[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 7, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S40-S50]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, along with Senator Joe Manchin--and 
actually a total of 60 sponsors--I have filed S. 1, which is the 
Keystone approval bill. It is a very simple, straightforward bill. This 
is legislation we have seen before in this body. What it does, under 
the commerce clause of the Constitution, is authorize Congress to 
approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
  I have this map in the Chamber to show you the project. It runs from 
Hardisty in Alberta, Canada, all the way down to our refineries in 
Texas along the gulf coast.
  This project will move 830,000 barrels of oil a day. Some of that 
will be oil from Canada. Some of that will be domestic oil from the 
Bakken region in Montana and North Dakota.
  This is part of building the infrastructure so we can build a 
comprehensive energy plan for our country. We are producing more and 
more oil and gas in our country from shale from places such as the 
Bakken in North Dakota and Montana, the Eagle Ford in Texas, natural 
gas from places such as the Barnett and the Marcellus in New York, 
Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
  What we are working toward is--some people refer to it as energy 
independence, but really energy security for our country.
  What does that mean? It means we produce more energy than we consume. 
Obviously, energy has a global market. The market for energy is a 
global market. We know that. The market for oil and gas is a global 
market.
  But the point is, working together with our closest friend and ally, 
Canada, we can have North American energy security where we produce 
more energy than we consume.
  Why is that important? That is important because it is about creating 
jobs. It is important because it is about economic growth. It is 
important because it is a national security issue.
  Why do we continue to rely on oil from the Middle East? Why are we 
continuing to send dollars to the Middle East where you have--look at 
what happened in Paris today with an attack by Islamic extremists. One 
of the ways we fight back, one of the ways we push back is we take 
control of our own energy destiny. We can do it. We are doing it. Why 
are gas prices lower today at the pump? Is it because OPEC decided to 
give us a Christmas present? I do not think so. It is because we are 
producing far more energy than we ever have before. But to continue to 
produce that energy, we have to have the infrastructure to move that 
energy from where it is produced to were it is consumed. That means 
pipelines. That means roads. That means rail. For electricity, that 
means transmission. But we cannot have an energy plan for this country 
that really works without the infrastructure to move that energy safely 
and effectively. That is what this project is all about.
  So why are we here talking about it today? It seems like a pretty 
straightforward proposition. After all, I think there are something 
like 19 different pipelines that cross the border. In fact, there are 
millions of miles of pipelines in this country. Here is a map I have in 
the Chamber of just some of them. We have millions of miles of pipeline 
in this country. A lot of them, as you can see, cross the border.
  So why are we standing here today talking about another pipeline 
project? Because for the past 6 years--for the past 6 years--the 
administration has held this project up. They keep saying: There is a 
process. As a matter of fact, Josh Earnest, just yesterday, said: Oh, 
we have a process. Congress should not intervene in the Keystone XL 
Pipeline approval issue because there is a process. Really, Mr. 
President, there is a process? Let's see. The TransCanada company filed 
application to build the Keystone XL Pipeline in September of 2008--
September 2008. If you do the math, that is more than 6 years ago. And 
there is a process somehow to get to a conclusion?
  So that company, which has invested hundreds of millions already, 
wants to build, ultimately, an $8.9 million project that will move 
830,000 barrels of oil a day. And here they are 6 years later still 
waiting for approval. That is why today we are asking Congress to step 
forward and do what the American people want.
  Keystone is not a new issue. The American people understand this 
issue. Poll after poll shows the American people, by a margin of about 
70 percent to 20-some percent, support this project. Whom do we work 
for? We work for the people of this great country, and 70 percent of 
the people of this great country say: Approve the project. After 6 long 
years, where all of the requirements have been met, approve the 
project.
  But the President, of course, continues to hold it up, and even 
yesterday issued a veto threat. Why? Why is he wanting to threaten a 
veto on a project that 70 percent of the American people support? It is 
really hard to understand, isn't it? Because every time an objection 
comes up, we have worked to address that objection.
  When there was an objection on the route, the company rerouted. So 
the President says: Well, it is an environmental concern. He says: 
Well, it is an environmental concern. Really? An environmental concern?
  This is what his own study found. After 6 years of study, the State 
Department, in multiple environmental impact statements--three draft 
statements and two final environmental impact statements--this is what 
they found: no significant environmental impact, according to the U.S. 
State Department environmental impact statements.
  That is not something I did. That is not something the company did. 
That is something the Obama administration did--repeatedly--and came to 
the same conclusion: no significant environmental impact. In fact, if 
you do not build the pipeline, you have to move that oil with 1,400 
railcars a day.
  Now, Canada is going to produce the energy. North Dakota, Montana, 
other States, are going to continue to produce the energy. So that 
energy is going to move. The question is, how and where? If we cannot 
build the pipeline, then it has to go by railcar. So do we really want 
1,400 railcars a day moving that product around or do we want it to 
move more safely, more cost-effectively, with better environmental 
stewardship through a pipeline? Common sense.
  Then there is this idea somehow: Well, Canada is not going to produce 
that oil if they do not have a pipeline. Wrong. They will move it by 
rail, and they will build other pipelines. Here are several that are 
already in the planning stages, as shown on this map. They will move it 
to the East Coast to refineries they have there or they will send it 
west and it will go to China.
  Now, does that make sense? It does not make sense to the American 
public, which is why the American public wants to work with Canada as 
well as produce energy in our country to become energy secure. The idea 
that we would say no to our closest friend and ally, Canada: We are not 
going to work with you, we are going to continue to buy oil from the 
Middle East, and we are going to have you send your oil to China, makes 
no sense to the American people. And it should not. It should not. That 
is why they overwhelmingly support this project.
  So here we are. We are starting the new Congress. I think, very 
clearly, in the last election, the people said: We support this 
project. You saw it time after time with candidate after candidate who 
supported this project who won their election. But on an even bigger 
issue, an even bigger message, the people of this great country said: 
We want the Congress to work together in a bipartisan way to get things 
done. We

[[Page S41]]

