Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 4 (Friday, January 9, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S121-S128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to S. 1.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 1, S. 1, a bill to
approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Order of Procedure

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Schedule

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed a
bipartisan terrorism risk insurance bill and sent it to the President
for signature. We worked with our colleagues in the House and on the
other side of the aisle to quickly process that bill in a timely
manner, and I thank the Speaker and all Members of the Senate for
granting unanimous consent to set up those votes yesterday.
This morning we will continue to debate the motion to proceed to the
Keystone bill. Chairman Murkowski and several members of the energy
committee will be here to talk about this bipartisan infrastructure
bill.
No votes are scheduled for today, but we will have a cloture vote on
the motion to proceed on Monday night. It is my hope that Chairman
Murkowski and Senator Cantwell can begin the amendment process under
the regular order. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle continue to block our effort to even get on the bill,
and therefore the cloture vote on Monday is required.
Mr. President, I 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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here this morning to once again talk
about the Keystone XL Pipeline, the legislation we will be voting on
next week. We will be voting on cloture on the motion to proceed to the
legislation. Then, hopefully, we will be debating that bill and
offering amendments, which is exactly what we are supposed to be doing
in this Chamber.
On Thursday, yesterday, we had a hearing on the bill. In that hearing
we brought the bill forward. It is a bill I have authored. Joe Manchin
is the lead Democratic cosponsor. We have 60 cosponsors on the bill. So
we have strong bipartisan support. It is the Keystone approval bill.
Essentially, what it does is under the commerce clause of the
Constitution of the United States, which authorizes Congress to oversee
trade with foreign countries, we approve the Keystone XL Pipeline
crossing the border from Canada into the United States.
A lot of people do not realize the pipeline carries domestic oil from
places such as North Dakota and Montana--the Bakken region of our
country--to refineries, and it carries both

[[Page S122]]

Canadian and domestic crude. But part of the approval requires approval
for crossing the border from Canada into the United States. Typically,
that is done by a national interest determination by the President of
the United States. But the President has been unwilling to do that now
for more than 6 years.
The company that is trying to build this pipeline, TransCanada,
applied for approval to build this project pursuant to other pipelines
it had already built. The original Keystone had already been built.
This is the Keystone XL sister pipeline. But in September 2008 they
applied for approval to build the Keystone XL Pipeline and to get a
cross-border permit determination by the President that, in fact, this
vital energy infrastructure is in the national interest.
Well, more than 6 years have elapsed, obviously, since September
2008. The President has still not rendered a final decision, arguing
that somehow the process has not been completed after more than 6
years. Of course, America was able to fight and win World War II in
less than 6 years. But our President feels that somehow that process
still has not been completed after more than 6 years on this project.
So, of course, the purpose of the bill is, in essence, to say: All
right, Mr. President, if you will not approve this project, Congress
will--under the commerce clause of the Constitution--which we have the
authority to do. Earlier we passed legislation. As a matter of fact, I
had written a bill in 2011, which we passed in 2012. We attached it to
the payroll tax holiday, a bill that got 73 votes, as I recall, which
required the President to make a decision. At that time the decision he
made was no, on the basis of the route in Nebraska.
So what happened then in 2012 is that the good citizens of Nebraska
went to work on a new route in Nebraska. The legislature, the Governor
dealt with that new route, came up with a new route, and approved it
overwhelmingly.
It was then subsequently challenged by opponents of the project. Some
of the extreme environmentalists have continued to oppose the project,
and so that decision went to the supreme court.
We learned today the supreme court has now decided in favor of
TransCanada. The news came out this morning that yet another obstacle,
after more than 6 years of obstacles, today has been taken care of. The
problem is solved.
The Nebraska State Legislature ruled in favor of the Governor--
Governor Dave Heineman, whom I know very well, the former Governor of
Nebraska--and the legislature, and it said the way they sited this
pipeline is, in fact, proper and upheld their decision. I will talk
about that decision in a few minutes.
But the other thing I wish to talk about in terms of the Keystone
Pipeline is the discussion we had yesterday in the energy committee
because it was an opportunity to begin the debate we are going to have
