 6%, while among
blacks it's 14%, he said; the state rate is 4%.
``The bottom line is that the people of Port Arthur are
getting the negative byproduct from the plants, but should be
getting an abundance of positive byproduct,'' Sinegal said.
Valero said the refinery has hired 161 people since Jan. 1,
2005. About 20% live in Port Arthur.
The city council recently ordered a study on contractors'
hiring practices so it can devise a monitoring plan.
``We've let the community down.'' Sinegal said.
In late August a group of 28 state lawmakers joined Kelley
and others in urging Texas Gov. Rick Perry to block further
shipments of VX hydrolysate to Port Arthur. Perry declined to
intervene.
The latest assessment by state environmental regulators of
Port Arthur showed that benzene had dropped to acceptable
levels for the first time since 2000. Valero officials said
they reduced emissions by more than 82% between 1996 and
2005, and had reduced ``upset'' emissions by 98%. Residents,
however, still suffer higher rates of progressive pulmonary
diseases than people elsewhere in the state.
Last year, Motiva agreed to give $3.5 million to help fund
medical care, air monitors and a revitalization program for
Port Arthur's west side community. The agreement was part of
a settlement with Kelley's Community In-Power Development
Association, after it challenged the plant's expansion.
And, 50 years after Carver Terrace was built, the Port
Arthur Housing Authority plans to demolish the units and move
residents to new homes throughout the city.
Was Carver Terrace's proximity to the refinery the
authority's prime motivation? No, said authority chief Cele
Quesada. ``Of course, in the back of everyone's mind, there
is awareness that we are on the fenceline. We would rather
see a green area here than 180 families.''
The likely buyer? Motiva Enterprises.
Kelley, who was born in Apartment 1202-E in Carver Terrace,
commented: ``When you appeal to the conscience of man, how
these things are impacting our children. you can get them to
see our point. But a lot of the times, the bottom line still
wins.''
Mrs. BOXER. To get to the gulf coast, tar sands will be transported
by pipeline through communities in environmentally sensitive areas in
six States. We know from experience how harmful this could be, again,
because of how hard it is to clean up after a spill, and we know about
the petcoke. I have shown you the petcoke, which is black dust
containing some heavy metals.
Open piles of this waste began to appear at unprecedented levels in
midwestern communities and it sparked health and environmental concerns
in many neighborhoods in Detroit and Chicago.
Let's take this back and show the Chicago picture again.
[[Page S6040]]
In this Chicago neighborhood, billowing black clouds of petcoke
forced Little League players off the baseball field. The children were
forced to seek cover from the clouds of black dust that pelted homes
and cars. According to one newspaper, ``Kids that were playing ball
were sent scurrying away because the stuff was getting into their eyes,
on to their faces and into their mouths and everything. They just had
to get the heck out of there.''
I would like to enter into the Record at this time an article that
says, ``In Chicago, piles of petroleum coke suggest the future of
Canadian tar sands oil,'' dated November 17, 2014.
I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record as
well.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Marketplace, Nov. 18, 2013]
In Chicago, Piles of Petroleum Coke Suggest the Future of Canadian Tar
Sands Oil
(By Dan Weissmann)
This summer, residents of Chicago's far southeast side
noticed mountains of black dust growing in one corner of the
neighborhood. It's petroleum coke--pet coke for short. That's
what gasoline refineries produce as a byproduct of refining
gasoline. It's full of carbon, sulphur and heavy metals.
On August 30, a big wind brought the coke piles to the
whole neighborhood's attention. At a baseball field a block
or two away, a little league game ended in a hurry.
``Kids that were playing ball were sent scurrying away
because the stuff was getting into their eyes and their face
and their mouths and everything,'' says Tom Shepherd, a
volunteer with the Southeast Environmental Task Force. ``They
had to just get the heck out of here.''
He calls the 30th ``a day that will live in infamy.'' He
says, ``People were calling 911 and saying, `There's a fire!
We don't know where the fire is, but the neighborhood's full
of smoke.' ''
But it wasn't smoke. It was dust from the piles that had
been growing throughout the summer.
They're a sneak preview of what's ahead. At least some of
the dust came from a local BP refinery. It's across the state
line in Indiana, but it can be seen from the neighborhood.
And that refinery is about to triple the amount of pet-coke
it turns out. BP is finishing a huge upgrade this fall, to
process oil from Canada's tar sands.
That oil is ``heavier'' with elements that get refined out
and turned into pet-coke. Post-upgrade, the Indiana refinery
will turn out 6,000 tons a day. Eventually, it gets sold as
fuel, much of it to countries like Mexico and China. But
meanwhile, it piles up.
``It's the most visual part of the success of North
American energy independence,'' says Phil Verleger, an
economist who studies energy markets.
That success has both an upside and a downside: Nearby
sources of oil should mean lower fuel prices in the Midwest,
which has high gas prices. And more piles of pet coke.
``So the question is,'' Verleger says, ``How do we deal
with this pile of black stuff that's bringing us this supply
of fuel?''
So far, nobody's got an answer.
In early November, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan
filed a complaint in state court. Her office said the dust
from the piles violated environmental regulations. Madigan
says she doesn't know exactly what it would take to make pet-
coke a good neighbor. ``Well, you know, if it's not safe
where it is, it may have to go somewhere else,'' she says.
That would be a popular answer on the Southeast Side. Last
week, neighbors packed a local church when Illinois EPA
officials came to gather input. Again and again, the meeting
got stopped by a chant: ``Move the piles! Move the piles!''
So far, neighbors have blamed BP and Koch Industries, which
owns the yard with Chicago's pet-coke piles. BP and Koch say
there's been a misunderstanding so far. BP says that it
wasn't actually sending more pet coke than usual to the
Chicago yard this summer.
Koch has its own explanation for the taller piles: It was
moving petroleum coke around in the yards to make room for
new safety equipment. It installed big water cannons, which
are supposed to keep the piles wet so the dust doesn't blow
around. Making room meant more activity, and some piles got
taller for a while.
Mrs. BOXER. Now when this petcoke started to blow all across the
communities, residents felt they could not safely open the windows
during the summer for fear the black clouds would trigger their
children's asthma, and with good reason. We know this type of toxic air
pollution can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause
or aggravate bronchitis, or contribute to other diseases.
Asthma. The Federal Government has said that asthma has become a
national epidemic. This is a picture of a little girl who is having a
hard time breathing.
I say to my friend from Kansas, I have another 15 minutes, just for
his information.
This is a photo of a little girl who is having difficulty breathing
because she has asthma. The Federal Government has said asthma has
become ``a national epidemic''--which is that 1 out of every 12 people,
or 26 million Americans, and 7 million of these are children. We don't
need more asthma. American communities don't need more petcoke. My
Republican friends are not going to talk to you about asthma. They are
not going to quote the oil companies saying what a great job they are
doing preventing it. Ultimately, the Keystone tar sands pipeline
decision should be based on whether the project is in the national
interest.
Today I ask rhetorically of my colleagues: How are more Americans
with asthma in the national interest? How are more Americans with
cancer in the national interest? How is it in the national interest
when kids playing baseball have to duck and cover from dangerous
pollution?
The health of our children and our families is at stake, and we have
a right to know how tar sands oil will affect our health.
Unfortunately, we don't have all the information we need to have.
Senator Whitehouse and I wrote to Secretary John Kerry and asked for
a comprehensive health impact study on the tar sands oil and how the
Keystone Pipeline will impact the health of communities across the
Nation. We don't have the studies. Again, Senator Whitehouse and I are
not physicians. That is why we stood with the nurses and the doctors.
A Gallup poll has found 12 years in a row that nursing is the most
trusted profession. So National Nurses United, which is the Nation's
largest professional association of registered nurses--185,000 strong--
has joined our call for a comprehensive health study.
I ask unanimous consent to have their letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Nurses United,
March 13, 2014.
Hon. John Kerry,
Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Kerry, On behalf of the 185,000 registered
nurses of National Nurses United, we are writing to endorse
the request by Senators Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse
for an immediate, comprehensive State Department study on the
human health impacts of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline
project.
As the State Department must make a national interest
determination on whether to approve the pipeline, NNU
believes that a project that places the health and safety of
Americans at substantial risk cannot possibly be in our
national interest
Therefore, we call on the State Department to issue an
affirmative finding, prior to any final decision on the
project, that the Keystone XL pipeline will have no adverse
health Impact on the U.S.
National Nurses United is the largest US. organization with
185,000 members in all 50 states, including those along the
proposed path of the pipeline. NNU nurses now care daily for
patients with health problems, including asthma, other
respiratory disorders, cancer, skin diseases, and other
ailments associated with environmental pollution.
Our organization has expressed our opposition to the
pipeline, in particular to the health hazards already
identified with tar sands oil, including tar sands extraction
in Alberta, Canada, tar sands pipeline spills, and the
effects of tar sands refining.
Tar Sands Health Hazards
In Alberta's Athabasca region, researchers have linked tar
sands pollutants to carcinogens, elevated rates of leukemia
and other cancers of the lymph and blood-forming systems.
Water bodies within the watershed adjacent to tar sands
production have been found to be contaminated with chemicals
linked to cancer, genetic damage, birth defects, and organ
damage, according to a National Academy of Sciences 2012
study.
Tar sands pipeline spills are a significant concern. The
2010 Kalamazoo River spill in Michigan--the effects of which
are still being felt by that community--resulted in
inhalation of benzene and other chemicals and more than 150
cases of illness. Michigan's Department of Public Health
identified cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, neurological,
ocular, dermal and respiratory impacts. Similarly, following
a 2013 spill near Mayflower, AK. residents reported
persistent coughs, headaches, nausea, and respiratory
problems for months afterwards.
Refining raw bitumen from the tar sands is also likely to
have a negative impact on health. Tar sands contains up to 11
times more sulfur than conventional crude oil with high
levels of sulfur compounds linked to serious ailments of the
nervous and respiratory systems. Residents of South East
[[Page S6041]]
Texas, particularly refinery towns like Port Arthur and
Houston, already live in known `cancer zones.' Refining raw
bitumen from the tar sands threatens to make a bad situation
worse.
Further, the petroleum coke byproduct of tar sands refining
dumped in large ``petcoke'' piles contains high
concentrations of mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, vanadium,
and nickel. Black dust clouds from petcoke piles in Detroit
and Chicago have led to neighborhood evacuations amidst
concerns about acculumation in homes and areas where children
play. The EPA has said the particulate matter in the dust
contributes to such health effects as heart attacks,
decreased lung function, asthma and premature death.
Climate Change and Health
NNU is also concerned about the long term contribution that
tar sands oil and the Keystone pipeline will make to the
global rise on greenhouse gas emissions and the climate
crisis.
In its Fourth Assessment Review (2007) the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made a direct
connection between global warming and climate instability to
a wide range of negative health outcomes.
Higher air temperatures can increase bacteria-related food
poisoning, such as salmonella, and animal-borne diseases such
as West Nile virus. Ground level ozone contaminants can
damage lung tissue, reduce lung function, and increase
respiratory ailments. Pediatricians have said they are
already witnessing a rise in vector-borne diseases including
diarrhea, cholera, gastroenteritis, typhoid, and hepatitis
due to environmental factors and the effects of climate
change.