want the Congress to work together in a bipartisan way to get things 
done.
  So here we have legislation that has passed the House repeatedly with 
a bipartisan majority. Here we have legislation that has bipartisan 
support in this body. Here we have legislation that the American people 
overwhelmingly support, after clearly giving the message in the last 
election that they want us working together to get work done, and the 
President issues a veto message right out of the gates. Why? For whom? 
Whom is he working for?
  So it is incumbent upon us to work together in a bipartisan way to 
get this legislation passed. The way we are approaching it--and I see 
my good friend and colleague from the great State of West Virginia is 
here. I want to thank him and turn to him, but I want to do it in the 
form of a question.
  It was my very clear sense from the last election--and I think the 
very clear sense that we all got from the last election--that they want 
to see Congress working together in a bipartisan way, in an open 
process to get the important work of this country done.
  So with this legislation, it is not just that it is about important 
energy infrastructure. It is also that we want to return to regular 
order in this body, offer an open amendment process, allow people to 
bring forward their amendments, offer those amendments, debate them, 
and get a vote on those amendments. If they have amendments that can 
add to and improve this legislation, great, let's have that process. 
Let's have that debate. Let's have those votes. Let's make this bill as 
good as we can possibly make it. Then the President needs to work with 
us. The President needs to meet us halfway and get this done for the 
American people.
  So I would like to turn to my good colleague from the great State of 
West Virginia and say: Aren't we doing all we can here to try to make 
sure we are approaching this in a bipartisan way with an open, 
transparent process to try to build support for this legislation?
  Mr. MANCHIN. I say to the Senator, he is absolutely correct. I thank 
him for this opportunity not only to work with him but also to bring 
the facts forward.
  We have heard many times: We are all entitled to our own opinions, we 
are just not entitled to our own facts. If you start looking at what we 
are consuming today in America, at last count 7 million barrels of 
crude oil is purchased every day in America from other countries--7 
million barrels of crude a day. So this line would possibly furnish 
830,000 barrels of that dependency that we have.
  Let's look and see where it comes from right now. Mr. President, 2.5 
million barrels we are already purchasing from Canada--our best, 
greatest ally we could possibly have; the best trading partner and the 
No. 1 trading partner that 35 of the 50 States have. So it is not an 
unknown there.
  But let's look at where we are purchasing some of the rest of the oil 
from. We purchase 755,000 barrels of heavy crude a day from Venezuela. 
Let's look at Venezuela, where it is an authoritarian regime. It 
impoverishes its citizens. It violates their human rights. It shows its 
willingness to put down political protests with horrific violence.
  We also purchase 1.3 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. We all 
have our concerns about Saudi Arabia and a lot of the money we follow 
goes into the wrong hands. Forty-two thousand barrels a day from 
Russia--from Russia. We know their intent and what they have been doing 
with their energy policy. Their regime has invaded its neighbors and 
they armed pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine.
  So when we start looking at what we are doing, those are the facts. 
This is not just hearsay. It is not just rumors. These are facts. We 
purchase 7 million barrels. When I first was approached on this 4 years 
ago when I came to the Senate, they said: What do you think about the 
Keystone Pipeline that will be bringing oil from Canada into America?
  I said: Where I come from in West Virginia it is pretty common sense. 
We would rather buy from our friends than our enemies. I would rather 
support my friends, my allies, my trading partners more so than I would 
the enemies who use anything I buy from them--the money they receive 
from that product that I buy from them and use it against me.
  It is pretty common sense, not real complicated. I know everybody is 
trying to make this complicated. Also, they talk about--we just had a 
caucus talking about what would happen to the oil. I know the Senator 
has been watching this very closely. But they said the Keystone 
Pipeline will strictly be just an avenue and a vehicle for exporting 
this oil out. They are just going to use America to bring that oil 
through.
  We checked into that a little bit further. That is not true. Even the 
Washington Post gave it three Pinocchios that said it was untrue. We 
found out, basically, the crude oil from Canada is expected to be mixed 
with the domestic oil from the Bakkens, from the Senator's region, 
North Dakota, and that the Canadian oil is a heavier crude, similar to 
Venezuelan oil. It will be mixed with the light crude from the Bakkens, 
which enables it to flow much easier and be produced. Once it 
commingles, this oil is basically American oil. It lives and dies and 
basically is marketed with the policies of the United States of 
America. Our policy is not to export crude oil.
  So I do not know why people are using this argument and scaring 
people that we will get no benefit. Then we talked about the jobs. They 
said there is not that many jobs. In West Virginia, you give us 42,000 
jobs. We would be very appreciative. We will thank you. These are all 
high-paying jobs. They said: Well, they are only contract jobs.
  But yet I hear everybody talking, Republicans and Democrats, about 
building roads and building bridges. Those are also seasonal types of 
jobs. Those are also contracting jobs. They are not permanent jobs, but 
we are tickled to death to get them. That is the whole trade union. All 
the unions that I know of are supportive of this piece of legislation. 
Every working man and woman whom we keep talking about who supports 
themselves and their family supports this legislation.
  Why we are running into such a roadblock I have no idea. Then when we 
put the map up--the other map we had. I said: When I first heard about 
this pipeline, I thought it was an anomaly that we did not have many 
pipelines in America. Then we put up this map. This is what we have in 
America today. So this is not foreign to any of us in any State we have 
pipelines, many in West Virginia and all through this country.
  Then we look at public support. We think: Here we are Democrats and 
Republicans. We look at the polls, and we live and die by the polls, 
they tell us, or we should. But the bottom line is that if we do 
believe in the polls, this has been a consistent poll. It has not 
varied for over 5 years. We have not seen the numbers fluctuate that 
much.
  Overwhelmingly, we have Americans in all aspects of the political 
realm--whether you are a Democrat, Republican or an Independent--who 
overwhelmingly support this pipeline. So I cannot see the objections to 
it. I was very disappointed when the President said he would veto it--
or the White House once we said we would go through this process.
  I think the Senator and I talked about this. We thought this is going 
to be an open process. I was encouraged by my colleagues on the 
Democratic side who have some good amendments, I believe, that should 
be considered and I believe would pass and enhance the bill. We only 
need four more--four more Senators on my side of the aisle who can see 
the benefit of a good bill, a good process with good amendments to 
strengthen this bill, to put us in a position that is veto-proof.
  That should be our goal. Basically, we should not be deterred by the 
White House or the President saying already that they are going to veto 
this bill. Let's see if we can make this bill so good that when we are 
finished with this product and this process 2 or 3 weeks from now, we 
will have a product that basically we are all proud of, that the 
American people are proud of and will support, and maybe, just maybe, 
the White House will change its mind.
  I am hopeful for that. I appreciate all the effort and work. We are 
working very well together. At last count, we had nine Democrats 
working with our Republican colleagues. That puts us at

[[Page S42]]

63. I am hopeful to get four more at least that will look at the 
virtues of this and the assets and what it will do for our country.
  My main goal is this: Energy independence makes a secured and 
protected Nation. Anytime we do not have to depend on oil coming from 
other parts of the world--and the resources we give them when we 
purchase their product, they use those resources against us time after 
time again. We can see now, with the oil prices dipping, the benefits 
the consumers in America receive, the strength that gives our country.
  I am so thankful for that, that we are getting a break. I think we 
can continue to make that happen for many years to come if we are able 
to be smart strategically in what we do today. I think the Senator 
spoke about the environment. He might want to touch on that again. But 
most of this oil is being produced now, some way or another, and it is 
also getting transported in different ways and means.
  The bottom line is there is no significant environmental impact. I 
think the State Department has even done five studies that show that to 
be true. I said also 2.5 million barrels a day are being purchased from 
Canada today. Refineries in Illinois are now refining this product. 
They said we should not do it. We have been doing it for quite some 
time. We are using this product. With technology we are using it 
better. It has helped us be more independent of foreign oil.
  That is No. 1, the security of our Nation. Being an American, and for 
West Virginians, the security of our Nation is first and foremost what 
we support. That is why I think we see a tremendous amount of people 
from the Mountain State, I say to the Senator, who support this piece 
of legislation.
  We are going to work diligently. We have a long way to go, but I 
think the facts are on our side. We are all entitled to our opinions, 
but we cannot change the facts.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
West Virginia not only for his support on this project but for his 
willingness to work hard, to work together to find bipartisan 
solutions, whether it is this legislation or other legislation. That is 
what it is incumbent upon us to do. It is not easy, but we have to be 
willing to engage in the hard work it takes to get to this legislation, 
to get these solutions in place for the American people.
  I again thank the Senator for his leadership. I look forward to 
continuing to work with the Senator and our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to come to good solutions. That is what this effort is all 
about.
  I want to turn to the Senator from the State of Montana. The pipeline 
project goes right through his State. Here is somebody who has dealt 
with the issue on the House side of Congress and who has the project in 
his home State. So he is talking on behalf of people where the pipeline 
is right there.
  I would like to turn to him and ask: What are the people in Montana 
saying? It is fine for somebody far removed from a project to say I am 
OK or I am not OK with it, but how about the people who are right there 
on the site? They are directly affected. Tell us what is the sense in 
the Senator's home State? What is the Senator hearing when he talks to 
people?
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I applaud, first of all, the Senator from 
North Dakota for his leadership on this most important issue and his 
commitment to making it a priority for this Senate, the first bill 
introduced into this Senate. I also applaud the Senator from West 
Virginia; one example of, as we sit in this Chamber today, Republicans 
and Democrats discussing and supporting the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  I reiterate many of the comments expressed by my colleagues and 
convey the importance of this pipeline, because as the Senator from 
North Dakota mentioned and showed on his map, the very first State the 
Keystone Pipeline enters as it comes from Canada is the State of 
Montana. Let me tell you something. It is not just a pipeline. This is 
also changing the way of life and economic stimulus for our great 
State.
  I spend a lot of time traveling around the State in my pickup. As I 
drive around Eastern Montana, where the Keystone Pipeline will travel, 
I recognize this is a lifeline for many of our rural communities. In 
fact, Circle, MT--Circle, MT, is a small town of around 600 people. It 
is located in McCone County. It is one of six Montana counties that the 
Keystone XL Pipeline will run through. Circle, similar to a lot of 
small communities in Montana, has experienced the same economic and 
population declines that other towns have faced in recent years.
  In fact, the county has significant infrastructure needs that have 
gone unresolved in the wake of a shrinking tax base. For towns such as 
Circle, the Keystone XL Pipeline is not just about energy. It 
represents economic opportunity and hope for the future. You see, 
McCone County alone would see $18 million in property tax revenue from 
the Keystone Pipeline construction. That is just in the pipeline's 
first year of operation. That is money for neighborhoods. It is money 
for roads, not to mention the influx of jobs for the area.
  Another $45 million would be distributed among five other Montana 
counties, and $16 million would go to Montana's schools and university 
systems. You see, the Keystone XL Pipeline means lower energy costs for 
Montana families, for our senior citizens, and for small businesses.
  In Glasgow, MT--I remember traveling in my pickup into Glasgow. I met 
with the NorVal Electric Co-op. They told me that if the Keystone 
Pipeline is approved, they will hold electric rates flat for their 
customers for the next 10 years. That is several thousand Montana 
families up in the northeast part of our State.
  The reason for that is because they will supply electricity to these 
pump stations on the Keystone Pipeline. If the Keystone Pipeline is not 
approved, those ratepayers will see an approximate 40-percent increase 
in their utility rates over the next 10 years. That is a potential 
increase of $480 per year for the average household in Montana.
  As the Senator from North Dakota mentioned, 100,000 barrels a day of 
the oil traveling through the Keystone Pipeline will be Montana and 
North Dakota oil. That supports the Bakken formation. With the 
revolution of hydraulic fracturing, what it is creating now is lower 
gas prices at the pump today.
  Montanans know this pipeline is not just a lofty idea or some kind of 
DC-based rhetoric. It is hope for the people of my State. It is a 
tangible result and a solution that Montanans deserve. I have to tell 
you, that is why it is so disappointing that once again we are seeing 
the President and some Senate Democrats playing political games and 
perpetuating the 6 years of gridlock that have held back this job-
creating project.
  Rather than putting the American people first, the President has 
threatened to refuse the people of Montana their right to determine 
their economic future. It took the Canadians just 7 months to approve 
their end of the Keystone Pipeline. It has taken this President more 
than 6 years. That is 6 years without the hundreds of good-paying jobs 
that will be created in Montana and thousands more across the Nation.
  That is 6 years without millions of dollars in critical revenue for 
Montana schools, for infrastructure, for teachers. That is 6 years 
without the answers and actions that Montanans deserve. I think the 
pipeline checks every box of common sense. It is environmentally sound, 
it creates jobs, it is economic opportunity, and it is going to help us 
move toward North American energy independence.
  So the question is: Why are we still waiting? The people of Montana, 
the people of this country have said they have had enough. That is why 
we are here today speaking in support of this important project. I am 
proud the Senate is taking steps to move forward with the Keystone XL 
Pipeline. I know the House intends to do the same shortly. President 
Obama can continue to obstruct progress on American jobs and American 
energy independence, but the American people have sent a strong message 
that they are ready to remove any roadblocks that President Obama 
intends to put in the way.
  The time for partisanship, the time for political games is over. It 
is time the Congress and this government gets to work for the American 
people and starts getting results for this country.