on the floor next week. The proponents had an opportunity to state
their positions and why, and the opponents had their opportunity to
state their positions and why. So for several hours we began that
debate. We then voted on the legislation and moved it out, without
amendment, on a 13-to-9 vote. It was a bipartisan vote, 13 to 9, and we
will have that bill for a vote on the floor Monday.
I wish to address some of the arguments the opponents put forward in
opposition to this project. I will start with the Nebraska court
decision because that was one of the issues brought up at our energy
hearing yesterday. Some of the opponents of the project said: Well, you
know what. The process hasn't been concluded--even though it has been
going on for more than 6 years. I will put a diagram up here that shows
the route of the pipeline.
As I mentioned, the original Keystone pipeline has already been
built. That is the red. That has already been built. It was permitted.
It took 2 years to permit and 2 years to build. I was actually Governor
of North Dakota at that time. We can see it goes right through our
State.
It seems to me that application was submitted by TransCanada in 2006.
It was during the Bush administration, obviously. It was approved
within 2 years, and the project was constructed within 2 years.
So from start to conclusion, 4 years to build this pipeline, which I
think carries about 640,000 barrels of oil a day. It brings it down to
Cushing so that oil can go into our oil refineries in the gulf. It also
goes over here to Patoka, IL, so it can go to our refineries in the
East.
Based on that project, there are 640,000 barrels a day. TransCanada
wanted to build a second pipeline. This one is 830,000 barrels a day. I
think it is about a $7.9 billion project in all.
Not only does this project carry crude from Canada, our closest
friend and ally, but it also brings oil out of this Bakken region in
North Dakota and Montana. We put oil on it as well. So both Canadian
and domestic crude are going to our refineries.
Again, it is just basic infrastructure that we need to move energy
from where we produce it to where we refine it and consume it. We can't
build an energy plan for this country without the necessary
infrastructure. We have to have pipelines, roads, rail, and electric
transmission lines to move electricity.
We cannot build what we want, which is either--some people refer to
it as energy independence. I call it energy security. But, net, we
produce more energy than we consume.
When we produce more energy than we consume, we get jobs, we get
economic growth, we get national security because we don't have to
depend on places such as the Middle East or Venezuela or Russia--as
does so much of Europe. Western Europe and Eastern Europe is dependent
on Russia for their oil and gas. What a terrible situation for them.
The people of this country don't want to depend on OPEC for their oil.
So we produce it here. We are doing that. You know what else. We are
working with our closest friend and ally Canada, and already that is
happening. We are already moving toward a situation--we already produce
more natural gas, but soon, if we keep it up, we will produce more oil.
Working together with Canada, we will get a little bit from Mexico, and
we will produce more oil and gas than we consume.
Some call it energy independence--not really, because it is a global
market for energy. But it is certainly energy security. We don't have
to depend on anyone else for our energy because we have it right here.
Not only does that create jobs directly, but energy is a foundational
industry for all of the other industry sectors. Think about it. If you
are in manufacturing, high-tech--just name it--or if you are in
farming, agriculture, you depend on energy. If you have lower costs and
abundant, available energy, you are more competitive in the global
economy, aren't you? So it is a foundational industry as well, and that
is why we have to have this vital infrastructure as part of the energy
building plan for our country.
It is working. Don't take my word for it. Drive to the gas station.
Go on over there. Fill up your car. Look at the bill when you are done.
It is a lot lower than it was a few years ago, right? Check it out.
Every consumer is benefiting at the pump. Small businesses are
benefiting across the board. All the industry sectors benefit from
lower oil and gas prices.
Why did that happen? OPEC decided to give us a Christmas present; is
that what it is? I don't think so.
Russia decided: Oh, gee, to our friends in America, we better send
them some oil to reduce the price at the pump. I don't think so.
It is because we are producing so much more oil and gas--not only in
the Bakken and in the Eagle Ford formation in Texas, which are shale,
clays for oil, but also natural gas in the Marcellus, other areas of
our country--in the eastern part--and by working with our closest
friend and ally, Canada. We are getting millions of barrels of oil from
Canada.
So the oil we produce at home and the oil we get from Canada we don't
have to get from Venezuela, we don't have to get from OPEC, we don't
have to get from Russia, and we don't have to get from countries in
Africa. When we send those dollars over to other countries, how are
they using those dollars? Look at what is going on in Paris today.
How many of those petro dollars fund terrorist activities? Isn't it
better, if