For several years NNU has been dispatching teams of RN
volunteers to provide disaster relief in response to weather
disasters, such as Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina, and most
recently Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, all of which many
experts believe are fueled by climate change. Our members
have provided care for thousands of patients who have
suffered serious injuries as well as the loss of family
members, their homes, and their livelihoods.
We need a change of course
NNU concurs with Senators Boxer and Whitehouse that what is
known today about the health hazards associated with the
expansion of the tar sands could well be just a sampling of a
much larger set of significant risks to human health. NNU
believes that the health consequences of Keystone XL have
been substantially ignored in State Departments FEIS, and
needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Nurses and their families are also affected by
environmental pollution, and the increased harm associated
with Keystone XL, greater tar sands operations, and the
climate crisis. It is for our patients, our members, our
families, and our communities, that we speak out, and urge
you order an immediate health impact study and not authorize
a pipeline that will harm our planet and our health.
Sincerely,
Deborah Burger, RN,
Karen Higgins, RN,
Jean Ross, RN,
Council of Presidents, National Nurses United.
Mrs. BOXER. The nurses concur with Senators Boxer and Whitehouse that
what is known today about the health hazards associated with the
expansion of tar sands is just a sampling. They believe the
consequences of Keystone XL have been substantially ignored in the
State Department's final EIS, and it needs to be addressed.
The American Public Health Association wrote a letter, and I ask
unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record as well.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Public Health Association, National Association
of County & City Health Officials,
April 11, 2014.
Hon. John Kerry,
Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Kerry: We write in support of the request of
Senators Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse that the U.S.
Department of State conduct a comprehensive study of the
health impacts of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline,
including a review of the available peer-reviewed research on
the health impacts from the processing of tar sands.
Our organizations support the concept of ``health in all
policies'' and the consideration of potential health impacts
in all decisionmaking. There is an increasing recognition
that the environments in which people live, work, learn and
play have a tremendous impact on their health. The
administration will certainly benefit by having a clear
understanding of how the proposed Keystone XL pipeline could
impact the public's health, including the health of our most
vulnerable citizens.
The full spectrum of health considerations are often
overlooked in important decisions and their omission can lead
to policies and practices that are unnecessarily harmful to
public health. We thank you for your consideration and
strongly urge you to respond positively to the senators'
request for a comprehensive study of the health impacts of
this proposed project.
Sincerely,
Georges Benjamin, MD,
Executive Director.
Robert M. Pestronk,
Executive Director.
Mrs. BOXER. They say the same thing.
There is an increasing recognition that the environments in which
people live, work, and learn have a tremendous impact on their health.
The administration will certainly benefit by having a better
understanding of how the proposed Keystone Pipeline could impact the
public health.
They go on to say: The full spectrum of health considerations are
often overlooked, and their omission can lead to policies and practices
that are unnecessarily harmful to the public health.
Maybe Senators feel they know more than doctors and nurses. Maybe
they do. Good luck. They don't. We should listen to doctors and nurses
just like we should listen to scientists when they talk to us about
climate change.
This whole thing of saying ``I am not a scientist,'' yes, that is
right, you are not, Republicans. Listen to the scientists. This answer
is perplexing to me. If you are not a scientist, then be humble and
listen to the peer-reviewed scientists. If you are not a doctor or a
nurse, be humble. They don't have a special interest; they have an
interest in giving us information on which we should base our
decisions.
Now I am going to talk about the environment. This pipeline is going
to go through the Ogallala Aquifer--one of the world's largest
underground sources of freshwater. It provides water to farms in eight
States, accounting for a quarter of the Nation's cropland as well as
municipal drinking wells. Remember what I said before: When this oil
gets into water, it is the most difficult oil to clean up because it is
so heavy. Well, there are 2,537 wells within 1 mile of the proposed
pipeline, including 39 public water supply wells, and 20 private wells
within 100 feet of the pipeline right-of-way. If the pipeline were to
leak near the aquifer, the tar sands oil would quickly seep into the
sandy soil and contaminate the water supply for millions of people. I
have already shown you a spill in Arkansas. These spills happen. If a
spill occurred near any of these aquifers, it would be tragic.
Local residents know the harm the pipeline could cause. I will show
you pictures of locals objecting to the pipeline.
In April, a group of ranchers, farmers, and tribal leaders gathered
in Washington, DC, for a rally. They wanted to send a strong signal to
Congress that they want their way of life protected--their farms, their
tribal lands, and their ranches.
You are going to hear from proponents of the tar sands who will say
the Keystone Pipeline will be a safe alternative to rail shipment of
oil, but experience tells us otherwise.
In 2010 that pipeline ruptured, spilled over 1 million gallons in
Michigan. The local health department ordered the evacuation of 50
households, and approximately 100 families were advised not to drink
water. One resident living near the Kalamazoo River had to abandon her
home because the stench from the spill made her dizzy, nauseous, and
sick--classic signs of acute exposure to tar sands. Another resident
who was pregnant said she could not breathe. She said:
My eyes were burning, and my nose was burning. It smelled
like a diesel tanker had turned over in the front of my
house.
You will not hear this from the proponents.
The Michigan spill was the largest inland spill in history, and more
than 4 years and $1 billion later, it is not cleaned up. This summer
parts of the Kalamazoo River were closed as dredging efforts continued
to remove oil from the bottom of the river.
Earlier I spoke about Arkansas. Residents were exposed to benzene--a
known carcinogen--and hydrogen sulfide. People suffered from dizziness,
nausea, headaches, respiratory problems--all classic symptoms of
exposure to the chemicals found in the tar sands.
There is a section of tar sands that has already been built in the
gulf region, and it is already experiencing problems that could result
in a pipeline spill, but you will not hear that from
[[Page S6042]]
the proponents. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, found a systemic
problem with substandard wells on a portion of the pipeline. In fact,
during 1 week when the pipeline was being monitored, regulators found
that over 70 percent of the wells were flawed and required repairs.
Senators should pay attention to the facts. People are sick around
the tar sands. When it spills, it threatens their way of life and
physically harms them. All you have to look to is the evidence to see
that ``XL'' stands for ``extra lethal'' and misery follows the tar
sands.
Now I am going to talk about the climate. I wish to explain that once
we begin transporting the dirty tar sands oil through that pipeline, it
will unleash more carbon pollution and harm our Nation's effort to
address dangerous climate change. The State Department says a barrel of
tar sands oil will create at least 17 percent more carbon pollution
than domestic oil. The State Department says that compared to average
crude oil, burning the amount of tar sands oil from the Keystone
``extra lethal'' Pipeline could add an additional 27.4 million metric
tons of carbon pollution each year. That is a fact. You don't hear the
proponents talk about that.
(Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair).
The Senator from Hawaii has now taken over the Chair. He already
knows what climate change is doing to Hawaii. I was in the State, and I
took a tour. I was at a conference that he organized, and we know we
can't afford this.
If we allow this to happen, we would see the carbon pollution that
would come from adding 5.8 million new cars to the road. It would wipe
out the carbon pollution reductions we gained from the first round of
fuel economy improvements for heavy-duty trucks--wiped out.
I believe this is a fact: If we do this, the damage to the
environment will be the equivalent of eight new coal-fired plants, and
those are dirty. That is the equivalent of what we would be getting
here in terms of the carbon pollution every year.
In August 2014 a study in the peer-reviewed journal ``Nature Climate
Change'' estimated that the increase in oil consumption caused by
Keystone XL could result in up to 110 million metric tons of carbon
pollution each year. That is four times the State Department's high-end
estimate.
I already talked about the eight coal-fired plants. This peer-
reviewed study says it is 29. We have two estimates. One says it is the
equivalent of building 8 new, dirty coal-fired powerplants, and another
peer-reviewed study said it would be equal to building 29 new coal-
fired powerplants here in the United States--29. Think about it in your
mind's eye.
All you need to do is look at China to see what happens when you
throw the environment under the bus. Is this the kind of world we want
to see for our kids? Is this the future? This isn't hyperbole; this is
a picture of the pollution in China.
I was in China on a fantastic trade trip for 10 days, and I never saw
the Sun except for one day when it sort of peaked out. The guide said:
Isn't it a beautiful day? No, it was not at all a beautiful day. There
was a semblance of a little Sun behind the cloud.
Why do you think people love the Environmental Protection Agency in
our country--70 percent strong? It is because they know this could be
America. If you throw the environment under the bus, this is what it
will look like here.
Some of my colleagues say they don't want to the act on climate
change--especially my Republican colleagues. I don't know of one who is
ready. They say: Well, China is building coal-fired plants. Well, the
President just came back, and the President did have an agreement with
China to move forward because the Chinese people can't live like this
anymore. The social unrest that is the big fear of Beijing that starts
to bubble up has a lot to do with this. We have a breakthrough
agreement. Is this the time, in the face of this progress, to approve
this pipeline? I say it is ridiculous timing. It is ridiculous.
I remember a time when saving the environment was bipartisan. I
remember leaders such as John Chafee and John Warner. Now I don't see
one Republican ready to step forward and say: It is time to put a price
on this pollution and stop this pollution. My State has done it. My
State is doing just great. We have new jobs, and I will put some
information into the Record on that.
Canada's Natural Resources Minister said:
In order for crude oil production to grow, the North
American pipeline network must be expanded. So we know this
is just the start.
Now climate. Everyone can say what they will: I am not a scientist; I
don't know. Over the past few months we have seen everything from the
hottest August, the hottest September on record, and the hottest
October on record. We have seen historic droughts and extreme
wildfires. I have seen them in my State. We have seen vanishing
wildlife habitat in Alaska, toxic algae out of control and
contaminating drinking water supplies in Toledo, OH, because the water
is getting hot and the algae that couldn't survive in the colder waters
survives in the warmer waters. We see these wake-up calls every day.
But instead of confronting that crisis, we have the party of no saying:
No, I am not a scientist and, no, I will not listen to them, and we do
nothing. This project does the opposite. It makes matters worse.
There is a lot of talk about how we need this oil to become energy
independent. Let me tell my colleagues, we are going to see gas prices
go up if this goes forward, and I will explain why. This is from
economists, not from me. This is not a win for America. Big Oil will be
the winner. We have to know that U.S. gasoline demand is on the
decline, and economists say it will continue to be through 2040. Since
2011, the United States has exported more gasoline, diesel, and other
fuels than it imported. So Big Oil will be the big winner now if this
project moves forward, not American workers or families filling up at
the gas pump.
The reality is Keystone ``extra lethal'' will increase the price
Americans pay for gas at the pump. It is cheaper to buy gas in the
Midwest today than it would be if the pipeline were built. That is
because moving tar sand oil to the gulf coast gives it access to
international markets, which will increase the price Canadians can
charge for it. So right now that oil stays in America. Now it is going
to be pumped out, they can get higher prices, and our prices are going
to go up. The exports will reduce the supply of gasoline right here in
America and drive up the price.
As Bloomberg reported earlier this year, three separate studies have
shown Keystone XL Pipeline could raise domestic prices by 20 to 40
cents because it would divert Canadian oil away from refineries in the
Midwest where it is easier to export. Gulf coast refiners plan to
process the cheap Canadian tar sands crude that would be supplied by
the pipeline into diesel and other products for export.