[[Page S43]]

The polls are clear. Sixty-seven percent of the American people want 
the Keystone Pipeline approved.
  Seventy-five percent of Montanans want the Keystone Pipeline 
approved. Prior to serving in Congress, I spent 28 years in the private 
sector, where we were focused on getting results in the real world. It 
seems only in DC are we outside of the real world of doing something 
and getting results on behalf of the American people. That starts with 
approving the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to thank the Senator from Montana again. We 
are hearing from somebody who is there, who is talking to people, where 
this project is going to be located, one of the States it would pass 
through. I thank the Senator for his perspective and for his hard work 
and commend him for being here and for his continued efforts not only 
to work with our caucus but to reach out to the Democratic caucus as 
well and find common ground on this important issue--something the 
Senator from West Virginia said a minute ago; that is, let's focus on 
the facts. I think the more understanding we create as to what the 
facts are, the more this gets done on the merits.

  I turn to the Senator from Wyoming--somebody who has long experience 
with energy, somebody who comes from an energy State, a State that 
produces a variety of sources of energy, and pose the same question to 
him. In terms of focusing on the facts, whether it is the environmental 
aspect, whether it is the jobs, whether it is making our country energy 
secure, talk to us a little bit about the importance of this kind of 
vital infrastructure--projects such as Keystone--for our country.
  Mr. BARRASSO. First let me thank and congratulate the Senator from 
North Dakota for his dogged determination in fighting for these 
American jobs and for energy security for our country. I am so grateful 
for his hard work. He has really been tenacious in this fight to get 
this bill past the Senate and to the President's desk.
  I also congratulate my friend and colleague from Montana. Last fall 
the American people elected 12 new Republican Senators to work in this 
body, and he is one of them. I have had the opportunity to travel with 
him in Montana. He has a great background. He is innovative, and he is 
energetic. He is going to do a tremendous job not only for his State 
and the Rocky Mountain West but for the entire United States as a 
Member of the Senate. He just took his oath yesterday. We were able to 
hear from him today, and he is going to be a remarkable addition to 
this body.
  I know that all of these dozen new Republican Senators are as eager 
as the rest of us in the new Republican majority to start fulfilling 
our obligation to the people we represent. Americans elected a 
Republican Congress because they wanted a change. They wanted to change 
the direction that President Obama and Democrats have taken the 
country.
  Under the Democratic leadership over the past several years, the 
Senate was a place of dysfunction and gridlock. More than 40 jobs bills 
passed by the House of Representatives in the last Congress never even 
came up for a vote in the Senate. Many of those bills had overwhelming 
bipartisan support, just like this one we are debating today. Those 
days are over. That is a completely unacceptable way to run the Senate.
  All of us here in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, have been 
given an opportunity to work together and to get things done. That is 
what the American people told us on election day, that is what they are 
expecting from us, and I believe that is what they are demanding of us.
  The poster child for the gridlock and dysfunction of Washington has 
been the Keystone XL Pipeline. For more than 6 years it has been a 
symbol of out-of-control Washington bureaucracy. The State Department 
has absolutely refused to do its job and to make any kind of decision 
on the pipeline's application.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline has also been a symbol of gridlock in the 
Senate. A small group of extreme environmentalists with deep pockets 
has bullied Democratic Members of the Senate to block a bill that would 
move this important jobs project further.
  According to the latest figures, America's labor force participation 
rate is woefully low; it is just 62.8 percent. Are Democrats in this 
body satisfied with that number? Is the President of the United States, 
President Barack Obama, satisfied with this pathetic participation in 
America's labor force? I can say that people in my State, Republicans 
all across the country--they are not satisfied. That is why we are 
determined to push job-creating legislation such as this Hoeven bill to 
advance the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  The President said there is no benefit to this important 
infrastructure project. During a press conference last month, President 
Obama actually claimed that the project is ``not even going to be a 
nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.'' Apparently, that is what the 
President believes. Well, he is wrong. Just ask the Obama 
administration's own State Department. It says the pipeline would 
support more than 42,000 jobs. Some of those are construction jobs. 
Some of them are in the transportation field and the manufacturing 
field. It includes jobs at warehouses, restaurants, and motels along 
the route. Does President Obama think that a good job is not even a 
``nominal benefit'' to the Americans who could get those 42,000 jobs 
from this pipeline?
  According to the Congressional Research Service, there are already 19 
pipelines operating across U.S. borders. Why is this the one that 
suddenly offers not even a nominal benefit, according to President 
Obama? Why does President Obama refuse to make a decision about whether 
to approve the pipeline? Well, the President has taken a position on 
this bipartisan bill--according to the White House Press Secretary on 
Tuesday, the President will not sign this bill once Congress passes it.
  The State Department has done one study after another showing that 
the pipeline would create jobs and that it would have no significant 
environmental impact. President Obama has been downplaying those 
benefits and threatening to veto the bill. That is not Presidential 
leadership.
  Now Republicans are going to show the leadership that the American 
people have been asking for and that they voted for last November. We 
are going to bring a bill to the floor and force the President to 
finally do something by putting it on the President's desk.
  Democrats have been playing politics with this pipeline bill. The 
Republican majority will now get it done. We are going to allow a vote 
on this project. We are going to allow Senators to offer amendments. 
What a unique situation in the Senate. We are going to let everyone say 
which side they are on. This will be a bellwether decision. Are Members 
of the Senate in favor of 42,000 jobs for American workers or are they 
in favor of more Washington delay? Democrats will have a chance to make 
their arguments. The extreme opponents of this project will make 
misleading claims to try to discount the pipeline's benefits, and they 
will try to stoke people's fears. We have seen it all before.
  At the end of the day, here is what this all comes down to--four 
things:
  No. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline will support more than 42,000 jobs in 
the United States.
  No. 2, it will be a private investment of $8 billion--not taxpayer 
spending, private spending.
  No. 3, it will have minimal effect on the environment.
  No. 4, the pipeline is actually safer than other methods of getting 
that oil to market.
  Congress should approve this pipeline and pass this bill and the 
President should sign it.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline is a job creator. It has bipartisan support. 
It has been stuck in Washington's bureaucratic gridlock.
  It is interesting. When I listen to and think of the President and 
his comments about jobs and what the impact is going to be, it makes me 
think of what the president of the Laborers' International Union of 
North America said in the summer 1 year ago. He was scheduled to 
testify today at the Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing--a 
hearing that now the minority, the Democratic acting leader, Senator 
Durbin, objected to having yesterday. He objected to just a hearing and 
a discussion.
  It is interesting. There was a press release from the president of 
the union,