[[Page S123]]

we are not going to produce that energy at home, that we get it from
Canada? And isn't it better that we produce that energy at home?
How are we going to produce that energy at home if we don't have the
infrastructure to move it from where it is produced to where it is
consumed? Gee, then somebody will say: Well, yeah, that is just common
sense, of course, right?
I mean, that is just basic common sense. Why aren't we doing it? Yet
here we are in a process for more than 6 years still waiting to produce
it because the extreme environmental interests have decided: Well, we
just don't want to produce more oil. We don't want more oil produced in
this country, and we don't want more oil produced in Canada.
Of course, you say: Well, then what? We keep buying it from Russia or
we keep buying it from OPEC? Oh, no, no, no, we will just keep
developing all these alternatives. I am all for developing all kinds of
energy. I would say go ahead. Let's do it.
We worked hard in our State. We have not only oil and gas--we are now
the second largest oil-producing State, second only to Texas, but we
also produce natural gas. We have coal fired, we have solar, we have
wind, we have biofuels. We have all of them. I am for all of them.

What I don't understand is how developing our oil and gas resources,
building the vital infrastructure--how does that prevent us from
developing any other type of energy? How does it prevent that? It
doesn't.
It just makes sure that as we work on anything else, we don't have to
continue to be dependent on OPEC or somebody else for our oil and gas.
That is all we are doing.
So let's not sit here and pick winners and losers and do that kind of
thing. Let's create the best business climate we can. Let's develop the
vital infrastructure we need to move energy around our country, and
let's truly become energy secure. That is what this project represents.
Make no mistake. At the end of the day, that is what this project is
about. It has been held up for more than 6 years with hurdle after
hurdle. Somebody says: Oh, well, gee, that is TransCanada. That is one
company. Who cares about that?
Think about it. If you are going to build a pipeline or move energy
around this country, if you are going to try to develop oil and gas--
whether it is for Canada or anyone else--and you see a company that
wants to build a simple pipeline--something that has been done, I
think, 19 times before--and they have to spend billions of dollars and
take years and years and years, and they still don't have it, are you
still going to rush out and do that? Are you going to rush out and
build a lot more infrastructure? Probably not.
So isn't this really about trying to shut her down? Isn't this the
opponent saying: No, we are going to shut down developing the energy
resources in this country. We are not going to work with Canada to do
it.
And then what do we end up doing? We say: Well, we will have all
these other things.
Maybe we will, maybe we won't or maybe we will go right back to what
has been happening--history tends to repeats itself--and we will go
back to remaining dependent on OPEC oil, back to remaining dependent on
OPEC. It has to be music to these guys' ears.
I wish to take a couple of minutes--I know the chairman of our energy
committee will be coming to the floor and speaking on this issue as
well--and work to rebut some of the other arguments that have been
brought up on this issue, and some of these were brought up yesterday
at our energy committee.
The first one, as I say, was: Well, look, the process isn't done
because the decision in Nebraska hasn't been made.
Well, in fact, the decision in Nebraska has been made several times.
Now the Nebraska Supreme Court put out a ruling today saying that it is
fine. All the work the legislature in Nebraska did, all the work the
Governor in Nebraska did--the rerouting in Nebraska is upheld.
That is done. That excuse is gone. As the House works to pass this
bill today, and as we work to pass it next week, that argument is off
the table. That has been taken care of.
The biggest argument is the environmental argument. The opponents
say: Oh, well, it will produce greenhouse gas emissions. They are
opposed to oil development because it produces greenhouse gas
emissions.
Yet the environmental impact statement--I should say the multiple
environmental impact statements done by the State Department--this is
what they say. Understand there have been five different reports--three
draft reports and two final reports--over a 6-year timeframe. The State
Department has done this not once, not twice, but three times in draft
form and two times in final form. They have gone in, and they have
analyzed the environmental impact of this project.
When you read the report, do you know what it says? ``No significant
environmental impact'' is what it says. That is the Obama
administration's State Department environmental impact statement, after
6 years of study--not once, not twice, but five times between three
draft statements and two final statements--``No significant
environmental impact.'' That is what it says.
It just stands to reason because if we don't build the pipeline, they
pointed out, then what happens? Well, if you don't have this pipeline,
the environmental impact statement pointed out that it will take 1,400
railcars a day to move that oil. So instead of moving that oil from
Canada, not even counting--I mean, we have to move our oil too. If we
don't have the pipeline to move that oil in the safest, most cost-
effective and efficient way, then it has to be moved by rail. If you
don't have a pipeline, you have to move it by rail. Now you have 1,400
railcars a day creating congestion on the rail.
That creates more greenhouse gas, that creates more congestion, more
difficulty in moving our ag products and other products.
We are already seeing that. We already have congestion on our rail
that is backing up the shipment of other goods. We had a tremendous
problem moving our ag goods this year. So are we going to have another
1,400 railcars on a railroad system that is already overloaded? It
doesn't make much sense.
You know what. It creates more greenhouse gas. So by not having the
pipeline, you increase the greenhouse gas emissions. I suppose Canada
could say--although it is unlikely because they are already moving it
by rail.
In my home State of North Dakota we are already moving 700,000
barrels a day by railcar because we can't get enough pipeline, and we
are producing more oil. We are up to 1.2 million barrels a day, moving
700,000 barrels by railcars because we can't move it by pipeline,
benefiting the rest of our country--light, sweet Bakken crude.
The other thing with Canada is they say: If we can't bring the
pipeline down and work with our closest friend and ally, the United
States, if they would rather work with--I don't know--OPEC than
Canada--we can't figure that one out. I am sure Prime Minister Harper
is saying: Oh, boy, that is unbelievable. But OK, then I guess what we
will have to do is we will build these pipelines--and they are already
in the process of doing so--to the west coast of Canada. We will load
that oil on tankers, and we will send it all to China because China
wants it. They are not only willing to buy the oil, but they are trying
to buy the source of the oil.
So then it gets on the pipeline, and then it goes on tankers over to
China. Well, those tankers produce greenhouse gas emissions as they
haul that oil to China. In China the refineries have much higher
greenhouse gas emissions. They are much less efficient. They are much
less environmentally sound than our refineries in this country. So what
do we end up with? We end up with much higher greenhouse gas emissions
because we didn't have the pipeline.

Oh, and by the way, instead of us then refining it, tankers have to
bring that petroleum to us from OPEC, from Russia, heavy crude from
Venezuela, creating some more greenhouse gas. So the net effect is we
have increased the environmental impacts by not allowing the pipeline.
It increases it. It doesn't reduce it, it increases it.
Furthermore, Canada's laws, in terms of environmental stewardship,
are tougher than ours, but they are continuing to move to what is
called in situ development in the oil sands. What

[[Page S124]]