During a congressional hearing at the end of 2011, my Senate
colleague, then-Congressman Ed Markey, who is now a member of our
environment committee--Senator Markey--asked TransCanada's pipeline
head if the company would commit to keeping the Canadian oil and refine
products in the United States ``so that this country realizes all of
the energy security benefits your company had promised.'' Mr. Pourbaix
said, No, I can't do that.
So the head of TransCanada is not promising to keep the oil here or
the products here. We know that. So all of this talk of energy
independence--let me tell my colleagues how we get energy independence.
We produce what we can here, and we have been doing that where it is
appropriate, and we also utilize the Sun and the wind and the
geothermal and the clean energies of the future that, believe me, when
we embrace that clean energy agenda, we have far more jobs. We don't
have pollution. We have safer communities.
One refinery in Port Arthur owned by Valero is expected to be a major
customer for crude oil. Let's show that picture of Port Arthur. Because
that refinery is in a foreign trade zone, Valero can operate tax free.
In the fist 9 months of this year, Valero has reported a net income of
$2.475 billion. Today we will also hear from tar sands advocates that
the tar sands oil will just be shipped by rail even if the tar sands
pipeline is not built. It is very
[[Page S6043]]
expensive to ship it by rail, and the truth is it is not a clear-cut
case. In fact, both the rail companies and tar sands producers that
pioneered transporting Canadian tar sands oil by rail are on the verge
of insolvency because of the high transportation costs. So don't buy
into the argument that if we don't build the pipeline, we will just
ship it by rail. Then they say it is safer, and we know it is not
safer.
We just heard the operator of the pipeline say it is 35 permanent
jobs. I don't belittle the 1,900 construction jobs for 2 years we would
have. I don't belittle that. But I can truly tell my colleagues that
coming from my State--and later I will talk about the successes--we can
dwarf that by the hundreds of thousands if we truly embrace a clean
energy economy.
The materials needed for the pipeline--that is not a domestic boon. A
2011 analysis found 50 percent or more of the steel pipe would be
manufactured outside of the United States. We need clean energy
policies. As we know, it is appropriate to drill for oil in our country
where it is safe, where it is appropriate, and if we can get to clean
coal, it is appropriate, and it is appropriate if we can get to safe
nuclear. The fact is this pipeline is going to bring filthy, dirty oil.
It is going to bring misery all across the country.
Let's look at the wind industry which supports over 560 manufacturing
facilities and supported over 50,000 full-time jobs in 2013 alone. So
50,000 full-time jobs compared to 35 full-time jobs for the pipeline?
Come on. The solar industry in 2013 employed 142,000 Americans, an
increase of 24,000 additional jobs just last year. This is the future,
not the misery that follows the tar sands, not communities that have to
suffer with the filthiest of oils, dirtiest of oils, and not having
this petcoke stored all over the Midwest where it blows on kids so kids
get asthma.
Here is the spill in Arkansas. They still can't clean it up. It
happened in 2013. This photograph isn't what we want the future to look
like--not this, having to wear masks. We want the air to be clean and
the water to be clean. This is China. This is what happens when we
ignore our people who are telling us they are having increased asthma
attacks, increased respiratory disease. We are not going to hear a word
about it from my colleagues. They are going to make a jobs argument
that falls flat on its face.
Look. We know climate change is real. Whether someone says they are
not a scientist--we all know you are not a scientist. I am not a
scientist. Climate change is real. Unleashing this filthy, dirty oil
unleashes far more carbon and makes the problem worse. We are not going
to hear any of that. We are going to hear claims that just aren't true.
We are going to hear about all of these jobs--35 permanent jobs
compared to tens of thousands in clean energy. We are going to hear
about how this is the greatest project. We are going to hear, Oh, it is
better to transport it by pipeline than by rail, when in fact that is
not a fact in evidence that they would do that because it is so
expensive. They are not going to talk to us about the spills, as shown
in this photograph.
We have a very important process to go through before this pipeline
is approved. This legislation derails that process, and that process
was established by an executive order and was updated by President
George W. Bush. Before a finding is made as to whether this should go
forward, the President must consult with experts in many Federal
agencies to determine whether this pipeline is in the national
interest. This includes the Department of Defense, the Department of
Homeland Security, and other agencies before a permit is granted. This
bill before the Senate short circuits this review. It cuts off expert
opinions of our military leaders and others when determining whether
the pipeline is safe. Is it in the interests of the country? Is it
going to be another target? We need to know, and we don't have the
answers on the full public health implications.
What is also interesting is the tar sands supporters gloss over the
fact that this bill tramples States rights--the rights of citizens in
South Dakota to have a say in their State's ongoing proceedings
concerning construction of the pipeline. How about this fact. Here we
see it. These voices have to be heard. I will tell my colleagues, 2
million people submitted comments on the tar sands project, and passing
this bill now does not allow those comments to be given due
consideration by our country.
I am very surprised at this, given my colleagues who speak of States
rights, public comments, local viewpoints. They want to bypass all of
this because they have decided they know better than 2 million people,
many of whom have to live side by side with this pipeline and many of
whom would have to breathe the kind of air they are breathing in Port
Arthur, TX, right now. I will guarantee my colleagues this: Not one
Senator in this Chamber will live next to a refinery that refines this
filthy, dirty oil--not one. If I have not spoken the truth, please
correct the Record. Tell me. I will apologize. We don't live near
refineries here. I will tell my colleagues who does: a lot of kids who
get asthma, just ask the nurses.
If I told people that if we embrace a clean energy agenda we could
create far more jobs, be far more healthy, and save this planet,
wouldn't people say yes? I think people would. But, no, not in this
Chamber. They listen to Big Oil and the Koch brothers, and these are
the people who will profit. They are not going to live next to the Port
Arthur refinery. Their children aren't going to live there. Their
grandchildren aren't going to live there.
They brush aside that this is filthy, dirty oil--the dirtiest--with
the most dangerous pollutants, including lead, including sulfur. When
we meet with the citizens of Port Arthur, TX, as I have done, and the
activists there who want to protect the kids, they say: Please, we have
enough of this stuff; we don't want any more. Misery follows the tar
sands, and that is why I call this pipeline the Keystone XL ``extra
lethal'' Pipeline.
The evidence is clear. The Keystone tar sands pipeline will be
harmful to our family's health. It will hurt the environment. It will
worsen the impact on climate change. It will raise the price of gas.
These statements are not made by me. I respect economists, and this is
clearly the economists' view. It is just plain dangerous because it
will transport the dirtiest oil on the planet.
Forcing the approval of the Keystone when so many concerns remain
does not allow for the kind of review our affected communities deserve.
I hope enough of my colleagues will vote no on this. I see the
handwriting on the wall. I do. I know what happens in this Chamber. I
know the votes will eventually be there. This is an issue which impacts
the health and safety of our families and our planet, so if it means I
will have to stand up here time and time again to tell the story of the
Keystone ``extra lethal'' Pipeline, I will do it. I will do it for as
long as it takes. If I didn't think it was important, I wouldn't do it.
I just hope that if this body does pass this pipeline today, the
President will veto this dangerous legislation. I feel so strongly that
the way to a prosperous job-producing future is the embracing of clean
energy. Yes, we will continue with our coal and make it as clean as we
can. We will continue with our drilling here. Yes, we will have an
``all of the above'' where it is safe to do. We don't need a project
that is so harmful to our families and to our communities.
I talked to the people in Canada who live near there. You won't hear
that from my friends. It is all in the Record. I hope they read the
articles I placed in the Record about the kinds of cancers we are
seeing around this stuff.
I don't want to see a trail of misery extending from one end of the
country that I love to another, so I hope we will vote no on this--
enough of us will. But if we can't stop it today, then I hope the
President will veto this and tell the story of why this trail of misery
should not be put upon the American people.
One of the biggest shocks I think I had when meeting those Canadians
who have been putting up with this and then meeting the Americans who
live around these refineries and hearing from them what happened and
hearing from my friends from Chicago who remember that story--we will
close with this--of these kids sitting around getting ready to play
Little League Baseball when all of this petroleum coke that is stored
all over the Midwest just blew, and it got into the mouths of
[[Page S6044]]
these kids and it got on their clothes. They ran away. How can anyone
believe this is what the future should look like when I can show you
case after case on the Record, substantiated by the numbers, that clean
energy produces far more jobs--far more jobs--and will lead us in the
right direction in terms of our health.
People don't want to become like China. They don't want to look like
this. They don't want to have their air look like this.
I come from a State where before the Clean Air Act--by the way, it
was done by a Republican President; thank you, Richard Nixon--we had
dirty, filthy air. You couldn't see a foot in front of you. We cleaned
it up because we stood up to the polluters and said: You know what, we
know we want to work with you, and we want to have your product. Do it
in a clean manner. Do it in a safe manner.
The EPA--again, created by Republicans--came in there and cleaned up
the air, along with the local people in our State.
We have rebounded in California from the recession, with clean energy
jobs leading the way. We are so proud of it. And our people can still
see the sky.
I will tell you, I am not going to go in this direction, if I have to
stand on my feet until they hurt. As you know, I have to wear heels
because I am very little, but I don't care--I am not going to let us go
in this direction. No way.
I hope we defeat this today. If we don't, I hope the President will
veto it, and I hope we can move to a positive, bipartisan clean-energy
agenda that is really the future of this Nation and this planet.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. I intend to speak under the time reserved by Senator
Hoeven. Could the Presiding Officer tell me how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 112 minutes
remaining.
Mr. ROBERTS. Splendid. I intend to speak for about 8 minutes.
I admire the commitment, the perseverance, and the oratory skills of
my colleague from the State of California. I know how strongly she
feels about this issue.
I rise today without a portfolio. I do not have the charts my
distinguished colleague has. Senator Hoeven has six in the Cloakroom.
There are 12 over there. I thought at one time I would introduce
legislation to ban charts from the floor, but that didn't go very far.
I rise today in support of the bipartisan, bicameral legislation
offered by Representative Cassidy from the House and Senator Landrieu
from here in the Senate to approve the construction of the Keystone
Pipeline.
(Mrs. BOXER assumed the Chair.)
Simply put, my point would be that this project is long overdue. It
has been said time and again, but it is worth repeating: 6 years of
delays and five separate environmental impact statements, and finally
we are voting on this legislation--already passed by the House last
week--to grant approval of the project.
Let me repeat myself. Five environmental impact statements have been
rolled out since the year 2010, all five concluding that construction
of the pipeline would neither exasperate carbon emissions nor increase
development of the Canadian oil sands.
Let's briefly take a look at the conclusion reached by each of the
five environmental impact statements to see what President Obama's own
State Department had to say about whether construction of the Keystone
Pipeline is in the national interest.
In April 2010, after a 1\1/2\-year review of TransCanada's
application to construct the pipeline, the State Department published
the findings of its draft environmental impact statement, which
concluded that the pipeline's construction would have limited
environmental impact and would help reduce U.S. reliance on crude oil
imports from other less stable regions of the world. ``Less stable'' is
an understatement as of today. Considering what is going on right now
in the Middle East and Russia, it cannot be understated how important
this project is from a global security perspective and also from a
national security perspective.
A year later, in April 2011, the State Department issued a
supplemental environmental impact statement to consider alternatives to
the Keystone Pipeline and to address some of the concerns raised by
agencies, groups, and individuals who submitted comments on the
project's construction. Keep in mind that the State Department did this
despite the fact that it believed the original environmental impact
statement sufficiently addressed all concerns.