[[Page S44]]

who was quoted on the subject of the economic benefits associated with 
the construction of the pipeline. Terry O'Sullivan said:

       The President [President Obama] seems to dismiss the 
     corresponding economic opportunities that would benefit other 
     laborers, manufacturers, small businesses, and communities 
     throughout Keystone's supply chain.

  He said:

       The Washington politics behind the delay of the Keystone XL 
     pipeline are of little concern to those seeking the dignity 
     of a good, high-paying job. We renew our call to the 
     President [President Obama] to approve this important, job-
     creating project without delay.

  This is what a job is. It is about someone's dignity, their identity, 
and their self-worth. People take a lot of personal pride in their work 
and in their job. I think we ought to approve it. I am ready to vote 
for it.
  The American people have been clear: They are tired of Washington's 
gridlock and delay, and they are tired of the direction President Obama 
has been taking this country. The American voters demanded change, they 
demanded action, and this Republican Congress is going to deliver just 
that.
  So I say to my friend and colleague from North Dakota--and I see that 
the chairman of the Senate energy committee has arrived--thank you both 
for your leadership. To the Senator from North Dakota, former Governor 
there, thank you for your leadership on energy in North Dakota. And to 
the senior Senator from Alaska, the chair of the energy committee, 
thank you specifically for your leadership. I look forward to working 
with both of you specifically on this project and on additional issues 
that will bring American energy security and jobs to our Nation.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his comments today 
and for his continued hard work in support of the issue. I look forward 
to working with him again to get this done for the American people.
  I turn to our leader on the energy committee, the chairman of the 
energy committee, the Senator from Alaska, who understands energy. She 
is from another State that produces a huge amount of energy for this 
country, wants to produce more, and can produce more but only with the 
infrastructure to do it. Isn't that what we are talking about here 
today? This country can have more jobs, more economic growth, and more 
energy that we produce right here at home. But, Senator, don't we need 
the infrastructure to move that energy as safely and as cost-
effectively as possible?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. To my friend and colleague from North Dakota, it is 
all about infrastructure.
  In Alaska, my home State, we have boundless supplies of oil and 
natural gas, but until we were able to build that 800-mile pipeline 
across two mountain ranges to deliver oil from Alaska's North Slope to 
tidewater in Valdez, that oil didn't do anybody any good. Today,the oil 
pipeline in Alaska is less than half full.
  So we are working to try to figure out how we can do more as a State 
to contribute more to our Nation's energy needs, to allow us as a State 
to be producing more for the benefit not only of our State but of the 
Nation as well, but we are held back by policies that limit us. So it 
is policies and it is infrastructure. It is absolutely infrastructure.
  We are trying to move Alaska's natural gas to market as well. But, 
again, if we don't have the infrastructure, it sits. It stays. It 
doesn't benefit consumers, it doesn't create jobs, and it doesn't help 
any of us out.
  So Keystone truly is about infrastructure. I thank my colleague from 
North Dakota for leading on this issue for years now and for 
reintroducing the legislation, S. 1, the first bill to be filed in the 
Senate this year. It will be among the first bills to pass in this new 
Congress and appropriately so. This is a measure that not only enjoys 
bipartisan support in the Senate, it enjoys broad support over in the 
House, and it enjoys support across our Nation for great reason. So why 
are we where we are? Why are we looking at this situation and saying 
there is so much frustration going on?
  Senator McConnell has promised to allow open and full debate on the 
Keystone XL Pipeline project, the legislation in front of us. I think 
we are looking forward to it. As the chairman of the energy committee, 
I am looking forward to robust debate on Keystone XL and what it will 
provide for this country in terms of jobs and in terms of 
opportunities.
  We are all frustrated. We are all frustrated by a President's 
decision--or unwillingness, really, to make a decision about this 
pipeline. It has been 2,301 days and counting since the company seeking 
to build it submitted an application for this cross-border permit--
2,301 days. That is more than 6 years ago.

  Yesterday the President was finally able to make a decision. He 
issued his statement of administration policy. In his statement he says 
that by advancing this measure, it would cut short consideration of 
important issues.
  Excuse me, Mr. President--cut short a process that has been underway 
for over 6 years? That is amazing to me. Again, when we talk about 
decisions, let's get moving with this.
  The President seems to be advancing some pretty interesting things 
when it comes to the energy discussion. He was quoted in an interview 
just this morning in the Detroit News. He basically told Americans that 
we are enjoying lower energy prices right now, but we had better enjoy 
them fast because they are not going to last.
  He said we have to be smart about our energy policy. I am with you 
there, Mr. President. We do have to be smart about our energy policy. 
But to think the suggestion is just enjoy low prices while they last, 
take advantage of the sunshine--no. Mr. President, your energy policies 
need to make sense for today, for the midterm, and for the long term. 
For the long term and for the short term we need to make sure we have 
infrastructure that will allow us the energy supply that is so 
important to this country. It amazes me we would be so defeatist with 
this approach.
  We have an opportunity in this Congress. We had an opportunity this 
morning in the energy committee. We had scheduled a hearing on the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. We were going to hear testimony on original 
legislation to approve Keystone XL as we did last year on a bipartisan 
basis. But as Members in the body know, there was objection to that 
unanimous consent. We had to postpone the hearing. I quite honestly was 
surprised. It would have been nice to know an objection was coming 
before we had organized the hearing, before we had invited witnesses, 
before we had completed all the preparation. We are going to do our 
best in our committee to adhere to regular order. I hope our colleagues 
will work with us.
  I wish to introduce for the Record some of the testimony we received 
from the three witnesses who graciously agreed to participate in our 
hearing we had scheduled for this morning.
  Andrew Black, president and CEO of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, 
described pipeline safety issues and the gains Keystone XL would bring 
to the American economy in terms of jobs and payrolls. An excerpt from 
his testimony is as follows:

       While there is much controversy associated with the 
     Keystone XL Pipeline, the facts are that pipelines are the 
     safest way to transport crude oil and other energy products. 
     A barrel of crude oil has a better than 99.999 percent chance 
     of reaching its destination safely by pipeline, safer than 
     any competing transportation mode.

  A second witness we had invited was David Mallino, legislative 
director of the Laborers' International Union of North America. In his 
testimony he explored the positive jobs impact of the pipeline and 
responded to some environmental concerns. Here is an excerpt from Mr. 
Mallino's testimony:

       Regardless of characterizations by the project's opponents, 
     it is indisputable that jobs will be created and supported in 
     the extraction and refining of the oil, as well as in the 
     manufacturing and service sectors.