is in situ development? In situ development is drilling and then the
use of steam to bring up the oil rather than excavating, which is the
traditional way they produce oil up here. So the greenhouse gas
footprint is very similar to drilling in the United States. In fact, it
has a lower footprint than the heavy crude that comes out of
California--a very environmentally conscious State.
Again, when we talk about the environmental impact, let's talk about
the facts. Let's talk about reality, and those are the facts. That is
what it is truly about.
Safety is another thing they brought up. Something could happen with
the pipeline. That is true, and we always have to work on safety. It is
very important we always address safety in whatever we do. The best way
to have a safe infrastructure system to move energy around this country
is to have the right mix of pipelines and roads and rail--the right mix
along with transmission lines--so we move all types of energy as safely
and as effectively as possible.
This graph reflects the pipeline system in our country. Oil and gas
are moving through millions and millions of miles of pipelines in our
country. This pipeline is going to be the newest, with the latest and
the best technology. Oh, by the way, if we don't have the pipeline, as
I mentioned just a minute ago, we are adding 1,400 railcars a day.
Everyone can do their own calculation, but do we think we are safer and
more likely to have less accidents with another pipeline--with the
latest, greatest technologies and safeguards--or would we rather have
1,400 railcars a day going through our communities loaded with oil?
Common sense again, and the statistics support it.
There is more. They brought up more concerns, but I am nearing the
end of my time, in terms of floor time right now, and I know our
chairman is coming down, so I will have to wrap this up. I went a
little longer on some of these issues they brought up, and they brought
up others, but here is the good news. We are going to vote on a cloture
motion to proceed to the bill on Monday. I am hopeful, with our 60
sponsors on this legislation--we will have 60, maybe 63 votes based on
what people have indicated to me as to how they will vote right now--
that after the vote on Monday we will be on the bill.
Unlike the past several years in the Senate, once we are on the bill,
we will be open for business, and we are welcoming amendments. We are
saying to Republicans and Democrats alike: Bring them on. Bring on your
amendments. If you have a good idea, come on down. If you have a good
idea, come on down and let's talk about your amendment. Let's debate
your amendment, and you know what. You are going to get a vote, and if
you get 60 votes in support of your amendment, then we will make it
part of this legislation.
We are hopeful that in allowing amendments, we can improve the
legislation, we can make it more bipartisan, and we can get more
supporters, so if in fact the President does decide to veto it, we will
have 67 votes instead of 60 or 63 votes. That is how the process is
supposed to work. We are supposed to be able to have that debate, offer
those amendments, and produce the best product we can. That is what we
are hoping to do with this legislation.
We are also hoping that will not only generate more bipartisan
support on this issue, on this legislation, but on other energy
legislation and other legislation of all types so we can get the
important work of the American people done in this body. That is what
it is all about: finding a way to get things done--get the job done for
the American people.
With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, yesterday morning those of us on the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee had an opportunity for good
discussion about our Nation's energy future. More specific to the
agenda of yesterday's business meeting was a bill that would allow for
a much-delayed project--the Keystone XL Pipeline--to advance. It moved
through the committee favorably. It moved through the committee with
bipartisan support.
As I noted to several colleagues yesterday, the discussion we had in
the committee about the significance of this pipeline--the significance
of its contribution to our Nation's economy from a jobs perspective and
from a resource perspective is considerable. Obviously there was debate
on both sides--I think good, healthy debate--and it is debate I hope we
will see reflected on this floor in the next week and perhaps the week
following as we have an opportunity to debate. But first we have to get
onto that bill. We have that process in place. We will have a vote on
the motion to proceed the first of next week.
I am anxious, as the new chair of the energy committee, to move the
debate here in the Senate on issues that are so important to us in this
Nation. When we think about our Nation's security--national security
and energy security--and when we think about our Nation's economy and
prosperity, so much of it comes back to energy, access to energy that
is abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. These are
principles I have laid out about my views of energy. I am hopeful that
the discussion we will have on this floor will help advance us as a
Senate, as a Congress, and really as a country in moving forward on
those policies that will only make us stronger and more secure.
I felt the debate yesterday in committee was kind of a precursor of
some of the agenda items we will see on this floor that will be brought
forward by way of amendments. I would encourage colleagues, as they
think about next week and as they think about the debate we will have
on energy, let's stick to energy. We haven't had a good, robust debate
on energy in a long while.
We have a lot of other concerns. We have colleagues who want to bring
up the President's initiatives as they relate to immigration or perhaps
health care. We will have plenty of opportunity here in the Senate
under Leader McConnell's management to hear and debate issues that are
of great substance and weight. But we have waited far too long for our
energy issues to be fully debated on the floor, so I am welcoming that
discussion.
We heard a lot of good reasons within the committee and we have heard
a lot of good reasons here on the floor why the Keystone XL Pipeline is
significant, is important to this country. This morning I wish to take
a few moments to discuss some of the arguments that have been made
against it and perhaps provide some context, some rebuttal, because I
think it is fair to acknowledge that the Keystone XL Pipeline evokes
some strong feelings, but not all of what we have heard is perhaps as
factual as we would like it to be. As we note often around here, people
are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their
own facts. So I would like to address some of the responses.
One of the issues we heard yesterday was that this bill is almost too
much. Well, if those on the committee and on the floor would look
directly to the language of the bill, it is pretty simple. The text of
the full bill takes up fewer than two pages. It is roughly 400 words
long. It doesn't take long to read or understand. It is pretty simple.
It is a pretty simple measure. It approves this long-delayed cross-
border permit that is needed to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline.
That is all it does. It approves a permit. It doesn't give some grand
sweetheart deal to a foreign company. It doesn't feather the nest of
oil companies. It allows for a permit to cross the border between the
United States and Canada to allow for a construction project, and it
does this while protecting private property rights.
It allows Nebraska to find the best possible route for the pipeline,
and it requires all State and local obligations to be fully met. This
bill does not deal with routing through the States. It was suggested
that somehow or other we here in the Senate and the House are kind of
like a zoning committee. That is not what is happening. It doesn't deal
with the routing. As we know, that discussion took place at the State
level--and appropriately so. So what this measure does is it just
allows for that cross-boundary permit.