Four months later, in August 2011, the State Department released its
final environmental impact statement concluding yet again that this
project should be built. The State Department concluded that
construction would ``result in a project that would have a degree of
safety greater than any typically constructed domestic oil pipeline
system under current regulations.''
Despite this conclusion--which under law triggered a 90-day window
for the State Department to make yet another final national interest
determination--the State Department decided to delay the final decision
rather conveniently until after the 2012 elections.
After three earlier reviews, in March of 2013 the State Department
issued its draft supplemental environmental impact statement to
consider potential impacts of the new route which would avoid the Sand
Hills region in Nebraska. Once again, the State Department concluded
that this project should be built.
Finally, on January 31, 2014--about a year ago--the State Department
issued its fifth and final environmental impact statement.
Nevertheless, it concluded that the Keystone Pipeline poses no serious
environmental dangers, would create thousands of jobs, and would
decrease our reliance on crude from despotic regimes--more of them
today--around the world and expand trade with our closest ally, Canada.
We have two options. The first is to finalize construction of the
Keystone Pipeline, which will immediately result in thousands of
construction jobs all throughout the United States. The second option
is we can reject construction of this pipeline and instead transport
the crude to the United States by rail or allow Canada to simply export
the crude to other countries, such as our good friend China. China is
so concerned with the environmental standards that it may--it may,
according to the bargain so highly publicized by the administration--
begin reducing carbon emissions by 2030 if the leaders of China 16
years from now feel like it or make that decision.
What is the big deal about China's carbon-reduction commitment, by
the way? It is meaningless.
There is simply no option available that would somehow prevent Canada
from developing these oil sands. Despite what any Senator says or any
charts that may be used, it is happening and it will continue to
happen.
Facts are stubborn things. We either move this oil by pipeline, which
is the safest way to transport oil, or we allow it to be exported to
other countries that will refine it under far less stringent
environmental regulations. If CO2 is a world problem, that
is something you ought to really think about.
This project would support 42,000 U.S. jobs, hundreds of those in my
home State of Kansas; it would provide over 800,000 barrels of oil per
day from our closest trading partner, Canada; and it would have a $3
billion impact on the U.S. economy.
I have long supported this legislation. Now we need to hear from
President Obama, yes or no. No waffling around any longer. If this bill
passes today will the President sign it into law or will the President
simply continue to straddle the pipeline until after the runoff
election in Louisiana? It seems to me the President owes the American
people an answer as to whether he supports this project.
The question is--it is pretty obvious--if the President opposed this
project from ever being built, then why are we waiting? Why wouldn't
you just say from the get-go that you hold the views of a few above
those of most Americans, which includes everybody from labor unions, to
pro-energy trade associations, to manufacturing, et cetera?
I would ask the President: Why didn't you just come out in 2008 and
say, no, we are never going to build this as long as I am in the White
House. Because I think that is exactly
[[Page S6045]]
what is happening. It is time to quit straddling the pipeline. Let's
get on with it or get off.
I want to make myself clear. If we pass this bill and President Obama
vetoes it, then that is his decision, that is his prerogative, but the
responsibility will lie squarely upon his desk. Because when we come
back in January under a Republican majority, our task will be to not
only pass this legislation but, with a veto-proof majority, to override
whatever obstacles the President tries to put in its way.
Again, this project makes sense economically, environmentally, and
from a national security perspective. I believe we should get this
finally moving.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I rise today to oppose S. 2280, a bill
to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline would carry
830,000 barrels per day of tar sands oil bound for global markets from
Canada to refineries along the gulf coast.
This is one of the most important points about Keystone, which is
that it does nothing for American energy security. It takes tar sands
oil from Canada, moves it through the United States, and makes it
available to global markets. It does nothing for American energy
security. But more than that, it represents a massive endorsement of a
fossil fuel economy when we ought to be focusing on transitioning to
clean energy.
There are many reasons to vote against this bill, but I will focus on
four. First, the oil from tar sands is exceptionally dirty. I think for
the American public out there, they have a basic instinct that oil is
not the cleanest of energy resources. But tar sands oils are really in
a special category. We do not need this oil enough to justify its
impacts on health and climate change.
Mining tar sands oil is nothing like setting up a rig and drilling a
hole in the ground. Tar sands are dirty in terms of the land destroyed,
dirty in terms of the water wasted and contaminated, and dirty in terms
of the energy needed to mine, transport, and process the oil. Getting
and using oil from tar sands puts far more carbon pollution in the
atmosphere than conventional oil.
When tar sands are near the surface, they are dug up along with all
of the surrounding earth, including the forests that sit on top. Tar
sands are a mixture of sand, clay, water, and a gooey form of petroleum
that resembles tar. Think of it as a mixture of dirt and molasses, and
imagine trying to separate the dirt from the molasses. If you think
that sounds difficult, you are correct. After being mined, the thick
sludgy mixture that remains is transported to facilities that separate
the oil using multiple water and energy-intensive rinse cycles.
The water used in this process becomes contaminated, of course, with
toxins, and is no longer suitable for other uses. Oil companies use
massive amounts of water to mine the tar sands. In 2011, tar sands
mining in Canada used more water than the entire city of Toronto uses
annually, representing a significant new strain on freshwater
resources.
This is simply not the direction to go in. We need to fight climate
change and promote bold, clean energy solutions that do not present a
constant danger of harming our health, our drinking water, and our
economy. Why are we spending time today trying to approve something
that quite literally takes us in the wrong direction?
This brings me to the second reason this pipeline ought to be
rejected. It will have a direct, negative impact on the people and the
communities that live in its path. The 875-mile route of this proposed
pipeline has over 50 river crossings, including the Yellowstone River
in Montana, which is still recovering from a major crude oil leak by an
ExxonMobil pipeline in 2011. That pipeline leak contaminated 85 miles
of the river and its flood plain, placing an enormous burden on
families and the businesses that depend on it.
Pipelines transport oil, but they also leak regularly. The existing
Keystone Pipeline system for Canadian tar sands leaked 14 times during
its first year of operation, with one incident leaking 21,000 gallons.
In its environmental review, the State Department estimated that the
proposed Keystone Pipeline would fail several times a year. In 2010, a
6-foot break in a pipeline carrying oil tar sands spilled nearly 1
million gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. This
was one of the largest inland oil spills in United States history and
also one of the costliest, with cleanup costs totaling over $1 billion.
Households in the area were evacuated and told not to drink the water.
Thirty-five miles of the river were contaminated, and the cleanup
continued 4 years after the spill. One of the most troubling things
about this spill and any future spills from Keystone XL is that the
companies who own the oil take advantage of a loophole in the law that
lets them avoid paying their fair share into the national Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund. This trust fund has been in place for 30 years.
The money in it helps to respond to and clean up after oilspills. Every
barrel of oil produced or imported in the United States is charged 8
cents. The money goes into a trust fund. It is basically an insurance
policy for events when companies are unable to pay for spill cleanup or
in an emergency response situation. It makes sense.
What does not make sense is that due to this loophole, the oil from
the tar sands in Canada is exempt from that 8-cent fee. Why would we
vote for a bill that circumvents executive review of an international
pipeline carrying the dirtiest oil in the world, produced in Canada,
and headed mostly for world markets, and a bill that does nothing to
close a loophole exempting oil from tar sands from having to pay a fee
for environmental cleanup? In other words, how can this bill ask so
little of the oil companies while giving them so much?
A third reason to reject this bill and this pipeline is the impact on
climate change. The facts plainly show that we must reduce carbon
pollution, not add to it. To take care of our energy future and build a
clean energy economy, we have got to go forward, not backward.
If we are serious about leaving our children a healthy world, we will
vote no and reject this pipeline. We know a majority of the public
supports bold action to solve climate change. In recent years, no
single issue related to fossil fuels and climate change has commanded
the level of civic engagement as the Keystone XL Pipeline. Countless
rallies, public hearings in cities and towns across the proposed route,
lawsuits and debates in Congress reveal how much passion there is about
this issue.
In fact, the pipeline was booed so loudly when advertised on the
Jumbotron at a Nebraska football game that the university cut ties with
TransCanada, the owner of the proposed pipeline.
Finally, the bill is flawed in terms of its process not only because
of what it seeks to do but also because how it seeks to do it.
The bill would circumvent existing executive branch review. Because
the Keystone XL Pipeline would cross international boundaries, the
State Department is responsible for reviewing and deciding if a permit
is in the national interest. The way it is currently written, this bill
potentially limits State and local siting decisions, as well as some
legal challenges.
It attempts to approve a pipeline that does not even have a finalized
route, but does have lawsuits pending against it in the Nebraska
Supreme Court. Congress should be focusing on the things that will have
a positive impact on the economy and jobs. We have got to pass
immigration legislation, we need to pass a defense authorization. Our
CR expires on December 11. We need to move through the regular order in
terms of appropriations. We should not be moving forward with Keystone
XL.
In my view, this is about whether we are committed to the past or
committed to the future. This is about whether we are going to double
down on fossil fuels or we are going to take bold action in terms of
moving forward with clean energy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
legislation.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Let me just state to all of my colleagues on all sides
of this issue, I appreciate this very much. It is a great debate. It is
a great way for us to learn of our differences and try to find the
middle, if you will.
[[Page S6046]]
I come from the little State of West Virginia where basically the
people are pretty commonsense, if you will, oriented. They look at
something from the standpoint--our greatest trading partner in our
State of West Virginia is Canada. Thirty-five States in the United
States look at Canada as our favored nation to trade with. We have been
doing more trading than ever before. We will continue to do so.
I am coming at this from security. How do we remain secure as a
nation? How do we become less dependent? If you look at what is going
on in the world, maybe it will give you a picture of what we are
dealing with, the facts of life.
We all want to use the technology and we all can, through research
and development, improve our technology to use the resources that are
going to be used that the world has produced for us in a cleaner
fashion. With that being said, I do not look at Keystone as being an
export pipeline. Even the State Department's environmental impact
statement states that export is unlikely to be economically justified
for any significant time. Cost-to-market conditions dictate that this
oil will go to domestic refiners and will be used in our country, the
United States of America.
By getting more Canadian oil, we can displace oil that we currently
get from less reliable and sometimes hostile countries. Let me read for
you how much oil we import right now; How dependent are we on this
foreign oil? We should look at basically--of the 7.7 million barrels
per day of crude oil imports--mind you, we are getting 7.7 million
barrels per day into our country. I understand the pipeline's capacity
would be about 870,000 barrels. That is the capacity--if they used the
entire capacity. So we are getting 7.7 million barrels per day. Let's
see where it is coming from. When you look at that, 3.5 million barrels
per day or 45 percent comes from OPEC countries. Of course, Saudi
Arabia is our largest OPEC supplier at 1.3 million barrels per day, 17
percent of the crude import total.
But our biggest supplier of crude continues to be Canada. It is
already our biggest supplier. We are afraid that this is somehow going
to tip the balance? Let's look at some of the countries that we get
this oil from on a daily basis, the 7.7. Of course, we talked about the
OPEC countries. But Venezuela, Colombia, Nigeria, Angola. These are not
the model citizens of how they treat their citizens in their country,
the humane treatment that goes on.
With that being said, those countries I just mentioned, the five
countries, that is 1.57 million barrels a day we buy from those
countries. So, yes, I am looking at it from the standpoint that this
has pulled us into conflicts around the world where we should not be.