  We also invited Greg Dotson, vice president for energy policy at the 
Center for American Progress. He submitted his testimony in opposition. 
We made sure we had opposition testimony presented as well. He 
discussed climate change. He responded to the arguments in favor of 
Keystone. While he may be an opponent of the pipeline and as usual 
would have been outnumbered by the supporters of the project, I will 
still reference his testimony for the Record.
  A copy of the testimony of Mr. Black, Mr. Mallino, and Mr. Dotson

[[Page S45]]

may be found on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee Web site.
  I do believe that had we been allowed to hold the hearing this 
morning, we would have heard very strong bipartisan statements in 
support of Keystone XL from many members of our committee. The majority 
of our committee supports this pipeline and is already cosponsoring 
this bill.
  I will close my comments by assuring members of this body, we are in 
day 2 of this 114th Congress. This is not going to be our only debate 
on energy legislation over the years. I know it has been a long 7 years 
since we have had comprehensive energy legislation. A lot has changed. 
A lot of people have great ideas to improve and reform our policies, 
and I welcome those ideas. I am looking forward to the debate, to 
advancing these proposals through the energy committee. I think we can 
make significant progress on supply and infrastructure, on efficiency, 
on accountability. Those areas in particular should be the forum or the 
focus of an energy bill that we would hope to report out.
  We are going to work hard on the energy committee. We are planning on 
legislating. Keystone XL is a natural point for this Congress because 
it has been delayed for so long, 2,301 days. It is clear this President 
is not going to make a decision on this, so the Congress needs to make 
it instead.
  I look forward to coming back to the floor in a couple days when we 
have S. 1 officially in front of us. We are going to have good debate 
on it. I look forward to working with my colleague who has been so 
determined on this issue for so long. His leadership has been key in 
getting us here, but we need to finish it. We need to make the connects 
so we can move the resource and provide jobs for this country and for 
our allies and friends in Canada.
  I again thank my friend and look forward to these next couple days 
and the next couple weeks where we will have an opportunity to put this 
before the American people on the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for her 
leadership on the Energy Committee and also for her willingness to work 
in an open way on these important issues.
  Across this body, on both sides of the aisle, there should be a deep 
appreciation for her willingness to bring these bills forward so we can 
debate them and we can offer amendments and we can build the kind of 
energy future for this country our people so very much want to have.
  The Senator from Alaska is somebody who lives and breathes this topic 
when we talk energy--somebody who is truly committed to it but truly 
committed to an open dialogue on all types of energy, giving everybody 
an opportunity to weigh in and build the best energy plan for our 
country that we possibly can.
  So I extend my thanks to her and also my appreciation, and likewise 
say I look forward to working with her on this issue and on so many 
important energy issues.
  I wish to turn to my colleague from the State of North Dakota and ask 
her for her perspective on why this project is so important for our 
country and for the energy future of our country.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  I rise to join my colleagues on the other side who represent States 
that know a little bit about energy and certainly my colleague from 
North Dakota who has led this effort from the first day he arrived in 
the Senate.
  It is no big surprise because we know we can have much oil out there 
and we can know where the reserves are, but if we don't have the 
infrastructure to move that oil to market, what it does is drive up 
prices. I haven't checked today, but oil price is below $40 a barrel. 
If someone doesn't think that is supply-demand economics 101, they 
don't understand what is happening. The fact is we have known reserves 
in places such as North Dakota and Alaska, we have produceable reserves 
in Canada, and we have an opportunity to continue to develop these 
resources in a way that benefits in an incredible way American 
consumers.
  Think about what is happening for the average American family today 
when they fill up at the pump, and think what that means and how that 
will ripple through our economy as discretionary income grows. But that 
is only possible when we have a known supply that is moveable, it is 
transportable, it is in fact capable of reaching its market or reaching 
the refinery. That is what we are talking about when we are talking 
about North American crude oil.
  We are going to hear a lot of stories about this debate about how 
this crude oil is more dangerous to the environment, how it is 
different than Bakken crude. Guess what. It is different than Bakken 
crude, but it is not different than the crude refined in refineries in 
Texas, where we will be displacing crude that is refined from 
Venezuela, and we are going to be replacing it with crude that is 
produced by our friends to the north, Canada.
  So infrastructure is a huge part. In fact, that is why, when 
Secretary Moniz declared the Quadrennial Energy Review, he looked at 
not just where is the supply and the future of supply of energy, he 
focused on transportation of energy because that is a huge part of our 
challenge.
  As we look at the Keystone XL Pipeline--and we say Keystone XL 
because a lot of people don't know we already have a Keystone Pipeline. 
We already have a pipeline that is bringing oil sands from Canada into 
the United States for refining. A lot of people don't realize this is 
the second pipeline that will be named Keystone, and it is a pipeline 
that has been in process for literally a decade, from their planning 
process to the time they actually ask for a permit.
  I am going to address some of the concerns of some of my colleagues 
as we hear them so we can kind of lay the groundwork.
  We frequently hear the Keystone XL Pipeline will be exporting, and 
all of the oil that is coming down will find its way directly into 
China. That gets said all the time, and guess what the Washington Post 
gave it: three Pinocchios. It is not true.
  It is going to get refined. It is going to get refined in the United 
States of America, it is going to displace Venezuelan crude, and it is 
going to find its way into the American markets and continue to provide 
that supply that is in fact today driving down costs. So let's get rid 
of the first argument that this is going to somehow not benefit 
American consumers, that this is going to somehow find its way onto a 
barge immediately upon arrival into the gulf. That is the first thing 
we need to be talking about, which is let's actually have a fact-based 
discussion about what this pipeline is.
  The second argument we will hear is that this somehow will have a 
huge effect on climate and on climate change, and for those reasons 
alone it ought to be rejected. Let's take a look at what the experts 
who have repeatedly looked at this very issue--because one thing we 
know that I think is beyond dispute when we talk to the officials in 
Canada, is that we are going to produce oil sands oil from Canada, 
regardless of whether we build a pipeline. That oil is going to find 
its way into the transportation system and quite honestly is going to 
burden our rail transportation system because we haven't figured out 
how to build a pipeline.
  So all those who want to confuse the issue about the pipeline versus 
the development in Canada of the oil sands, let's separate it. Let's 
look at what in fact is the decision before the United States of 
America; that is, the decision of whether it is in our national 
interest to approve a permit for a pipeline.
  I will say this over and over again as we pursue this debate: This is 
a pipeline and not a cause. So many people have talked about it, and I 
think in some ways this process has gotten exaggerated on both sides. I 
mean it is going to be a panacea and prevent all unemployment or it is 
going to be the worst thing--an Armageddon for the environment. And you 
know what, this is a pipeline. This is a transportation system. This is 
an essential part of the infrastructure to bring an important fossil 
fuel into our country so that it can be refined and utilized by the 
American people. And by the way, knowing those reserves are there, 
knowing that we have the reserves we have in the Bakken, and knowing 
that we are developing more untraditional sources of supply has driven 
the price down and has created the situation we have today that is 
saving consumers millions and billions of dollars in our country.