[[Page S125]]

Some of the other points raised were that somehow or other this bill
provides subsidies--subsidies--whether to TransCanada or to others. It
does not authorize a single taxpayer dollar for any purpose. It doesn't
create any new tax credits. It doesn't reduce current tax rates. The
bill is simply about approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is that
simple.
I would encourage you to read it. Again, it is pretty brief.
Another question raised yesterday in committee: Why the urgency? Why
the push right now? We are just in the first week of the 114th
Congress. Why are we pushing so quickly to advance this?
Well, for new Members, such as the Presiding Officer, here today,
this is the first opportunity you will have had to weigh in on the
Senate floor on this very important legislation, but many of us who
were here in the 113th Congress recall that it was just about 6 or 7
weeks ago that this same measure--in fact, the same language of this
bill is what we had on this floor just before we departed at the end of
the 113th Congress. We fell one vote short of cloture. We had 59
supporters in the Senate. We obviously had very significant Democratic
support. Coming up with 59 votes was substantive. I think folks would
remember that.
In effect, this is a little bit about unfinished business. We were
working on it less than 2 months ago--a month and a half ago. We are
now back in the 114th Congress. So what has changed? Well, what has
changed is that the Presiding Officer is now a Member of the Republican
Party, and our leader, Senator McConnell, is leading the Senate. We are
now in a new Congress with new leadership, and the bill that has been
introduced by my friend and colleague from North Dakota has 60
cosponsors--60 cosponsors--not people who have said: Yes, I think I am
going to vote for this bill. These are 60 who have committed and signed
their names, and we now have enough votes to pass it in this Chamber.
So I think that is a good sign.
I think it is not a bad sign that what we are starting with is a bill
that is unfinished business but also a bill that has strong bipartisan
support, with 60 cosponsors. It is not very often in this body that we
have legislation that has that level of support. So why not start this
new Congress off with something that enjoys bipartisan support? I don't
think it was the intention of our leader to start off saying: By gosh,
it is going to be Republican ideas only. We are trying to find those
ideas and those issues that will advance our country. I believe that
moving forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline is something that will
advance the best interests of our country.
So when we talk about timing, I think it is important to note that
this is not only a good time, it is the best time to bring up Keystone
XL. Our colleagues on the other side of the building are taking up the
Keystone XL Pipeline today.
We had, of course, good news coming out of Nebraska this morning with
the announcement that that litigation has been resolved, if you will,
with the courts effectively upholding the pipeline route.
There have been some on the other side of the aisle who have
suggested that we shouldn't cut off a process, that we shouldn't move
until things have been resolved in Nebraska. And there are some who
would say: Well, OK, that is something we do need to consider. It has
been suggested that until that has been resolved, action on the
Keystone XL Pipeline is somehow or other premature or untimely.
I want to speak to the aspect of timeliness and whether we are moving
too quickly. The Presidential approval process is actually another
reason we are starting on this bill in this Congress. A final ``yes''
or ``no'' decision has now been delayed by more than 2,300 days. I
think the exact number is 2,303, and we are counting. That is more than
6 years--not to build a pipeline; we are not talking about it taking 6
years to build the pipeline; we are talking about 6 years to approve a
permit to cross from the Canadian side to the U.S. side. The energy
committee is on its fourth chairman since the initial cross-border
application was filed.
We have seen a lot of process. We have seen a lot of talk here in
this body. Literally everything that has happened during the Obama
administration--the legislation that has moved, regulations, all of the
extracurricular stuff that goes on outside--that has all happened while
the Keystone XL permit has been pending. One has to look at this and
say: 2,300 days and counting, over 6 years--it is pretty clear to me
that the President really doesn't want to make this decision, and so if
the Congress can step in and make it happen, the Congress should step
in and make it happen.
I mentioned the decision coming out of Nebraska this morning and the
fact that it allows--the pipeline route was effectively upheld. So that
aspect of the process that individuals have been waiting for I think we
can fairly say has been resolved.
In the Statement of Administration Policy--effectively the veto
threat the President has issued on Keystone XL that I would note he
issued the day we gavelled into the 114th Congress, before we started
any of our business. In his veto message, the President said the
legislation would cut short consideration of important issues relevant
to the national interests. Again, I would just ask anyone, really? Some
2,303 days and we think we are somehow or other cutting short a
process?
In his veto SAP, he states further that ``the bill would also
authorize the project despite uncertainty due to ongoing litigation in
Nebraska.'' Well, it looks as though that part of it has been resolved,
so that can't be used as the excuse.
It is not just in that Statement of Administration Policy. Back in
April the Press Secretary for the President, Mr. Carney, stated,
``Absent a definite route from Nebraska, the decision, as I understand,
by State is that that can't continue until the situation in Nebraska is
resolved.'' OK. We are letting you know now that the situation in
Nebraska has been resolved.
Further, there was a statement that came out of the State Department
on April 18 in which they note that a core reason for the delay is
``the potential impact of the Nebraska Supreme Court case which could
ultimately affect the pipeline route.'' All right. The State Department
also has word now that we are no longer waiting for that.
So when one talks about timeliness, when one talks about why it is
imperative that we allow this permit to proceed, it is because it has
been 6 years. It is because the decks have been cleared. It is an
infrastructure that will benefit our Nation as well as our friends to
the northern border.
I would like to talk about the issue of job creation. We have talked
a lot about the jobs that are created with a potential Keystone XL
project. We heard in the committee discussion yesterday that, hey, this
is not as advertised. There are only going to be about 55 permanent
jobs and only 4,000 construction jobs that will be created.
We have been saying it is closer to 42,000 jobs. There is a lot of
water in between 4,000 and 42,000. Who is correct? I think it is
important to note that the numbers we are talking about are drawn from
the State Department's final supplemental EIS. It is one of those
situations where if you are opposed to it you are going to grab some
low numbers, and if you are supportive of it you might grab the high
numbers. But I think you need to read the whole thing in context, my
friends.