We have all said we have been pulled into these countries, been
pulled into war because of oil. I think we all agree on that. This
gives us a chance to be more secure as a nation and more independent
from foreign oil. That is what we are talking about. The global supply
of energy relies on oil producers in deeply unstable regions. I think
we all agree on that too. In West Virginia, it just makes common sense.
Would you not rather buy from your friends than from your enemies?
Would you not rather buy from people who basically help your economy
and are not willing to do harm to your economy or harm to your people?
This makes sense to us in West Virginia. We would not be standing here
having this debate right now if it had not been for your good Senator
and our good friend from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. It would not have
come up. It would have been moot. It might have gone in the next
Congress. Who knows? I just appreciate so much Senator Landrieu
being able to bring this to the forefront today. I really do. Whether
we win or lose it does not matter.
Basically the American people will lose if we do not pass this piece
of legislation. If for whatever reason it is not passed, we are going
to be more vulnerable, more insecure, more dependent than ever before.
It is one thing to live in a perfect world--Utopia. Some of my
colleagues have talked about that. I appreciate that. But the bottom
line is, it is not the real world. The real world we are living in--I
have talked about coal too. There are 8 billion tons of coal being
burned in the world. People say: Well, I do not want to use coal in
America. That is fine. If you quit using every kind of coal in America,
you are not going to change the environment that much. But on the other
hand, there will be more coal burned than ever before. We do not want
to build any more coal-fired plants in America. We are done. That is
fine. Twelve hundred new coal-fired plants will be built around the
world in the next 3 to 4 years. Would not it be better to find the
technology--would not it be better to have control of that, be able to
have a whole other industry around the technology that uses the coal
cleaner not just in America but around the world?
Would it not be better to have control of this oil coming to the gulf
coast? If we have control of it, it will be used here. The fear tactic
is that it is going to go somewhere else in the world. Markets will
dictate where everything goes. But the bottom line is, we use most of
Canada's oil now. They are the largest exporter to our country.
So all we are saying is to take a good, hard look at this. Think
before you vote today, my colleagues, of what we are doing and what we
are doing for the security of our Nation, what we are doing for the
best trading partner we have ever had. That oil is going to go
somewhere. It is being shipped now in a highly unstable type of
condition that is more vulnerable. It takes more oil to move that
product today than ever before. Pipelines are by far the safest way to
do it.
I have said this: If we can move oil in the most demanding and
probably the most hostile, if you will, environmental conditions that
we have as far as nature produces in the Arctic, and we as the United
States benefit by that oil that is being produced in the Arctic by us
in America, for all of us in the lower 48, if they are able to, do you
not think that it can be done here?
I look at it from the standpoint that they are saying enough is
enough.
I thank Senator Landrieu for bringing the bill to the floor, for
having a very informative debate that we can move forward on. I would
hope that my colleagues would see fit that the United States of America
will benefit, the security of our Nation will benefit, wars could be
prevented and conflicts around the world. Maybe we could use our might,
if you will, to help other parts of the world without having to fight,
defend, and liberate from that standpoint.
But I do not believe that we should be in parts of the world where we
are today because of the oil that we have been chasing. I believe that
by having our own ability to work with the best trading partner we
have, which is Canada, that would definitely benefit the security of
our Nation. I look forward to this vote this afternoon or later this
evening, whenever it may come. I enjoy the debate that is going on and
the information I am gaining. I look forward to a more spirited debate
for the rest of the day.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I am about to yield to Senator Cardin.
A point I want to make is this is an interesting debate. The
proponents have said for years: Build the pipeline because we need the
oil here. Then confronted with the fact that the oil will not stay
here--it is going to go elsewhere--they say: Oh, what is the
difference. It is going elsewhere, but what is the difference. The
difference was your argument was to make us self-sufficient. You can't
have it both ways. The fact is this oil is going to be exported.
With that I yield 12 minutes to my colleague, a great leader on the
environment, Mr. Cardin.
Mr. CARDIN. First, I thank Senator Boxer for her extraordinary effort
on this issue.
Let me get this straight. This debate is about giving competitive
advantage for the shipping of the dirtiest oil located in Canada
through the United States for export. It is through the United States--
not through Canada. The environmental risks are in America, and it
circumvents our regulatory review process and attempts to deny property
owners the right to challenge the route in court.
The Keystone Pipeline is a shortcut to an existing pipeline network
to export some of the world's dirtiest crude oil from Canada to other
countries.
[[Page S6047]]
The current pipeline network could handle this, but the operators want
a competitive advantage for the dirtiest oil by shortcutting the
pipeline that currently exists.
There is very little benefit to the United States. Certainly, as has
been pointed out, the oil is not destined for the United States.
There are few permanent jobs. It poses significant environmental
risks. It eliminates appropriate executive review, tries to interfere
with judicial review, and should be rejected by this body.
First, let me talk about tar sands--exporting tar sand crude from
Alberta, Canada, to other countries, through the United States rather
than through Canada. It could go through Canada, 700 miles west to the
British Columbia coast. But the Canadians object. Why? Because they
don't want the environmental risk in their country. They are asking the
United States to do bear their burden. It is not for U.S. energy use.
It is for the international market, and it poses significant
environmental risk. We are talking about producing the dirtiest type of
energy sources that we know.
In 2010 there was a tar sands crude oil spill in the Kalamazoo River
in Michigan. The estimated cost of the cleanup associated with that
spill is $1.2 billion. Spills happen. We are adding tremendous risk to
our country.
This is against a backdrop we see here in the United States and
globally where the price of oil is declining dramatically. Look at what
we are paying at the pump for gasoline today. In the United States we
have had a 70-percent increase in domestic oil production since
President Obama took office. So we are getting all the oil that we
need. We don't need to add the dirtiest oil in the world.
The United States is more energy independent today than we have been
in decades. Why? Because we use less energy.
Let me give one example. Fuel economy standards in automobiles are up
25 percent since 2004. We are using less oil, less energy. We are
developing alternative and renewable sources. Our future is in clean
energy.
I am pleased we are having this debate on the floor of the Senate. We
should be having a debate about developing additional sources of clean
energy, which will help us be energy secure, add good-paying jobs, and
be friendlier toward our environment.
One example is Tesla Motors--an American company, unlike
TransCanada--which recently chose Reno, NV, as the site of a $5 billion
``gigafactory'' that could employ 6,500 workers on a permanent basis.
Tesla hopes to complete construction of the facility by 2020. It will
produce 50 gigawatt hours per year of lithium ion battery packs, more
than the entire global production in 2013 and enough for 500,000
electric cars annually. Once the factory is in full operation, it could
help lower the costs of battery packs by 30 percent in 2017 and by 50
percent in 2020.
Tesla expects to create 3,000 construction jobs, and that is
important--construction jobs are important--and 6,500 permanent jobs
upon completion, generating $100 billion in economic activity over the
next 20 years.
So let's compare that to what Keystone is advertised to produce. They
tell us that Keystone will provide 42,000 jobs, but what they don't
tell us is that the number of direct construction jobs is 3,950 and
that's just for one or two years. The rest of the jobs are indirect or
``induced''--that is, induced activities from people getting paychecks,
spending them on groceries, et cetera, and that's only during the
construction period. Permanent jobs are 50. Look at the ratios: Tesla
is over 2-to-1, with regard to permanent jobs-to-construction jobs.
Keystone is 50 permanent jobs to 3,950 construction jobs. The number of
permanent is so insignificant that this pipeline does not generate
economic progress in our country.
Why aren't we talking about the transportation bill? We want to talk
about jobs? Yes, we will get construction jobs. Thank you, Senator
Boxer, for your extraordinary leadership on that bill. If we had a
long-term transportation bill, we would be helping the construction
industry by creating a lot of construction jobs. And guess what? At the
end of the day, we would have a modern transportation system that would
promote economic growth in America. Let me just give you one of those
projects as an example: the Purple Line in Montgomery and Prince
George's Counties, MD. We want to get that done. It will not only
create construction jobs--it will not only create permanent jobs, it
will help people live longer because they won't be stuck in traffic. It
will really help our economy grow. That is the type of debate we should
be having.
Instead, we are talking about putting in a pipeline that poses
incredible environmental risk not only to the United States but to our
entire global community.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has shown how tar sand
extraction methods are very dangerous to our environment and could
release 11 million to 47 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent into our atmosphere.
It is done in a way that--I was listening to my colleague from Hawaii
talk about it--that is destroying the Earth. They are in the process of
destroying the Boreal forest, which acts as a carbon ``sink,'' while
producing petroleum coke as well as tar sands crude. They are emitting
carbon dioxide just to produce the tar sands crude; they are emitting
greenhouse gases. Add transportation, refining, and consumption of the
ultimate product, the tar sands, and it is the worst form of a carbon
footprint that we could have in our environment.
The risks are real, including the danger to our environment from
spills and come at a time when U.S. global leadership is so critical
for action on climate change.
According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment, the reality of
climate change is clear and apparent. I could give examples of the
droughts in California, of the increased wildfires in the West, or
extreme weather conditions caused by polar vortexes in all parts of our
country. Our sea level is rising from Miami, FL, to my own State of
Maryland, where 70 percent of the population lives in coastal areas.
They are very concerned about what they are seeing as a result of the
rising sea levels. So it is critically important to have U.S.
leadership. This is what it is about--U.S. leadership.
President Obama demonstrated that leadership when he met with
President Xi of China. The United States and China account for about
one-third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. I have heard on this
floor many times: Why are we doing certain things if China doesn't do
certain things? Well, guess what. China is responding to our
leadership.
Congratulations to President Obama for getting commitments from
President Xi that China will reduce its carbon footprint. Specifically,
China pledged that non-fossil fuel sources will account for at least 20
percent of the country's energy use by 2030. That is U.S. leadership
working with China to help lead the global community. Let us show even
more leadership by rejecting the Keystone Pipeline.
Lastly, let me talk about process for a moment or two, if I might.
The regulatory protections should not be circumvented by congressional
action. State courts in Nebraska should not be circumvented by
congressional action. We need to listen to the people from the region
as they have expressed their concern about Keystone XL, and I quote
from a person named Ben Gotschall from the organization, Bold Nebraska,
which is part of the anti-pipeline coalition called the Cowboy-Indian
Alliance:
The Cowboy Indian Alliance shows our cooperation and our
working together in mutual respect. That shared bond proves
that we pipeline fighters are not just a few angry landowners
holding out, or environmentalists pushing a narrow agenda. We
are people from all walks of life and include the people who
have been here the longest and know the land best.
We are talking about circumventing the regular order in order to have
a narrow result that affects real people's lives. We can do better than
that. We need to reject this ``pipeline by congressional action.''
Congress needs to act in a responsible way, and passing this bill is
not doing that. This pipeline travels through the United States so that
Canada can get its dirtiest oil into the international marketplace.
Canadians don't want the pipeline in their country for good reason,
because they know the environmental risks of the pipeline and tar sands
development are unacceptable.
[[Page S6048]]
The energy will not have any major impact on the United States. It is
for export. It is not for the United States.
Why are we doing this? There are very few permanent jobs involved
here--fewer than 100. We already heard that. The risks to our
environment--we have seen that. We have seen it happen before. We know
what devastation tar sands oil spills can cause. We know what the
cleanup cost are all about.
