[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 5 (Monday, January 12, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S136-S146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1, which the clerk
will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 1, S. 1, a bill to
approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to proceed for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
I further request that the time not be charged to either side on the
debate on the Keystone pipeline, if that is necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I am sorry,
I was discussing with the staff. If the Senator will please repeat her
request.
Ms. COLLINS. I asked unanimous consent to proceed for up to 15
minutes as in morning business, and since my remarks do not pertain to
the debate for the Keystone Pipeline, that the time not be charged to
either side in that debate.
Mr. DURBIN. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Priorities of Senate Special Committee on Aging
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it has been my privilege to serve on the
Senate Special Committee on Aging since my very first days in the
Senate, and I am honored to have been elected to chair this committee
for the 114th Congress. I wish to welcome the Presiding Officer,
Senator Cotton of Arkansas, to the committee. He will be a new member
on our committee, and I believe he will enjoy his service as much as I
have.
My service on the aging committee is particularly appropriate since
Maine is the oldest State in the Nation by median age. Many people
would guess that Florida would have that distinction, but, in fact, it
is the great State of Maine.
Throughout its history, the aging committee has spurred Congress to
action on issues that are important to older Americans through its
hearings, its investigations, and its reports. This is the first time a
Maine Senator has chaired the committee since the 1990s, when my
predecessor, mentor, and friend, Senator Bill Cohen, served as
chairman.
I wish to share with my colleagues today my priorities for the
committee as we begin this new Congress. I have three major priorities
for the committee's work: first, retirement security; second,
investments in biomedical research targeting diseases that
disproportionately affect older Americans, such as Alzheimer's and
diabetes; and, third, protecting seniors against financial exploitation
and scams.
I am increasingly concerned that our seniors will not have adequate
savings and other financial resources during their retirement years.
The committee will, therefore, focus on retirement security and, in
particular, on the need to encourage more savings and better financial
planning. According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research
at Boston College, there currently is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap
between the savings Americans have today and what they should have in
order to maintain their standard of living during retirement.
Nationally, one in four Americans has no source of income beyond
Social Security. In the State of Maine, the number is one in three.
Social Security provides an absolutely vital safety net. However, with
an average benefit of just $16,000 a year, it certainly is not enough
to finance a comfortable retirement for many Americans.
According to a Gallup survey published in 2012, more than half of all
Americans are worried they will not be able to maintain their standard
of living in retirement. That is up sharply from 34 percent two decades
ago, and the Boston College analysis demonstrates that their concern is
warranted.
There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing
American seniors, including the demise of many defined benefit pension
plans in the private sector; the severity of the recent financial
crisis, which wiped out much of the net worth of many
[[Page S137]]
seniors, at least temporarily; rising health care costs; the need for
long-term care; and, most of all, the simple fact that Americans are
living far longer than we used to. Many Americans reaching retirement
age also have more debt than retirees of previous generations.
I remember when my parents paid off the mortgage on their home and
had a mortgage-burning party. Well, today, people who are the age my
parents were when they paid off their house are taking on new debt and
new mortgages. We found in the aging committee that there are seniors
who are still paying off their student loans or the student loans of
their children. These are all issues I look forward to the committee
exploring in depth in this new Congress.
Another priority will be highlighting the importance of biomedical
research on diseases such as Alzheimer's and diabetes, which take such
a devastating toll on older Americans and their families. Investments
in biomedical research not only improve the health and longevity of
Americans but also provide benefits to our economy and to the Federal
budget.
For example, nearly one out of three Medicare dollars is spent
treating people living with diabetes. According to multiple economic
analyses, there is roughly a 2-to-1 return on investment in Federal
support for biomedical research. This investment at the National
Institutes of Health and at research centers across the country spur
job creation and are critical to America's competitiveness in the
global research environment.
As the Senate cochair of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's
Disease, I am particularly committed to helping to spur breakthroughs
in Alzheimer's disease, which has had such a devastating impact on 5.2
million Americans and their families. In addition to the suffering it
causes, Alzheimer's costs the United States an astonishing $214 billion
a year. That includes $150 billion in costs to the Medicare and
Medicaid programs. These costs will only skyrocket as the baby boom
generation ages.
Fortunately, there is promising research that holds hope for
Alzheimer's patients and their families. The research community is
poised to make important advances through clinical trials and
investigating new therapeutic targets. But adequate funding is critical
to advance this research and to achieve these breakthroughs.