[[Page S46]]

  The second thing I want to say is people say we have to respect the 
process. I respect the process as part of what I have done my whole 
life--I am a lawyer. So you hear repeatedly about due process and 
having to go through due process. Occasionally, the process is broken--
6 years to site a pipeline.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The time reserved for the Senator 
from North Dakota has expired.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent to exceed for 5 minutes to wrap 
up the colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Back to the process. When you look at 6 years, we 
fought World War II and defeated the greatest evil known to mankind, 
Adolf Hitler, in 4 years, and we cannot site a pipeline in 6 years. The 
process is broken.
  The other issue that is raised is that the pipeline is somehow going 
to disrupt what is happening in Nebraska. I think the Senator from 
North Dakota was absolutely correct to put as part of this bill a 
provision in that says that all bets are off if Nebraska reverses the 
decisions that were made in Nebraska. But somehow that is getting 
forgotten in this debate.
  So we are going to have a lot of hours of debate, I think, on 
Keystone XL Pipeline. We are going to have a lot of amendments.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to go back to regular order. I am 
grateful for the opportunity to talk about amendments. But I want so 
badly for us to have a reasoned and fact-based debate--not an emotional 
debate but a debate that basically puts this pipeline issue in 
perspective.
  I want to congratulate my colleague from North Dakota for the success 
in raising this issue and bringing this issue to an early debate. I 
hope that we will be able to move this along and that we will be 
successful in getting enough people to provide the momentum to achieve 
ready approval.
  Finally, I want to say why it is so important that we do it now. 
Those of us who live in the northern tier, we know what construction 
season is, and you cannot put pipeline in the ground in September and 
October--not without a lot of additional costs with which we have 
already burdened this pipeline. We need to get this decision done, get 
this going in the spring as early as possible so plans can be made and 
people can begin their construction season and we can begin to 
rationally address the infrastructure needs for development of our 
energy resources in North America.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I want to thank my colleague from North Dakota for 
speaking on the important points she made, and that is that the energy 
we are producing in this country is helping consumers at the pump by 
bringing down prices.
  I want to turn to my colleague from Kansas who wants to close this 
colloquy and address the very point that we need this infrastructure to 
keep doing that, to benefit our consumers at the pump.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my colleague, Senator Hoeven, for leading this 
colloquy and I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for 
her remarks.
  In the Washington Times today, Jack Gerard, the President and CEO of 
the American Petroleum Institute said:

       Falling oil prices have empowered the United States and 
     weakened OPEC and Russia. The result is that increased U.S. 
     production in North Dakota has ``fundamentally reordered the 
     world's energy markets.''

  This is a national security issue. This is an issue where Russia--I 
think the break-even point for them is about $110 a barrel. Right now 
it is at $48. They never dreamed this would happen. Their entire 
economy is at stake, and hopefully it will cause Mr. Vladimir Putin to 
start thinking about some of his adventuresome antics around the world.
  In addition, the pipeline represents not only everything that the 
distinguished Senator has brought out but it is a symbol that says that 
we are going to go ahead with all of our energy production. We are 
going to go ``all of the above'' here. This is not either-or with green 
projects or fossil fuels or whatever. So if you vote for the pipeline 
you are voting for something that really affects our national security.
  Think about potential exports to Europe. They could be less dependent 
on Russia and so Vladimir does not have his choke hold on them, if you 
will. There is a lot going on with regard to this issue that people 
haven't thought about.
  Additionally, the President told us at a meeting with a group of 
Republicans 2 years ago--2 years ago--that he would make a decision 
between 2 and 3 months and that it was just a matter of tying down some 
legal matters. Now he says he is not for it and obviously he will never 
be for it. You can make whatever conclusion you want to make about 
that, but it is not a good conclusion. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Kansas, and with that we will wrap up the colloquy. I would like to 
thank my colleagues, and we will be back.
  Again, we are looking to work with all of our colleagues here in an 
open process to offer amendments and pass legislation that is important 
for the American people.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and with that I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order the time until 4:15 
p.m. will be controlled by the Democratic leader or his designee.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I take this time--and some of 
my colleagues will be joining me--to express concerns about the first 
major bill that has been brought to the floor under the Republican 
leadership dealing with the Keystone Pipeline.
  I want to start first by talking about the so-called urgency for us 
to take this issue up and circumvent the normal process. The normal 
process would be for this matter to continue through the regulatory 
review, which is there to protect the public interest. To short-circuit 
that in an unprecedented way and for Congress to approve a site for a 
pipeline is not the way it is done.
  In order to consider this there must be some urgency. First, let me 
just share with my colleagues what the American people are experiencing 
with the price of gasoline at the pump. It is at a historic low over 
the last 5 years, with $2.19 the average price for gasoline at the 
pump. So there is certainly no urgency if we are talking about trying 
to get more oil in the pipelines for the cost of energy. By the way, I 
think we all understand that our actions here in this Congress will 
have very little to do with the availability of oil in the near term. 
It would take some time to construct the pipeline and for it to have an 
impact on the level of oil that is available.
  The second issue that I find somewhat puzzling with regard to the 
urgency of this issue--and some of my colleagues have pointed it out on 
both sides of this issue--is that there is already a pipeline that is 
available that could be used. Admittedly, it is not as efficient as 
what they are trying to do with the Keystone, and that is to make tar 
sand, the dirty oil we have, more economically available and feasible 
to be transported. That makes little sense under today's economics and 
the price of gasoline makes it even more hard to understand. 
Construction of this pipeline and the approval of this Congress will 
have very little to do with the consumer availability of energy here in 
the United States.
  Now, compound the fact that we are talking about Canadian oil, the 
dirtiest oil--the tar sand oil--that is being transported through the 
United States because Canada doesn't want to transport it through their 
own country because of their concerns on the environmental side and 
which ends up in Texas at the Port Arthur, TX, refinery. Now for those 
who are not familiar, that is a foreign tax zone which is tax-free. So, 
therefore, the oil can go into the international marketplace in a very 
easy manner. Valero, which is one of the potential users--consumers of 
this oil--is building export facilities in order to handle more exports 
to the international communities. None of us can speak with any 
definitive judgment as to how much of this oil will in fact end up in 
the United States, but the fact that they are transporting it to a 
southern port--they are not transporting it to a refinery in the 
Midwest, which would be a lot closer and a lot cheaper--is a clear 
indication this oil will end up in the international marketplace and 
will have very little to do

[[Page S47]]

with energy security in the United States. I think we have to make that 
clear.
  We are bypassing the normal process to allow Canadian oil to enter 
the international marketplace more efficiently with risk to the United 
States and very little benefit. Why are we doing this? We hear it will 
give us jobs. I am for job creation. I would like to see us work on a 
transportation bill where we could create millions of jobs in a far 
more harmonious way than we can with Keystone. I am for clean energy 
policies which will create great permanent jobs in the United States. 
But the job creation estimates for the Keystone Pipeline are that it 
will create literally a few thousand temporary construction jobs. They 
are not permanent jobs. There are only a handful of permanent jobs. So 
it isn't about creating jobs, and it is not about energy security in 
the United States.