Why are we subjecting communities to this when they don't want it and
the environmental risks are so great? Why are we calling into question
U.S. leadership globally when we are able to get progress that we have
been asking for, and that Chairman Boxer has been asking for, to get
China to act? Why are we trampling on the appropriate role of the
executive and judicial branches and local government by doing what we
are attempting to do today?
I hope my colleagues will reject this bill. And I hope that we will
work together for an energy policy that makes sense for America and
that invests in clean energy, which will help our economy grow, help us
be energy secure, and be friendly to our environment. With that, I
yield back the remaining time to Senator Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I request 5 minutes.
I see the Senator from Wyoming, who is going to rebut the arguments
made by the Senator from Maryland. So I will take 5 minutes, and then
the Senator from Wyoming will have all the time he wants within the
framework.
First, I will say that I have great respect for the Senator from
Maryland. He is an excellent debater, and we just saw the skills of his
debating. But I want to put some things on the record that show he is
absolutely, completely wrong in his assessment and statements, as
respectfully as I can. He is completely wrong.
First of all, this is the environmental statement. It is printed, it
is done, it is finished, and it was finished in January of this year.
This is the fifth environmental statement.
So anyone who comes to this floor on the Democratic side of the
aisle--because no one on the Republican side will say this because they
are all in unity with a group of us to build this pipeline--they are
wrong. It is factually incorrect that the environmental studies have
not been completed because I have it in my hands. This is the fifth.
Let me say what the result of this environmental impact statement by
the Obama administration--not by the Bush administration, not by a
former Republican administration, but the current, Democratic
administration--concluded. People at home who are listening can get out
their computers and their pens. This is what this study says. If the
Keystone XL is built, it will represent .015 of global greenhouse gas
emissions--.015 of greenhouse gas emissions. That is the equivalent, if
people want to keep writing, to 300,000 passenger vehicles in America.
Seems like a big number, except that we have 253 million cars on the
road.
OK. So think about this. The President's own environmental study,
which is the fifth one, completed in January, has done its work. It has
submitted this for the record. This is not subject to debate. The
conclusion of this study is it will, taking everything into
consideration, increase greenhouse gases by .015 percent of global
greenhouse gas emissions, which is the equivalent of 300,000 passenger
vehicles, which is .12 percent of total cars in the U.S.
So this is what we can do. We can build the Keystone Pipeline,
creating thousands of temporary and millions of permanent jobs, which
are not created by the permanency of the pipeline itself but by the
signal that America is serious about energy independence. That will
create millions of high-paying jobs. There is no disputing that fact.
It is not the jobs that build the pipeline we are fighting for so
much--although the pipefitters and boilermakers and the unions are
fighting for that, and I am fighting with them--it is the signal it
gives that we are serious about energy independence, and that we honor
and understand there are already pipelines in our country. There are
pipelines in our country. We have been building pipelines in this
country since before most of us were born--all of us were born. That is
what is so outrageous about this debate.
Yes, this pipeline comes from Canada, our best trading partner, our
most reliable ally, a country that is the most equivalent to us in the
United States of America, and because it is a pipeline connecting
Canada and the United States, it has all become this bogeyman that is
going to wreck the world.
The environmental impact study, Senator Cardin, has been done. It is
in.
The second thing I wanted to talk about is this. We pass a lot of
crazy bills around here. This bill is two pages--S. 2280. Here it is.
This is the first page, this is the second page. Everybody in America
can read it. I would strongly recommend to those who are listening, get
it and read the bill. It will literally take 15 seconds. It is so
simple, and Senator Hoeven and I wrote it to be simple. As I have said
before, we wrote it to go the distance. We wrote it to go the distance.
It is not complicated. It simply says this: After waiting 5 years, and
after acknowledging all environmental studies have been done, all
economic studies have been done, we direct the President of the United
States to give his approval.
We are not circumventing the President. Every report he has requested
has been turned in to him, every single solitary one. In addition, and
the Presiding Officer knows this, because at her request and Senator
Tester's request, Senator Hoeven and I added this language:
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. . . .
In other words, this language says all private property rights will
be honored. That was not in the House bill. Senator Hoeven and I put it
in this bill because we wanted to put that debate to an end. All
private property rights are honored.
The environmental studies have been completely completed. Also in our
bill is respect for Nebraska because we are not trying to run over
Nebraska. We say here--and I will point it out in just a minute--that
subject to the final decision by Nebraska about where this is going to
go, Nebraska can decide. As we can see, all the other States have said
fine to their line. Nebraska has to decide. That is in the court. This
bill says they can still decide this. There is nothing telling Nebraska
where to build it.
I hope people who come to the floor to talk about this pipeline will
bring their facts and not fear--facts, not fear. I am a fierce
proponent of the pipeline and they are fierce opponents and I respect
them. There are two people I greatly respect: Barbara Boxer and Ben
Cardin. But we are on the exact opposite side of this issue.
So let's discuss facts, and let me just say one more thing and then I
will give this to Senator Barrasso, because this is more personal. I
was very disappointed in the Senator from Kansas when he came out and
said something akin to he finds it strange--I think his words were he
is kind of amused that we would be debating this because he thinks this
is some kind of political opportunity.
I have a lot of respect for the Senator from Kansas. I worked with
him. I was his chair and he was my ranking member on emerging threats.
We have been through some pretty tough meetings together. When this
country was under attack during 9/11, I was the chair of emerging
threats and he was the ranking member when the Twin Towers burned. He
is a marine. I always joked: He is a marine and I am a Girl Scout, so I
think he has one up on me. Nonetheless, we both have a pretty good code
of honor. So for him to come to the floor, after being in the foxhole
with me on that day, and to say he thinks this is some kind of
convenient opportunity for me is beneath the dignity of himself, the
Marine Corps, and the State he represents.
This is a serious issue. We should have debated it months ago. The
only reason we didn't--and Harry Reid is now on the floor and he has
heard me say this to him in private and I will say it in public--is
because neither leader could get their caucuses in a position to have
this debate. There were
[[Page S6049]]
many reasons for it, but all those reasons cleared up after this
election. That is why we are having this debate, because I asked for
it.
I support and I appreciate the Members, no matter how they vote, in
having this debate. If we had more debates like this, the American
people might be hopeful we could get something done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Attack in Jerusalem
Mr. REID. Madam President, I am going to use leader time for these
remarks, and it will not interfere with any of the time that has been
allocated to these gentlemen and ladies.
In far away Israel, during morning prayer, a horrific attack took
place. A number of people were having their morning prayer. Four rabbis
were savagely beaten, hacked to death, with a meat cleaver. Two
Palestinian men entered the synagogue in Jerusalem and savagely
murdered these four rabbis in the midst of morning prayer. Three of
these victims were American citizens, the other, I am told, was a
British citizen. One of them was a leading scholar, Hasidic scholar.
More than one dozen others were hacked, hacked with a meat clever,
while they were there praying. A number of these people are in critical
condition as we speak.
Secretary of State John Kerry today said: ``Innocent people who had
come to worship died in the sanctuary of a synagogue.''
Places of worship have always been a refuge in times of peace and in
times of conflict. Yet these terrorists hacked and brutally murdered
worshippers in the midst of prayer.
This is not an isolated incident. Recently, Palestinian terrorists
have carried out shocking attacks all across Israel. Seven Israelis
have been killed in these horrible attacks, including a 3-month-old
American infant--a baby, 3 months old--an Israeli soldier, a border
patrol officer.
These attacks are a direct result of incitement, and I call upon the
Palestinian leadership to condemn these attacks unequivocally. This
butchery has no place in the modern world and they should stop it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank Majority Leader Reid for his
remarks. Sometimes it does feel the world is falling apart and we have
to speak out, as we are doing every time these terrorists rear their
heads.
I know we have some time over here by Senator Barrasso, but I just
wanted to make a point on the environmental impact statements, although
it is hard to get back.
As I understand it, in the Hoeven- Landrieu bill, the EIS is
approved. So if the Nebraska bureaucracy determines there is a new
route--and I think this is what my friend from Maryland was getting
at--it doesn't matter what the new route is, the EIS is deemed
approved. I have to say I don't think that is right. I think the people
who live along that new route have a right to have a new EIS if in fact
now the pipeline is being moved in a different direction.
I understand the bill calls for property rights to be respected, and
that is called eminent domain. I know a lot of my friends on the other
side hate eminent domain, usually, but now they are embracing it
because that is what is in this bill. But the fact is, if as a result
of a court case brought by property owners the route changes, it is our
counsel's understanding the EIS is still automatically approved.
I wanted to get that on the record because my friend was in fact
questioned, and I think he was right.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor to express my
support for the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. This is
bipartisan legislation. The House passed this bill with 31 Democrats
voting for it.
Last week, Senate Republicans welcomed the news that the outgoing
Senate majority leader had finally decided to let the Senate vote on
this legislation and that vote is finally going to take place today.
For years House and Senate Republicans have been pushing legislation to
approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, but until now the outgoing Senate
majority leader wouldn't even let the Senate vote on this measure. This
was all part of the majority leader's efforts to protect the President
and the President's agenda.
The majority leader had hoped the American people would forget about
the Senate. He had hoped they would be satisfied with President Obama's
job approval. Well, 2 weeks ago, the American people made it clear they
have not forgotten about the Senate. The American people made it clear
they are not satisfied with President Obama and his policies. Instead,
the American people want the President to work with the Senate to enact
bipartisan legislation to grow our and economy and to create jobs.
President Obama and Senate Democrats can do that today by supporting
the bill we are approaching to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. This
pipeline is going to create thousands of jobs right here at home. It is
not just my view, it is the view of the President's own State
Department.
According to the State Department, the construction of the Keystone
XL Pipeline would support over 42,000 jobs--42,000 jobs. That is the
reason many of the Nation's largest labor unions support the
construction and approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. In addition the
pipeline would facilitate American crude oil production. Specifically,
this pipeline will ship up to 100,000 barrels of oil each and every day
from North Dakota and Montana. Currently there is insufficient pipeline
capacity to ship oil out of North Dakota. As a consequence, oil
producers must rely on railroads to ship oil out of State. Shipping
crude oil by rail is more expensive than shipping it by pipeline. The
Keystone XL Pipeline would provide oil producers a cheaper shipping
method and in turn encourage production of more American energy.
This pipeline will also increase our Nation's energy security.
Specifically, the pipeline will provide an additional access to
Canadian oil. We should welcome access to Canadian oil. Canadian oil is
a far better alternative to oil from Venezuela, the Middle East or West
Africa, areas of the world which don't share our values and too often
work against our American interests. In contrast, Canada is a strong
ally, Canada is America's top trading partner, and Canada already
provides the United States with reliable and secure sources of energy.
Now is the time for President Obama to make a decision on the
Keystone XL Pipeline.
As the senior Senator from Delaware, a Member of the President's own
party, said last week: ``We have waited not just months but years for a
decision on Keystone,'' he said. ``This is too long.''
In fact, the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline has been pending for
over 6 years. During this time the State Department has conducted five
environmental reviews of the project. Each of the reviews has been
positive. I say to President Obama: Time is up and the excuses have run
out. It is time for you, Mr. President, to make a decision.