At a time when the United States is spending more than $200 billion a
year for Alzheimer's patients, we are spending less than three-tenths
of 1 percent of that amount--about $600 million a year--on research.
Surely, we can do more for Alzheimer's, given its tremendous human and
economic price.
The National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease has as its primary
goal the prevention and effective treatment of Alzheimer's by the year
2025. To meet that goal, the chairman of the Federal Alzheimer's
Advisory Council says that we need to devote $2 billion a year to
Alzheimer's research. Well, think about that. That is only 1 percent--
in fact, it is less than 1 percent--of what we as a society are
spending to care for people with Alzheimer's. That investment will lead
to better treatments and ultimately to a means of prevention or even a
cure for this awful and expensive disease.
The aging committee will also continue its focus on scams that target
our seniors, such as the Jamaican lottery phone scam we exposed in the
last Congress. This nefarious scheme, which is estimated to have cost
Americans as much as $300 million a year, particularly targeted seniors
in the Northeast. Some seniors in my State lost tens of thousands of
dollars to the scam which involved a con artist calling a victim to
tell him or her that they had won the Jamaican lottery but needed to
pay fees to process the winnings. I don't need to tell my colleagues
that these seniors had won nothing of the sort. But this was a very
sophisticated scheme.
In addition to educating seniors to help them avoid becoming victims
of such scams, the hearing resulted in the Jamaican Government passing
new laws targeting the scammers and prompted Federal law enforcement to
make several arrests. The aging committee will also continue its fraud
hotline to help protect seniors from these kinds of scams and financial
exploitation, and the phone number for that fraud hotline, which is
toll-free, is 1-855-303-9470.
In addition to these three major priorities, it is my hope our
committee in the second year will also take a close look--really
scrutinize--Federal programs designed to help our seniors, such as
those authorized by the Older Americans Act. We want to make sure these
programs are as effective and efficient as possible and that their
benefits reach those seniors as intended. So we will be performing that
oversight function and sharing our findings with the committee of
jurisdiction--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--on
which I am also privileged to serve.
The Senate Special Committee on Aging has a long history and
tradition of bipartisanship, and my work on this committee during the
past Congress was particularly rewarding because of the strong
partnership I forged with the committee chairman, the senior Senator
from Florida, Bill Nelson. I look forward to continuing that bipartisan
tradition with my good friend and close colleague, Senator Claire
McCaskill of Missouri, who will be serving as the committee's ranking
member in the 114th Congress.
Finally, I encourage the Presiding Officer and all of the other
members of the committee not only to be active participants in the
committee but also to share with us their thoughts on issues that we
should pursue.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and seeing no one
seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to S. 1,
which will circumvent the administration's official review process for
projects crossing international borders and approve construction of the
Keystone XL Pipeline, a pipeline dedicated to increasing production of
some of the dirtiest, most polluting, and most dangerous crude oil in
the world.
Supporters of this pipeline in Congress have been relentless. Over
the last 2 Congresses they have held 44 votes in the House and Senate
intended to approve Keystone. On Tuesday, the very first bill the new
Republican majority introduced, traditionally reserved for a party's
highest legislative priority, was Keystone. Think about this. Here we
stand in what people still call the world's greatest deliberative body,
and the first bill we are taking up is not infrastructure generally,
not national energy policy, not even national laws as they relate to
our pipeline infrastructure. No, we are legislating about a specific
pipeline which will move oil from Canada through the United States to
be primarily exported from our southern border.
I understand there are people of good will and good faith, including
the Presiding Officer, who are on both sides of this issue. But it is
hard to imagine why this should be the first piece of legislation we
take up in this Congress. We have yet to seriously consider or to
clarify our policy with respect to the Islamic State. Income inequality
is gutting the middle class. Our national infrastructure needs a jolt
of investment. Our immigration policy is a failure and a mess. I do not
understand why this would be S. 1.
Supporters of this bill have stood up three main arguments in favor
of Keystone and expanding drilling of tar sands oil reserves in Canada.
One, they say it will increase energy security; two, they think it will
lower oil and gas prices; third, they say it is a jobs bill.
Let's examine these claims, because however tenuous they were, they
have been undermined further by facts over the last couple of years.
First, the United States has never during the modern age of global
energy trade been more energy secure. We import far less oil from
unstable regimes and unfriendly countries than we have in decades. We
are continuing to build massive amounts of ever cheaper homegrown clean
energy such as wind
[[Page S138]]
and solar, even as we use our energy more efficiently.