The final supplemental EIS goes on to say:

Construction contracts, materials, and support purchased in
the United States would total approximately $3.1 billion,
with another $233 million spent on construction camps. During
construction, this spending would support a combined total of
approximately 42,100 average annual jobs and approximately $2
billion in earnings throughout the United States.

It goes on further to say:

Approximately 16,100 would be direct jobs at firms that are
awarded contracts for goods and services, including
construction directly by Keystone. The other approximately
26,000 jobs would result from indirect and induced spending;
this would consist of goods and services purchased by the
construction contractors and spending by employees working
for either the construction contractor or for any supplier of
goods and services required in the construction process.

So, again, these aren't Lisa Murkowski's numbers that are drawn from
the air or Senator Hoeven, the sponsor of this bill, conjuring up these
numbers. These are the numbers that come from the State Department's
final supplemental EIS. This is what they are saying--42,100 average
annual jobs, $2 billion in earnings, 16,000 direct jobs,

[[Page S126]]

26,000 jobs from indirect and induced spending.
The State Department estimates construction workers on a seasonal
basis--4 to 8 months per period. On an annual basis that is 1,950 jobs
per year for 2 years, and that is where they get the 4,000 construction
jobs.
But think about it. The nature of the construction business is not
that these are jobs in perpetuity. That means you build things, and
once they are built you move on to build something else. Of course they
are not permanent jobs because we are not in a permanent state of
construction. The key here is to approve projects in a timely manner so
that these good, skilled, qualified workers can go from one job to the
next and have permanent, stable employment--not necessarily on the same
project for their entire lifetime but to be able, as a welder, as a
skilled technician, to move from one project to another.
I would support this project even if it were just 4,000 temporary
jobs, but it is not. What we are talking about is supporting over
42,000 workers over a 2-year period. That is significant. It is
significant given the unemployment levels we are at--we are at 5.6
percent now. Isn't this what we are wanting to do, to bring on new
jobs?
In my State right now we are trying to figure out how we can move
Alaska's natural gas to market, not only to benefit our State with
revenues but to benefit jobs. We don't have a deal yet that allows us
to build that pipeline, although our Governor today and our previous
Governor and Governors before them have been working diligently to make
that happen, and one of these days we are going to see it. But in the
meantime, do you think Alaskans are saying: Well, we are not so sure we
want this because these are only going to be temporary construction
jobs. Absolutely not. We are building training facilities. We are
getting our workforce kind of teed up for that day so that when it
comes, we are ready because we want those construction jobs. We
recognize it will be a construction project, and by its very definition
it is not permanent.
Don't you think that bolsters my State's economy? Don't you think we
are hoping every day that we are going to get moving on this project?
Absolutely. Is it going to benefit my State? Yes. Is it going to
benefit this country? Yes. Let's get moving on it, and let's get moving
on Keystone XL.
I get a little frustrated when we talk about the jobs, and we have
those who say we should dismiss the fact that if we can't get to a
certain number of jobs, the project is not worthwhile. What we are
doing is approving a nonsubsidized, nonfederally funded project. This
is not costing us anything. This will be a benefit to us. It is not an
entire industry, nor is it a multiple-year funding authorization for
transportation projects around the country. I think those kinds of
comparisons are inaccurate and to a certain extent unfair.
I suggest to those who criticize Keystone XL's job-creating potential
to be careful. We don't want to put ourselves in a position where we
are going to wind up opposing nearly all individual projects for any
purpose all across the country just because they don't create enough
jobs.
Take the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program. It has funded
some good programs, in my view, over the years. We have seen some
renewable energy projects in recent years that I think have been
beneficial to our region. By our count, more than one dozen of these
projects would create less than 50 permanent jobs. We are not creating
hundreds or even thousands of jobs. It will create less than 50
permanent jobs. One solar project created 7 permanent jobs, a wind
project created 10, a geothermal project created 14, and we had a
transmission line that created 15 permanent jobs. I think the question
that has to be asked is: Should we have opposed these projects based on
the number of permanent jobs that are associated with them? Is there a
minimum number of jobs we are going to use as a benchmark for approval
or denial or should we just be glad and encouraged when any new job is
created because it means Americans have found steady work? This is what
I thought we were working toward.
Keep in mind Keystone XL is one project. It is one project. It is one
pipeline. There is one connector between Canada and the United States
that connects up to a pipeline that has already been built in the South
and will feed into our existing system. This is not brandnew frontier.
We are allowing for a connector between Canada and the systems we have
in the United States.
Keystone XL is one project. It is one small part of the employment
that energy production and infrastructure development can provide for
our Nation. We already have 19 cross-border oil pipelines. This is
coming down from Canada in the North and coming up from Mexico in the
South. We are already building up our LNG export capability and so much
more.
Again, keep in mind this is not the first time there has been a
request for a cross-border pipeline. We have 19 that are already in
place. What makes this one so special?
I will have more to say on that issue in the future. I know our
leaders are expected to come down to the floor shortly. I look forward
to a good, honest debate about our energy resources, our energy
opportunities, and our energy challenges. I think the American public
is ready for this discussion.
I don't know what happens around the dinner table in the hometowns of
Georgia, but I can tell you in Alaska we talk a lot about energy, and
we don't talk about it because we are an energy-producing State. We
talk about it because it costs us a lot of money to keep warm in a cold
place. It costs us a lot of money because we are not part of anybody
else's energy infrastructure.
We don't have transmission lines that connect us from one place to
the other. We have what we have, and we are thankful to have it. We are
ready to share it with others around the country and around the globe,
but we in Alaska talk a lot about the affordability of our energy
resources. We talk a lot about how we can access our abundant
resources. We talk a lot about how to use our ingenuity and technology
to advance us so we can have cleaner energy sources and move to a world
of renewable energy, and that is so exciting for us.
We have a lot of fossil fuel in Alaska--and we have a lot of
everything else--and we are excited to be developing our geothermal,