  What is this all about? There is very little benefit compared to the 
risk factors in the United States. Let me talk about the risk factors 
which give most of us concern. The environmental risk factors have us 
the most concerned. Tar sand is a multitype of product that is 
literally mined and processed into a crude oil which is very thick and 
dirty. There are different ways to get to the tar sand, but one way to 
get to the tar sand is to take the topsoil off the property and mine it 
through a strip mining process. That has been done in Canada, and it is 
still being done in Canada, causing tremendous environmental damage. It 
is, in and of itself, a process that most of us would want to avoid. 
Yet this legislation does nothing to prevent that type of processing of 
the tar sands. Tar sands produce a very thick oil product that can only 
make its way through the pipeline by it being processed, and it creates 
additional risk factors because of the way it is processed.
  There have been oil spills of the tar sands product. We have seen it 
in Arkansas and we have seen it in Michigan. It caused devastating 
damage. It is not easy to clean up. It is not like normal crude. It 
causes permanent-type damage to a community, as we saw most recently in 
Michigan. So there are risks associated with taking Canadian oil in an 
effort to make it easier to reach the international marketplace, 
unlikely to end up in the United States, creating few permanent jobs. 
Frankly, a lot of us don't quite understand this.
  As I said, it is dirty. The use of this tar sands oil produces a much 
larger carbon footprint than other crude oil, causing additional 
problems in dealing with climate change. We have a serious issue with 
what is happening to our environment. I am proud to represent the State 
of Maryland. Most of the people in my State live in coastal areas. They 
know the consequences of global climate change. They understand it. 
They know what is happening along the coast, and they know we are at 
risk. They understand the fact that we have inhabitable islands in the 
Chesapeake Bay that have disappeared and are disappearing. They 
understand that our seafood crop, the blue crab, is threatened because 
the warming water affects the sea grass growth which is critically 
important for juvenile crabs to survive. They understand the risks and 
want us to be responsible in dealing with climate change. They also 
know that we are getting a lot more extreme weather in the east coast 
of the United States and throughout our country.
  They know on the west coast. They are getting dry spells and 
wildfires. They understand the risks. They understand the cost to 
America of not dealing with climate change issues. The costs involve 
not only direct damage that is caused but also in the global 
consequences of climate change.
  So we are worried about our carbon fingerprint. We are proud the 
United States is joining other countries in dealing with climate 
issues.
  I applaud the work of President Obama, in the most recent 
international meetings, when he dealt with climate change issues. We 
need to do a better job.
  Why are tar sands an issue? Because tar sands produce more carbon 
emissions than other types of oil. It is about 81 percent higher than 
the average use of crude oil and 17 percent higher than the well-to-
wheels basis of producing oil. That is a concern. That translates into 
millions and millions of cars--the difference between that and having 
millions of cars on the roads. It is an important part of our 
leadership.
  If we are trying to establish international credibility and then we 
facilitate more of this dirty tar sands oil, what message does that 
send? What type of cooperation should we expect to receive?
  I am trying to figure out why this is the new priority of the 
leadership in the Senate. Why is this the very first bill to come to 
the floor of the Senate when, as I pointed out earlier, there seems to 
be no urgency. I have been told it has been delayed and delayed and 
delayed. The reason it was delayed is because the construction 
operating firm changed the routes of the pipeline. They had one route 
mapped out--and no alternative routes--but didn't check to make sure it 
didn't violate State laws. Now they are wondering why it is taking so 
long. It is taking so long because they had to change the route. It is 
not the governmental process that is slowing this down, it is the fact 
that the proposers of this route did not have their ducks lined up in a 
row before they submitted the route that could be approved. We are 
still not sure about that.
  As I said earlier, for Congress to dictate where a pipeline should be 
is wrong. That is not our role. We should let the regulatory process, 
which is there to protect the public, go forward. It would also trample 
on States rights. There are some serious legal challenges pending in 
State courts as to the actions of a Governor dealing with a location 
issue. That should be resolved by the courts, and we are pretty close 
to having that ruling. It is very unclear to me what impact this 
legislation would have on States rights as it is currently being 
litigated in the State court. Why are we doing that?
  The delays have been caused because of the way this pipeline was 
suggested. The regulatory process that would protect the public safety 
is moving forward. Considering oil and gasoline prices at the pump 
there is no urgency. There are serious environmental risk issues.
  I understand the State Department report has been mentioned 
frequently. Look at the State Department report and look at what it is 
saying about the price for oil. The per barrel price of oil was a lot 
higher when they did that report. Lower costs have a major impact on 
what we are talking about here.
  I urge my colleagues to let the process go forward. I thank the 
President for spelling out his concerns and his desire to let the 
regulatory process reach its conclusion, let the State court decision 
go forward as to what the State believes is the right thing to be done 
here. I believe all of that will give us a much better process than us 
trying to substitute our judgment for what should be done through a 
regulatory process.
  I am going to close by quoting from one of the individuals, Ben 
Gotschall, from Nebraska, who has been very active on this issue. He 
said:

       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 people who have 
     been here the longest and know the land best.

  I think that is pretty instructive. This is a broad coalition that is 
concerned about the actions that are being contemplated in the Senate--
actions that would overrule landowner rights, actions that would take 
away State rights, actions that would shortcut regulatory process, 
actions that help private companies directly without taking into 
account the regulatory protections that are provided under law.
  It seems rather unusual that this would be the very first issue where 
we could work together in a bipartisan way to expand opportunities for 
energy in the United States. Clean energy produces a lot more jobs, and 
we could be talking about incentives so we could have a larger 
production of clean energy in the United States. Democrats and 
Republicans would clearly work together to come up with ways we could 
have more efficient use of energy.
  Democrats and Republicans could clearly work together in that regard. 
There are so many areas where we could work together and show the

[[Page S48]]

American people that we understand their frustration with Congress's 
failure to deal with many of the issues in the last Congress, but 
instead it looks as though we are picking an issue that is more about 
special interest than it is one that will help deal with an energy 
problem in the United States and has the potential to broaden our 
environmental challenges in the United States.
  For all of those reasons, I hope my colleagues will reject this 
approach and let us go back and work together to find a common way to 
help us deal with our environment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the issue we are going to be debating over 
the next 2 weeks in the United States is really a story about two 
gasoline stations.
  In July of 2008, the average price of gasoline in America was $4.11 a 
gallon. In January of 2015 in the United States of America the price is 
$2.21 a gallon. That is great for every driver across our country, and 
that is great for Americans who buy home heating oil. They are saving a 
lot of money this winter and the predictions are that it will continue 
throughout the rest of this year. That is great.
  However, it is not great for the oil companies. It is not great for 
the Canadians. It is not great for Wall Street. They are not happy with 
this incredible benefit that is now flowing to Americans all across our 
country who now have a gasoline station that has $2.21, on average, as 
to what people will pay.
  What does the Keystone XL Pipeline truly stand for? It truly stands 
for the Keystone ``export'' pipeline. That is right. What the Canadians 
want to do is to basically construct a straw through the United States 
of America, bring that straw down to Port Arthur, TX, which is a tax-
free export zone, and then export the oil out of the United States.
  Why would they want to do that since they advertise that it is all 
about North American energy independence? There is a simple reason. The 
price of tar sands oil in Canada right now is getting $13 less per 
barrel than it would get in the United States, but it is $17 less than 
if they can get it into ships and send it around the world. That is the 
very simple economic strategy of the Canadians.
  How do I know this? Because during a hearing in the House of 
Representatives I asked the head of the pipeline for TransCanada: Would 
you accept an amendment to keep all of the oil here in the United 
States of America? He said: No.
  By the way, I asked the same question of the head of the American 
Petroleum Institute. He said: No.
  There is a lot of false advertising going on here. On one hand they 
say this is great for American energy independence. On the other hand, 
when we say let's have an amendment on the floor of the Senate that 
will keep the Keystone oil here in the United States, they say: Oh, no. 
They are absolutely opposed to that.
  Logically, we have to reach the conclusion that their goal is to get 
the extra $17 per barrel which they will get if they can start selling 
it to China, Latin America, and other parts of the world. That is the 
plan. There are no two ways about it.
  By the way, that should be their plan. That is what their 
responsibility is--it is to the shareholders of their companies.
  What is the strategy for the American driver? That is whom we have a 
responsibility to. We need to make sure they get the lowest possible 
price. My goodness. They have been tipped upside down and had their 
money shaken out of their pockets at gas stations all across our 
country for years, and finally the day of deliverance has arrived and 
they have $2.21, on average, for the price of a gallon of gas, and now 
we are told the price of oil is too low. We have to get it back up 
again. Of course, the best way of accomplishing that is to start 
exporting oil because the less there is in North America, the higher 
the price will be for American drivers and for American home heating 
oil consumers. It is a very simple plan.
  It is not about helping Americans at the pump. It is about pumping up 
the prices so oil companies will have new profits. It is very simple. 
If it is not that, then just accept an amendment that keeps all the oil 
here. It is a simple thing to do, and then the rhetoric matches with 
the reality of what is going to happen. The oil should stay here, but 
they will not accept that, and they have made that clear.
  This is all part of a wish list we are going to see on the Senate 
floor for the rest of this year. This is the Big Oil wish list of 2015. 
We start with the Keystone ``extra large export'' Pipeline to take oil 
and send it out of the country. Then they want to lift the ban on the 
exportation of U.S. crude oil, which is now on the books--a ban on U.S. 
crude oil. This is Canadian oil. There are no laws against that. Then 
they want to begin exporting our natural gas, even as consumers and 
businesses and natural gas vehicle firms are enjoying record-low 
prices, which in turn is transforming the American manufacturing sector 
and our relationship with natural gas in America. They essentially want 
to declare war on the Environmental Protection Agency and their 
authority to protect Americans against pollution and to make sure the 
fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive continue to rise 
and rise.
  Honestly, if we want to tell OPEC we are serious and keep them awake 
at night, then we should keep the oil here so the prices will drop, and 
we also need to increase the fuel economy standards and consume and 
import less oil. But that is not going to be the agenda that comes out 
here on the Senate floor from the majority. It is going to be just the 
opposite. In a way, that is why this first debate is actually a preview 
of coming attractions of what will be happening out here on the floor 
of the Senate throughout the course of this entire year.
  There is kind of a Keystone kabuki theater that is debuting this 
afternoon on the Senate floor. The reality is this bill will never 
become law. The President is going to veto this bill. There are not 
enough votes to override the veto. So instead what we have is just a 
preview of this entire agenda, notwithstanding the fact that they are 
not going to be supporting a national renewable electricity standard or 
dramatically increasing the energy efficiency laws in our country or 
making sure the Canadians finally have to pay their taxes for the oil 
liability trust fund which they are now exempt from. American oil 
companies have to have a trust fund--in the event there is an oil spill 
in the pipeline--but the Canadians don't have to have a trust fund. 
Over 10 years, that is $2 billion that American companies have to pay, 
which Canadians don't have to pay, to make sure that something is done 
to protect against oilspills.
  Back when the Democrats took over the House and Senate in 2007, we 
worked together to put together a comprehensive energy bill. What was 
in it? Dramatically increasing the fuel economy standards of the 
vehicles in our country, having a new biofuels law to expand that 
production, and making sure that energy efficiency in America was 
enhanced dramatically. We worked on a bipartisan basis, and President 
Bush, a Republican, signed that bill because it was done in a 
bipartisan, ``all of the above'' approach.