The United States will add nearly 10 gigawatts of wind and solar
capacity in the next year. Not including hydro, the United States has
over 85,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity and continues to
build on that number year over year. The prices for solar have dropped
80 percent since 2008 and prices for wind power, which are already
competitive with fossil fuels, have dropped 30 percent since 2008.
These trends are creating jobs right here at home. For example, the
wind industry has over 500 manufacturing facilities across 44 States
that are responsible for making wind turbines with over 66 percent
domestic content.
Second, the recent collapse of crude oil and gasoline prices
demonstrates two things. In my home State of Hawaii, energy prices
remain far too high. But on the mainland, oil and gas prices are
currently very low. The idea that Keystone would make a significant
difference was never based in reality, but now it is just obvious. We
have low prices and the project has not even started.
Gasoline is now $2.21 a gallon. Crude oil prices have slipped below
$50 a barrel. The last time gasoline prices were this low was in the
aftermath of the financial crisis. As a practical matter, it is not
clear to me, and it is certainly not clear to most energy experts, how
moving oil from Canada through the United States and exporting refined
crude from the Gulf of Mexico would significantly reduce energy prices
for us in the United States.
Finally, this is called a jobs bill by some. This is many things. It
is anti-clean air; it is anti-clean water; it is anti-public health. It
is a regulatory earmark. But it is not a jobs bill. It is not deserving
of being the No. 1 priority of the 114th Congress.
We have heard estimates ranging as high as 42,000 indirect or induced
jobs during the construction phase. We know, and everyone seems to
agree, that Keystone will employ approximately 35 full-time employees
when construction is finished. That is not 3,500 employees. That is not
35,000 employees. That is the 35 full-time employees when construction
is completed.
If we want to do a real jobs bill worthy of the Senate, we should do
a real jobs bill. An infrastructure bank, a highway bill, Shaheen-
Portman--all would create orders of magnitude more jobs than this.
The American economy added 353,000 jobs in November alone, which made
2014 the strongest year for job growth since 1999. If we pass a highway
bill, we get millions of jobs. If we pass an infrastructure bank, we
will get hundreds of thousands of jobs. If we pass the bipartisan
Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, we will also get hundreds of
thousands of jobs. Look, even one new job is a good thing. But if we
want to do a jobs bill, let's do a jobs bill.
There is plenty of room for us to work together on infrastructure, on
energy efficiency, and create hundreds of thousands and even millions
of jobs. But this is an energy bill. It moves us in the wrong
direction. There are colleagues, with whom I agree, who are arguing
against this legislation primarily saying they want to allow the
administration's process to play out and that we should not supersede
the State Department review. I agree.
It is fair to say this is unprecedented, even a little strange, for
the Congress to legislate the specifics of a particular infrastructure
project. But I want to be clear. This is not a process argument for me.
I oppose Keystone because it is a bad idea. Whether it is done through
the regular order or in an expedited fashion, whether it is done
through the administrative process or the legislative process, I oppose
any action, whether through legislation, litigation, or administrative
action, that will enable the extraction of Canadian tar sands oil.
My reasons are very simple--climate change and math. Climate change,
because it is the greatest and most urgent challenge to the health of
our families, to the economy, and to our way of life. I want to
preserve the American way of life, not endanger it. Math, because we
have crunched the numbers and we know we simply cannot afford to burn
the oil from tar sands and put its pollution into the air.
It is simple. We have a budget. Just as every family in this country
must stick to its budget and live within its means, we have to do the
same as a planet when it comes to carbon pollution. A new study
published last week in the scientific journal Nature makes this clear.
The authors asked the question: If we want to stay within our carbon
budget and limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, which is the limit 167
countries agree we must meet to avoid catastrophic effects of climate
change, how much more coal, gas, and oil can we burn?
The study finds that in order to meet this goal, the majority of the
world's known reserves of fossil fuel must stay in the ground between
now and 2050. This includes one-third of the world's current oil
reserves and 80 percent of current coal reserves. It also finds, and
this is critical, that:
Any increase in unconventional oil production--
Which includes Canadian tar sands.