our marine hydrokinetic, our biomass, our wind potential, and our solar
potential. It is a little dark there now, but our solar potential in
the summer is second to none.
We are excited as to what we might be able to do in understanding how
we can tap into ocean energy resources. It is exciting. We need to do
more as a nation when it comes to efficiency and conservation. We
should be leading in that way, and that is why I am pleased we will
have an opportunity to again revisit the merits of the legislation my
friends Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen have been working on so
long as it relates to energy efficiency and taking that up as an
opportunity for amendment. We have such good issues to talk about--
issues that the American public is talking about because it impacts
them, and it impacts their family budget. It impacts their
opportunities for jobs, and it impacts our Nation's security.
I have not talked today about the security aspects of it, but it
doesn't take a foreign policy analyst to understand that gaining the
benefit from an energy resource from our friends in Canada is better
than asking for that same resource from the OPEC nations or Venezuela
or from any nation that might not like us. That is a debate that again
is so core to what we are talking about with Keystone XL.
We have a healthy relationship with Canada. It is important because
when someone drives to my State, which is a heck of a long drive, they
have to go through more of Canada than anyplace else. I want to have a
good relationship with Canada, but I can tell you our friends on the
Canadian border are wondering what is happening in the United States.
It has been 2,303 days, and we can't make a decision on whether we
should benefit from a jobs perspective, an economic perspective, and a
national security perspective.
I look forward to the discussion next week, and I look forward to a
robust and full debate on good energy amendments that will be coming
before this body.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S127]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to talk
about the Keystone XL Pipeline. I see my colleague from Alaska is here
this morning, and I think she and I were thinking we would be
continuing this debate next Monday as the Senate moves forward on the
motion to proceed to rule XIV of the bill that relates to this issue.
Obviously we had committee action yesterday, but we are both here this
morning.
I wish to say to my colleague before she leaves the floor that I do
look forward to the opportunity where she and I can sit down and talk
about an energy strategy and other issues that will help move our
country forward so we can produce jobs.
I had a chance to work with Senator Murkowski's father and other
Republicans on the energy committee. We produced some very good energy
legislation in both 2005 and 2007 that did result in moving our country
forward. It was bipartisan legislation and definitely not unanimous. I
mean, there was a great deal of debate about them, but we got them done
nonetheless. I am looking forward to working with the Senator from
Alaska on these issues.
It is probably safe to say the Senator from Alaska and I had plans
this morning other than coming to the Senate floor; nonetheless, I am
more than happy to talk about the recent decision by the Nebraska
Supreme Court and how Congress will continue to discuss the issue of
Keystone XL approval. Many of my colleagues probably know that the
House will take up this action sometime today. The President has
consistently said he is interested in having the process play out in
Nebraska before he makes a decision about whether this pipeline is in
the national interest. The President of the United States and the State
Department have the authority and responsibility to look at this issue
as it relates to what is in the national interest of the United States
of America.
This decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court today is a very
interesting decision. It is a very interesting decision because a
majority of the Nebraska Supreme Court, four out of the seven justices
on the court, said this law was unconstitutional--this attempt to
circumvent the public interest process by which the citizens of
Nebraska can raise concerns about a pipeline going through their
community. The majority of the supreme court said, yes, that decision
to short circuit the public process in Nebraska was unconstitutional.
Unfortunately for those citizens in Nebraska and those citizens in
the United States of America who want to make sure the environmental
security issues and economic issues are fully discussed, they are
getting shut down by a supermajority of the Nebraska Supreme Court.
They failed to get five out of the seven supreme court justices to side
with them. Nonetheless, I think there is a lot in this decision for all
of us to think about; that is, just how much this process has been
circumvented.
To me it is very unusual that the Senate would be asked to vote on a
bill that would expedite the siting of a pipeline through the United
States of America simply because a Canadian company wants us to do so.
It is perplexing to me because I hear a lot of people talk about our
neighbors, and I definitely value the relationship that the United
States and Canada have. We are in the process of a major discussion
with them on issues that impact the Pacific Northwest, and we have to
work with our neighbors.
I am struck that my state has a great relationship with British
Columbia, which is Washington's neighbor to the north. Sixty-eight
percent of British Columbian residents oppose a tar sands pipeline
across their province. That is right, a Canadian province definitely
does not want a tar sands pipeline going through their neighborhood.
We have First Nations all across Canada who don't want tar sands
development and pipelines across Canada. In addition, there are a lot
of concerns about environmental practices for tar sands production that
are in place in Alberta.
People should know that the oil and gas producing province of
Alberta, not the federal government of Canada, regulates tar sands
development. Alberta does not require what we in the U.S. would
consider ``best practices'' for development of some of the dirtiest oil
production in the world. In the U.S., we actually have federal laws
that make oil production cleaner than in Alberta.
There is a lot of concern about these not only tar sands production,
but also about byproducts, such as pet coke. As my colleague from
Michigan stated in our business meeting yesterday, uncovered pet coke
mounds, which could just blow around in the wind, caused serious
environmental concerns in Michigan and Illinois. In addition, I am sure
my colleague from California has been down here talking about benzene,
which is a byproduct that is left behind and can adversely affect
individuals.
To say that just because this Nebraska court decision became final
today, that all those environmental issues and public safety issues
have gone away, is surely a misstatement. Congress is being pressured
to make a sweetheart deal for a business interest.
I believe tar sands producers should pay into the oil spill liability
trust fund, just as companies that produce other oil products have to
do. This is a very important issue for me because oilspills are a
situation that we in the Pacific Northwest have cared about for a long
period of time. In fact, the Commandant of the Coast Guard appeared
before the Senate commerce committee last year, and I had a chance to
ask the commandant whether the Coast Guard had a way to respond to a
tar sands oilspill, and he basically told me that, no, they didn't.