President Obama should once again acknowledge that elections have
consequences. Specifically, he should signal to the American people
that he has heard the message voters across this country sent just 2
weeks ago: their message of support for bipartisan legislation that
grows our economy, creates jobs, puts people back to work, their
message of support for legislation such as the approval of the Keystone
XL Pipeline.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, let me just say that at long last this
week we are going to be voting on the Keystone XL Pipeline. The vote
has been a long time coming--years, in fact. Republicans have been
trying to get this pipeline and the many jobs it will support approved.
It would have been at the top of our agenda in January when we take
control of the Senate, but we are happy to get a head start on that
work a little early. It is just too bad that it took an election defeat
and a runoff election to finally motivate the Democratic leadership to
allow a vote on the measure. It should have received a vote years ago.
In fact, the Keystone Pipeline, if there is such a thing, is a win-
win. It will create jobs. One can argue about how many jobs. The
President's own
[[Page S6050]]
State Department said it would support over 42,000 jobs. It will
decrease our reliance on oil from dangerous countries. It will increase
revenues to State and local governments. It will free space on
overcrowded rail lines so the farmers can get their goods to the
marketplace, and it will do all of that without spending a dime of
taxpayer money.
Our economy has been limping along for years. The unemployment rate
is still hovering at near recession levels and 9 million Americans are
unemployed. More Americans are working part-time jobs because they
cannot find full-time employment. Household income has fallen nearly
$3,000 since President Obama took office while the price of everything
else, from food to health care, has risen.
Americans need jobs and economic opportunities, and the Keystone
Pipeline will help supply them. As I said, the State Department
estimates that in my home State of South Dakota alone, construction of
the pipeline would bring 3,000 to 4,000 jobs and generate well over
$100 million in earnings. It will also bring over $20 million in annual
property taxes to South Dakota counties. I know some of the counties in
the middle of my State are counties that are struggling to keep up with
the cost of keeping the local governments going. School districts are
struggling to survive and property tax revenue that will come in as a
result of building a pipeline will help sustain many of those local
governments and many of those school districts during some pretty
difficult times.
My State is just one of the States that benefits. Nationwide, the
pipeline will support more than 42,000 jobs--construction jobs from
welders to pipefitters, to those who work at local hotels and gas
stations. It will invest $5.3 billion in the U.S. economy and bring
States a total of $5 billion in property taxes over the life of the
project. That is a lot of funding for local priorities such as schools,
law enforcement personnel and roads and bridges. Opponents of the
pipeline like to cite environmental concerns as a reason for opposing
the pipeline and its jobs.
Five separate environmental reviews from the President's own State
Department have found that the pipeline possesses no meaningful risk to
the environment. In fact, even the State Department admits the Keystone
Pipeline is the safest way of transporting the oil. It is safer than
rail or truck. It is important to remember Canada will be extracting
and transporting its oil regardless. The only question is whether we
want it to come to the United States along with the thousands of jobs
it will create or whether we want to let Canada ship that oil overseas.
The American people have been very clear about their feelings about
this project. Poll after poll has shown strong support. Republicans
support the pipeline. Democrats in both Houses of Congress support the
pipeline. Unions support the pipeline. The only people who seem to
oppose it are Members of the far leftwing of the Democratic Party. The
reason we haven't had a vote in the Senate is not because a majority of
Senators don't support the project, it is because Senate Democratic
leadership refused to hold a vote despite having support from their
side of the aisle.
While it is unfortunate it took the Democratic leadership this long
to come around, I am glad we are finally here. I hope the Senate will
finally approve the pipeline. If this bill passes today it will have
one final hurdle to clear and that is the President of the United
States. I very much hope he will listen to the voices of American
workers and the bipartisan majorities in the Congress. Given his recent
comments, I am skeptical.
The President has demonstrated a disturbing commitment to holding the
American economy hostage to priorities of the far leftwing of his
party. Take his recent energy agreement with China which would force
American companies to implement costly new measures while China gets to
do nothing. The national energy tax that the President unveiled back in
June will put tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of
American workers out of jobs and devastate entire communities. The
pipeline's economic benefits to support the American people and five--
five--successful environmental reviews have yet to convince the
President to approve this project. I am concerned this vote probably
isn't going to help, but I hope I am wrong.
By signing this bill, the President could send a powerful message
about his willingness to work with Congress, and he can show the
American people he heard their demands for change in Washington and
that their economic priorities can be addressed.
I am sorry American workers have had to wait years for this project
because, let's not forget, they are the ones who have been hurt the
most by the administration's refusal to approve the pipeline. I hope
today marks the end of their waiting and I hope it marks the beginning
of a new era in the Senate.
When Republicans take over in January, bills such as Keystone will be
the order of the day. We will take up jobs bills that passed the House
with bipartisan support but have been waiting for a vote in the
Democratic leader's Senate. We will take up legislation to create
economic growth here at home by opening new markets for American
agriculture and manufacturing overseas. We will repeal the medical
device tax which is opposed by Members of both parties thanks to the
fact that it is eliminating thousands of jobs in the medical device
industry, and that will be just the start.
I hope that just as they did today, Democrats will work with us even
more on bills to create jobs and economic opportunities for the
American people because it is the people of this country for whom we
ought to be doing everything we can to help and to support. I can state
that the people in the Midwest, in the heartland whom I represent,
already spend--if they make $50,000 a year--20 percent of their income
on energy, either fuel or electricity. All these proposals, the
national energy tax, the deal with China, continue to drive up the cost
of energy and make it more difficult and more expensive for middle-
income families who are increasingly squeezed by these policies.
I wish to close by quoting from a letter the leaders received from
the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives in which they urge Congress
to support legislation to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, and this is
what they say:
The Keystone XL Pipeline also is part of a long-term
solution to alleviating the transportation pressures many in
agriculture have faced. This year, farmers around the country
experienced some of the largest harvests they have seen in
generations. For some, their successful year has come to an
alarming halt when trying to sell and transport their crop.
Farmer cooperatives in the upper Midwest are facing major
delays in getting their farmers' grain to market due to the
sustained shortage of rail equipment resulting from the
increased use of rail to transport crude oil. The Keystone XL
Pipeline will ultimately free up locomotives and track to
move more grain to market and improve our ability to handle
year after year record harvests.
Yet another reason to support this project and the jobs that come
with it, the energy independence that comes with it, the lessening--
relieving, if you will--of rail capacity issues that are plagued in
many areas of the Midwest and making it harder for farmers to come to
the marketplace.
This is a project that is a win-win, and I hope when the vote comes
later today, we will have not just the majority of the Senators but the
60 votes that are necessary to move this to the President's desk.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I will yield to Senator Merkley, but before I do, I was
so glad to hear a Republican say he wants to work on jobs. I would just
say to my friend before he leaves, the CEO who runs the pipeline says
there will be 35 permanent jobs. OK. I would like to suggest to my
friend that if he truly wants to help the middle class, he ought to
join with us first in raising the minimum wage, which is critical, and,
secondly, embracing a clean energy future while we still use, where it
is safe, domestic oil production, clean coal, things we can do that
don't threaten the air our children breathe, pollute the water they
drink, and destroy the planet.
To hear a Republican stand and talk about jobs is music to my ears,
but I would like to put into the Record a report I just got from my
California people at home who say:
[[Page S6051]]
California's climate policies are reducing carbon
emissions, saving consumers at the pump, cutting oil use, and
cleaning our air.
California's economic recovery has outpaced the rest of the
country since the so-called ``great recession,'' while our
state has implemented the nation's strongest climate
policies. . . .
California can reduce greenhouse gas pollution while
growing the economy; we have been doing it for the last 35
years. Innovative energy policies over the past three decades
have saved Californians $56 billion on household energy costs
and allowed them to reduce expenditures on imported fossil
fuels and redirect spending to create 1.5 million full-time
jobs.
And they go on to talk about the fact that they are looking toward
1.5 million full-time jobs. I am just saying to my friend, if this is
truly about jobs, let's pass a transportation bill. Let's make sure we
do the things that help our people.
I am going to hold up a picture of the air in China. This is what it
looks like when you throw the environment under the bus. We know,
because in California we had some bad air until a Republican President
passed the Clean Air Act, signed it into law.
You want to know public opinion. I will tell you. The public supports
the EPA and they support clean air, clean water, safe drinking water.
This tar sands isn't about the building of a pipeline, it is what is
going into it--the filthiest, dirtiest oil, and we have put in the
Record all the elements, the pollutants, that are in this oil. You can
laugh it away if you want. That is fine. But I have to tell you, when
you hear about the health impact that is going on in Canada from this
tar sands, when you go down to Port Arthur, TX, or meet with the people
here as I did, what you will see there is a community suffering because
this is the dirtiest oil.
So, yes, jobs--that is where it is with this Senator. I come from a
family which is first-generation American on my mother's side. We
worked for everything we got. Education was key to it.
Hey, how about joining with us on that? How about reducing interest
rates on student loans? But to stand here and say this is the absolute
job producer is phony. It is phony baloney.
With that, I yield to my friend for 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address S. 2280, which would
approve construction of the Keystone Pipeline to transport tar sands
heavy oil from Canada to the gulf coast.
The key consideration is whether this bill--by authorizing the
pipeline--would contribute significantly to global warming, which is
already damaging our rural resources and our future economic prospects
with profound consequences for families in America and around the
world.
Also, are there better ways to create jobs that would enhance rather
than damage our world? In the words of President Theodore Roosevelt:
Of all the questions which can come before this nation,
short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great
war, there is none which compares in importance with the
great central task of leaving this land even a better land
for our descendants than it is for us.
Let's start by addressing the vision that President Roosevelt put
forward and examine the impact of the Keystone Pipeline on atmospheric
carbon dioxide pollution and global warming.
In this chart we see, going back 800,000 years, that the carbon
dioxide has gone up and down. In recent years it has been quite steady
until the start of the Industrial Revolution, and then it has soared--
soared above levels it has been at for hundreds of thousands of years.
In this second chart, we see that there is absolutely no question
that heat--put here in blue--correlates to the carbon dioxide in red.
When the carbon dioxide level goes up and down, the heat of the planet
goes up and down.
By many estimates, to contain global warming to 2 degrees Celsius,
humans can burn only about an additional 500 gigatons of fossil carbon.
That is the fossil budget we have to work with to avoid catastrophic
global warming. But currently, the world's top 200 fossil fuel
companies have identified 2,800 gigatons trapped in their fossil fuel,
and that doesn't include the carbon from tar sands and oil shale.
Here is the problem: To protect the planet from catastrophic global
warming, we need to leave four-fifths of the identified conventional
fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Building the Keystone Pipeline,
which would open the facet to rapid exploitation of a massive, new
unconventional reserve--the tar sands--would make it much less likely
for human civilization to succeed in meeting that carbon budget that is
so important to our future economic and environmental world, and that
is why building the Keystone Pipeline is a grave mistake.
Global warming is not some imaginary foe embedded in some computer
model with effects 50 years from now. It is here and we can see it at
this very moment. The warmest 10 years on record for global average
surface temperature has occurred in the last 12 years. Moreover, the
effects can be seen in Oregon--and actually across the Nation. The
average forest fire season is getting longer. Across the Nation, since
the 1980s, the national season has grown by 60 to 80 days, and the
average acres consumed annually by wildfires has doubled to more than 7
million acres. This sight has become all too familiar in our home State
of Oregon.