  That is not what this is all about. This is not ``all of the above''; 
this is ``oil above all.'' That is the strategy the Keystone Pipeline 
embodies--shouts. It is not balanced. It is not where we should be as a 
country.
  So I say let's have an amendment to the bill that keeps the oil here 
in the United States. Let's have this debate here on the floor. Let's 
match up the rhetoric of the oil stays here with protection of the 
American economy and the American driver within the reality that we 
voted for that to keep it here. Let's have that debate. I think it is 
important because otherwise the Canadians and the American Petroleum 
Institute will continue to engage in false advertising about where this 
oil is going to be used.
  So from my perspective, this is the dirtiest oil in the world that is 
going to contribute mightily to an expansion of global warming. We know 
that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded in history--
notwithstanding the fact that it snowed here in Washington, DC, 
yesterday--the warmest year in history. That

[[Page S49]]

is what I think the green generation out there knows as they look at 
this issue. What are we going to do to make sure we avoid the 
catastrophic consequences of a dangerously warming planet?
  We have to engage in preventive care of this planet. There are no 
emergency rooms for planets. We have to engage in preventive care to 
make sure we do not pass on this ever-increasing danger to future 
generations. We are going to get a chance here to debate this. The 
Keystone Pipeline is a good example of how there is not, in fact, a 
balanced policy.
  I asked for an amendment on the floor so that we can debate whether 
the oil goes through a pipeline from Canada--the dirtiest oil in the 
world--like a straw, potentially causing environmental catastrophes 
across our country, and then gets exported around the rest of the 
planet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. I think this is the kind of debate the American people 
expect the Senate to engage in.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the truth is that despite our rather big 
egos, much of what we do in the Senate is pretty quickly forgotten. 
People have a hard time remembering what we did 2 months ago or 
yesterday, let alone last year. But I have a feeling that the Keystone 
Pipeline bill we are now discussing and decisions that will be made 
about that bill will not soon be forgotten--not by our children or our 
grandchildren and not by people throughout the world and, in fact, not 
by history. I believe that decades from now our kids and our 
grandchildren will scratch their heads and they will say: What world 
were these people--Members of Congress--living in in 2015 when they 
voted for this Keystone Pipeline? How did it happen that they did not 
listen to the overwhelming majority of scientists who told us we have 
to cut greenhouse gas emissions, not increase them? I think our kids 
and our grandchildren will be saying to us: Why did you do that to us? 
Why did you leave this planet less habitable than it could have been?
  The issue we are dealing with today is of huge consequence. I fear 
very much that a majority of the Members in the Senate and in the 
Congress are poised to make a very dangerous and wrong decision. In 
that light, I am more than delighted that President Obama has indicated 
he will veto this Keystone Pipeline bill if it is passed.
  Climate change is one of the great threats not only facing our 
country but facing the entire planet. It has the capability of causing 
severe harm to our economy, to our food supply, to access to water, and 
it raises all kinds of international national security issues.
  Let me read an excerpt from a letter sent to the Senate back in 
October 2009:

       Observations throughout the world make it clear that 
     climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research 
     demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human 
     activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are 
     based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary 
     assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment 
     of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
       Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate 
     change will have broad impacts on society, including the 
     global economy and on the environment. For the United States, 
     climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal 
     states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and 
     increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, 
     western wildfires, and a disturbance of biological systems 
     throughout the country. The severity of climate change 
     impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming 
     decades.

  This statement was signed by virtually every major scientific 
organization in this country, including the American Association for 
the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American 
Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the 
American Meteorological Society, and many other scientific 
organizations.
  Scientists are not the only people warning us about the danger of 
climate change. Hear what the Department of Defense has to say about 
the impact of climate change on international and national security. 
What they point out--and I think what every sensible person 
understands--is that when people are unable to grow the food they need 
because of drought, when flood destroys their homes, when people 
throughout the world are forced to struggle for limited natural 
resources in order to survive, this lays the groundwork for the 
migration of people and international conflict. That is what the 
Department of Defense tells us.
  Now, given all of the scientific evidence and given the concerns 
raised by our own Department of Defense and national security experts 
all over the world and given the fact that the most recent decade--the 
last 10 years--was the Nation's warmest on record, one would think that 
when the National Climate Assessment warns us that global warming could 
exceed 10 degrees Fahrenheit in the United States by the end of the 
century--can we imagine this planet becoming 10 degrees Fahrenheit 
warmer and what this means to the planet? When sea levels have already 
risen by nearly 7 inches over the last century and are expected to rise 
another 10 inches to 2.6 feet by the end of the century--when all of 
that is on the table, one would think this Senate would be saying: All 
right, we have an international crisis. How do we reverse climate 
change? Instead, what the debate is about is how we transport some of 
the dirtiest oil in the world and thereby cause more carbon emissions 
into the atmosphere.
  I suspect our kids and our grandchildren will look back on this 
period and say: What world were you living in? Why did you do that to 
us?
  It would seem to me that what we should be debating here is how we 
impose a tax on carbon so that we can break our dependence on fossil 
fuel. That is what we should be discussing, not how we increase carbon 
emissions. We should be discussing what kind of legislation we bring 
forward that moves us aggressively toward energy efficiency, 
weatherization, and such sustainable energies as wind, solar, and 
geothermal. That is the kind of bill that should be on the floor. We 
should be having a debate about legislation that makes our 
transportation system far more efficient, that expands rail and helps 
us get cars and trucks off the road. We should be having a debate about 
how we can create the kind of automobiles that run on electricity and 
make them less expensive and how we can get cars running 80 to 100 
miles per gallon. Those are the kinds of debates and that is the kind 
of legislation we should be having on the floor, not how do we expand 
the production and the transportation of some of the dirtiest oil on 
the planet.
  In my view, the U.S. Congress in a very profound way should not be in 
the business of rejecting science because when we reject science, we 
become the laughingstock of the world. How do we go forward? How do we 
prepare legislation if it is not based on scientific evidence? And to 
say to the overwhelming majority of scientists that we are ignoring 
what they are telling us and we are going to move in exactly the wrong 
direction I think makes us look like fools in front of the entire 
world. How do we go forward and tell China and India and Russia and 
countries around the world that climate change is a huge planetary 
crisis at the same time as we are facilitating the construction of the 
Keystone Pipeline?
  So I am delighted the President will veto this legislation if it 
happens to pass the Congress. Our job now is not to bring more carbon 
into the atmosphere; it is to transform our energy system away from 
coal, away from oil, away from fossil fuel, and toward energy 
efficiency and sustainable energy. That should be the direction of this 
country, and we should lead the world in moving in that direction.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Booker, Mr. Burr, and 
Mr. King pertaining to the introduction of S. 108 are printed in 
today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint 
Resolutions.'')

[[Page S50]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________