So, to me, there are a lot of environmental issues, a lot of process
issues, and issues of paying a fair share for helping to clean up
oilspills--and these issues all add up to serious concerns with
legislatively approving a construction project. My colleagues on the
other side want to turn Congress into a siting commission, to give a
special interest the certainty to move forward on a project that needs
to go through the proper process and channels.
In the State of Nebraska, the public said we have concerns about a
tar sands pipeline running through our state, straight through the
environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region and the Ogallala Aquifer,
which provides drinking water to six states. Instead of dealing with
those environmental issues, the company and its advocates came to the
Congress and tried to get that route approved. This is why the
President had to reject the proposal in 2012--because TransCanada did
not want to do right be the citizens of Nebraska or the environment.
The long and short of it is, if TransCanada had been successful in
getting the original route approved, that pipeline would go across the
Ogallala Aquifer. There is now a broad consensus that this would have
been the wrong route, endangering the water supply in America's
agricultural heartland.
So, thank God, Congress, which tried to act and give a sweetheart
deal to TransCanada, was thwarted by the President. The President said,
I cannot approve this project now. And guess what happened. The company
said, yes, that is right; we have to figure out a better route for the
pipeline. And TransCanada had to start the process all over with a new
application for a better route through Nebraska.
In my State, a utility and transportation commission--in the State of
Nebraska I think it is called a public service commission--oversees the
siting process for these kinds of infrastructure projects. That
commission has a public process and answers all of the questions the
public raises, debates the issues that are before the public and makes
sure those issues are taken into account--I know many of my colleagues
probably can relate to this more from the perspective of siting
transmission lines or a grid system. I am sure people have seen a
neighborhood complaining about a transmission line going through their
neighborhood. This is a pipeline, and for us pipelines are very
important in the Pacific Northwest. We had a natural gas pipeline that
blew up, killing some young children in the Bellingham area. So, for
me, pipeline siting, and the process

[[Page S128]]

that goes into assuring the safety and security of the siting, should
be decided in the broad daylight of public discussion through the
proper channels. In this case, people circumvented that public
commission process in Nebraska, circumvented what would have been a
utilities and transportation commission process, and let the Governor
decide the route. Then the decision was sent to the Nebraska Supreme
Court to determine whether in fact the Governor had the authority to do
that. Four of those seven justices said it was unconstitutional--not
the supermajority for sure, but four of them said it was
unconstitutional. But nothing in that decision corrected the original
problem of them circumventing the environmental and economic and
security issues that a public commission is supposed to go through in
this process.
I ask my colleagues, why are we in such a big hurry to make this
decision on behalf of a utility commission and on behalf of the
President of the United States when there are real issues of safety and
security that need to be discussed?
Next week my colleagues are going to have a lot of discussion on a
lot of different amendments, but I still advocate that Congress has no
business deciding for a special interest where a pipeline should go
without the due process of citizens who are affected by pipeline having
input to the decision.
I hope my colleagues will continue to let the process play out. I
hope my colleagues will care more about public process and public
interest than special interest. There is a great article, which I will
submit for the Record, in Business Week citing welding issues with the
current Keystone Pipeline. That existing pipeline has had safety
problems.
We in the Pacific Northwest celebrate that we are a gateway to Asia,
and we celebrate the fact that a lot of people will want to use that
gateway. But we are very concerned about due process for infrastructure
projects. We see other countries wanting to move energy and other
products through our gateway when safety, security, environmental, and
public issues are not being fully addressed.
I hope my colleagues will continue to make sure due process is given
and that we will continue to make sure all of these public interest and
environmental issues are addressed.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
I see the leader on the floor, so I will not suggest the absence of a
quorum.

____________________