One study estimates that global warming, through the greater impact
of greater pine beetle infestations and larger forest fires, will
decimate the western forest of the United States by the end of this
century.
In addition, the snowpack in our Oregon mountains is decreasing,
which means smaller and warmer trout streams--that is not a good thing
if you love to fish--and less water for irrigation. The Klamath Basin--
a major agriculture basin in Oregon--has suffered through many dry
years and three horrific droughts since 2001, in substantial part
because of lower snowpacks.
The red circles on this chart represent a significant decrease in the
snowpack. As we can see throughout the northwestern United States--
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and stretching into northern
California--there is a huge decrease in the snowpack which is resulting
in devastating consequences for agriculture.
As the high levels of carbon dioxide in the air are absorbed by the
oceans, the carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid. That acid, as one
would expect, makes the oceans more acidic.
This chart, which presents the carbon dioxide and the pH time series
from Hawaii, presents the challenge clearly. CO2 in the
atmosphere went up from 320 parts per million to about 380 parts per
million over a period of about 50 years--a steady increase in carbon
dioxide. We then see, with this blue set of data, that there is a
parallel trend of the carbon dioxide that is in our ocean, and then we
see from the light blue data that the pH level is dropping, which means
that the ocean is more acidic. That is a 30-percent increase in the
acidity of the ocean over a very short period of time.
The greater acidity is having an impact on sea life. One impact is on
coral reefs, which are the ocean's most diverse ecosystem and the base
of the ocean's food chain. Fishing families around the world depend on
coral reefs as a foundation for livelihood.
Another impact is on the reproduction of oysters. The Whiskey Creek
Shellfish Hatchery in Oregon, which I visited a few weeks ago, started
having trouble growing baby oysters--known as oyster seed--in the year
2008. The hatchery almost went out of business, but a scientist from
Oregon State University was able to help identify and address the
problem. The problem, it turns out, stems from the increase in the
acidity of the Pacific Ocean. If the oyster seed, or the canary in the
coal mine, is having trouble forming shells, what else is going wrong
in the ocean due to rising acidity?
In summary, carbon pollution is having a direct and substantial
impact on the vitality of our forests, farming, and fishing. Our rural
resources are being damaged now, and the problems will multiply with
additional carbon pollution. So as members of the human family on this
planet, with the moral responsibility to exercise wide stewardship of
our resources for future generations, we must address this challenge of
carbon pollution, and we must do so now. Wise stewardship means we must
leave four-fifths of the conventional fossil fuels in the ground.
Would this bill before us, which would open the facet to this massive
[[Page S6052]]
new reserve of fossil fuels, advance such stewardship? The answer is
clear. Stewardship demands that we not build infrastructure to unlock
tar sands--the dirtiest source of oil on the planet.
The proponents of the pipeline have come to the floor and made
interesting arguments--arguments worth examining to see if they
actually hold water. First, they argue that the pipeline would create a
tremendous number of construction jobs. Here is a comparison of direct
construction jobs created by the pipeline--the little tiny wedge down
here represents the pipeline jobs versus the jobs that would be created
by the Rebuild America Act, which would create hundreds of thousands of
jobs. So just 4,000 or so jobs in construction of the pipeline versus
hundreds of thousands jobs from the Rebuild America Act. If anyone on
this floor is actually serious about jobs, we would pass the Rebuild
America Act today.
The proponents have a second argument. They say that bringing this
additional oil into America would increase America's oil independence.
We heard that argument just a few moments ago by my colleague from
South Dakota. The argument goes that this strengthens America's
national security by decreasing America's dependence on the Middle
East, but that argument overlooks a fact. This is not American oil,
this is Canadian oil. This is not oil destined for the United States,
it is destined to be refined in the gulf coast so that it can be
exported around the world. These tar sands will do no more for America
than if they were exported through Canada to the world market.
In fact, if you want the oil to be used in America, the best thing to
do is to not build the pipeline, because that means the area around the
tar sands will be the area getting that oil. Shipping Canadian oil to
the world market via America adds nothing to America's security.
The next argument from proponents is that the pipeline has no
environmental effect--indeed, we just heard this argument as well--
because the oil from the tar sands, it is argued, will reach the market
by rail if not by pipeline. This argument is demonstrably false. There
is not enough rail capacity to substitute for the pipeline, and the
cost of shipping oil by rail is much higher than pipeline, greatly
reducing the economic incentive for rapid development of the sands. All
the while proponents say if the Keystone Pipeline is not built,
alternative pipelines will be built through Canada, but that is
certainly not at all clear.
If it were easier and cheaper to build through Canada, TransCanada
would not be trying to build through the United States of America.
Moreover, there is tremendous opposition within Canada to building such
pipelines, and that is part of the reason TransCanada wanted to build
it through the United States. The opposition within Canada to
additional pipelines is just as fierce as it is in America for the same
set of reasons--fundamentally important moral reasons--about the
stewardship of our environment and our future economy. It turns out the
Keystone Pipeline represents a real risk to our rural resources, our
farming, and our fishing. It represents a real risk to the future
health of our economy needed to sustain middle-class jobs. The pipeline
itself creates very few jobs compared to a serious investment in
infrastructure, and it adds nothing to our national security.
There are several other serious problems with this pipeline that have
often been glossed over. For one, TransCanada is exempted from
contributing to the Oil Spill Liability Fund. That is outrageous. You
could call this bill the TransCanada protection act. Why are we doing a
special deal for a Canadian company? Oilspills like this happen with
these pipelines all the time, and they will not contribute one slim
dime to the Oil Spill Liability Fund that American companies have to
contribute to. Why would anyone vote for that sort of special deal for
a foreign company--that irresponsible failure to contribute a single
dime to the Oil Spill Liability Fund?
In addition, we are giving a foreign corporation the ability to
exercise eminent domain to seize the lands of American citizens. Since
when do we give power to a foreign corporation to take land away from
American citizens without their desire? It is fundamentally unfair to
American landowners. The legal basis for eminent domain is that there
has to be a compelling public good. What is the compelling public good
in this situation? Is it the generation of private profits for a
Canadian corporation? That doesn't meet the test. Is it the damage from
the oilspills that will occur in communities across America? That
doesn't meet the test. Is it the contributory damage----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that his time has
expired.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for a minute
and a half more.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Is it from the damage from carbon pollution to our
farming, fishing, and forests? That doesn't meet the test.
Frankly, tackling carbon pollution is going to take an enormous
amount of international cooperation. Just a few days ago the United
States and China entered into an agreement to address the global
climate change crisis. The Chinese President announced that China would
invest heavily in renewable energy to generate 20 percent of China's
energy from nonfossil fuel sources by 2030, seeking to decrease China's
CO2 emissions thereafter. That is the type of leadership the
world has been asking for.
We can't simply wish for nations to work together. We have to
negotiate and do our part. That is why today we should not be talking
about how to turn on the tap to the dirtiest oil on the planet, but how
to meet the 2025 goals and how to create jobs by investing in energy
conservation and renewable energy.
Let's remember the test that President Theodore Roosevelt gave us.
There is no more important mission than ``leaving this land even a
better land for descendants than it is for us.'' This bill fails the
test.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I think we are going to take a recess
shortly. I just wanted to thank everybody on both sides for their
statements.
To sum it up from my perspective, you have a situation here that,
frankly, I am very glad we are confronting because there are lots of
people who say: Oh, this is no big deal, it is just a little pipeline,
and we have so many pipelines.
Senator Thune said: Oh, it is so much safer to transport this oil by
pipeline than other ways. Just try telling that to the people of
Marshall, MI. There was a spill in 2010 in the Kalamazoo River. They
are still trying to clean it up. It is not the pipeline that is the
issue, folks, it is the dirty tar sands oil that is so much more
dangerous, has more heavy metals, and more carcinogens. It is a
problem. By virtue of its weight, it sinks to the bottom, and they
cannot clean it up. I can't believe the statement was made about how
safe this is. We have seen stories that there are problems with the
welding in the existing pipeline. We might want to speak to the people
in Mayflower, AR. Do my colleagues know that Exxon had to buy back the
homes because they couldn't be lived in anymore because this stuff
spilled and contaminated an entire neighborhood?
So I call this the extra lethal pipeline. The pipeline itself is
benign. It is what is going through it and what it will unleash in
terms of 45 percent more carbon over time and 45 percent more tar sands
than we would otherwise have, so we figure that everything gets
increased by that amount. There is going to be more carbon, there is
going to be more sulfur, more mercury, more lead.
This is important today. I am so glad we are having this debate. My
colleagues say we never allowed a vote. There was a lot of boxing
around in the boxing ring on that one. We tried. I don't mind having a
vote on this. I have never minded having a vote on this. I think it is
an important debate. People disagree. It is OK. We should air it out.
But the bill before us would stop a process that is in place that is
very important, not because it is a ``process'' but because 2 million
people wrote comments about the Keystone Pipeline. We should not say to
them: Your voices don't matter; we are going to truncate the process; I
don't care what you said.
We already know there is a court case. This bill would approve the
EIS.
[[Page S6053]]
Even if Nebraska moves the route to another route, guess what: This
bill that is pending here--the Hoeven-Landrieu bill--would already say
the new EIS is approved. That is wrong. So only 35 permanent jobs. Most
of this oil is exported. Economists say the price of gas in the
domestic market will go up. And we compare it to embracing a clean
energy agenda while we still develop oil where it is safe and sound,
and we still develop all of the above when it is safe and sound. But if
we embrace clean energy, I have to tell my colleagues, the jobs will
dwarf the 35 permanent jobs for sure that this pipeline brings us.
In California we are so excited with what is happening. And we don't
want to look like the people in China where they walk around in masks,
and we don't want to have little girls and boys with those inhalers
because they can't breathe the air. This is real. This is about health.
Yes, it is about jobs. Yes, it is about prices. And I find it really
fascinating that a few years ago when this all came up, what did we
say? We said, Oh, this pipeline will make us energy independent. Now we
know that we are going to allow this oil to go right through the middle
of our country. Misery follows the tar sands: spills. We have already
had spills. We know what happens when there is a spill. And what do we
get at the end? The oil goes to the rest of the world.
Our friends say, oh, it is still good. It is good for prices. No, it
isn't good for prices. Economists have told us it is not good for gas
prices, and it doesn't help us become energy independent. It imperils
our planet with large amounts of carbon going into the air. It imperils
our families with pollutants that are very carcinogenic and very
dangerous.
So I hope we will let the process continue. I don't know what happens
today. I know the handwriting is on the wall. I know it is on this one.
But when we see the country we love going down a route that makes
sense, following a procedure that makes sense, letting court cases
resolve themselves, letting the people's comments be looked at, making
sure we know exactly what we are doing, and we see that process
shortcut by legislation and people who, by the way--and I am talking
about my Republican friends: Oh, we are not scientists. We don't know
if there is climate change. That is right, they are not scientists and
they don't know, so they should listen to 98 percent of the scientists
who are telling us that the Keystone is a dangerous move for this
planet, because it is going to allow this oil that is far more carbon
intensive.
I am a humble person. I am not a scientist; I do listen to them. I
have to say to go blindly down this path is a huge mistake. Yet, that
is what we are facing, and it is fine with me that we are facing it. We
will stand and we will debate until there is nothing more to be said.
We are probably getting to that place right now, so I will stop and
reserve the remainder of my time.
____________________