--is incommensurate with efforts to limit average global
warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
As we learn more about climate change amidst a clean energy
revolution, we find that moving toward clean energy, taking control of
our future, is good for business. Our economy will do better. It will
grow faster and it will be more resilient if we embrace the
technologies and solutions at our fingertips and end our reliance on
fossil fuel. We have a chance to embrace the future here. Our future is
not tar sands oil. Our future is wind and solar and geothermal and
energy efficiency. Our future is not in adding carbon pollution. Our
future is in innovating our way out of this problem. Throughout our
history, America always leads when we are needed the most. That is what
we have to do, not in the direction of more carbon pollution but toward
a clean energy economy.
A report by New Climate Economy, a group chaired by former Mexican
President Felipe Calderon, and including Bank of America chairman Chad
Holliday, among others, marshals quantitative evidence to show that
action on climate change is a requirement for future global economic
growth. In other words, those who warn about the EPA regulation or
prices on carbon killing jobs have it exactly backward. The truth is
that in order to avoid major disruptions to our economy, we have to
reduce carbon pollution and work with other countries such as Canada to
ensure that they do the same.
I am looking forward to the open amendment process on this bill that
the majority leader has promised. It will be an opportunity for the
American public to see where Members of the Senate stand on the facts
of climate change. Anyone who looks at the facts and does the math
ought to oppose this bill and oppose construction of the Keystone XL
Pipeline. For me and for many Americans, a vote against this bill is a
vote to preserve and protect the air we breathe and the water we drink.
It is a vote to ensure that we continue to reduce carbon pollution and
fight climate change. It is a vote to leave our children a healthy
world.
I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on the motion to proceed.
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. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Entry-Exit Visa System
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the attacks on the people of France
demonstrate in the most chilling terms the threats posed to Western
nations by those who are imbued with Islamic terrorism. While there are
many factors that play into the spread of this jihadist ideology in the
West, it is time for an honest and plain admission that our open
immigration policies are ineffective and have failed to meet the
minimum standards that are set by existing law in the United States.
This is something I have been dealing with for quite a number of
years--a decade really. We have laws that would improve dramatically
our ability to identify and block terrorists from entering and staying
in the country, but they are not funded and they are not
[[Page S139]]
carried out and it is unacceptable, as I will point out.
Dozens of terrorists and terror plotters have been admitted to the
United States on visas or are relying on broader networks to simply
enter into our country, taking advantage of lax immigration policies.
For instance, the 9/11 attackers all came here on visas. A visa is a
document that allows an individual to come for a limited period of time
and then return to their home country. This visa system is essential in
a modern world, but it needs to be managed and carried out in an
effective way.
The Boston bombers came as asylees, people seeking asylum, while
their mosque was linked to foreign nationals tied to ISIS and foreign
terrorists.
The individual behind the attempted Christmas bombing in Oregon was a
refugee. We have a class of individuals we accept each year who claim
to be refugees from foreign countries. This one was from Somalia.
The recently foiled plot to bomb a courthouse and school in
Connecticut was attempted by a Moroccan national who had a revoked
student visa. Many individuals have visas to be students in the United
States. We are not managing that well at all. This one had a revoked
student visa. It was revoked because of information that came to the
attention of officials, but no one made an effort or successfully
attempted in any real way to find the individual so he might be
deported.
Al Qaeda operatives who were apprehended in Kentucky were on visas
from Iraq.
These are only some of the examples that are out there. These
individuals use lax visa policies, flawed asylum policies, flawed
refugee policies, and flawed border protection policies. In addition,
we are not organized in a way that works effectively. In addition to
that, the President of the United States has directed his ICE officers,
his Citizenship and Immigration Services officers, and his Border
Patrol officers, who are the key individuals in this system, to conduct
their business in a way that guarantees failure. That is just the fact.
The 9/11 Commission--we all remember that great Commission after the
terrible attack on 9/11--zeroed in on our lax immigration policies.
Among other things, the Commission demanded implementation of a
biometric entry-exit visa system. What does that mean? That means a
biometric system where people are identified effectively through
fingerprints or some other identifier.
I have been through this for years. Back when President Bush was
President and we worked with Homeland Security, Governor Ridge was the
Secretary of Homeland Security. I think at the end he was finally
convinced, and I worked on him very hard. But he volunteered, the last
day in office, to use a fingerprint biometric system. It should have
already been done by the time President Bush left office, but it
wasn't, and it hasn't been done yet. We need a system that works.
By the way, police officers have in their cars all over America
computer-type screens where they can stop someone on the road, they can
ask them to put their hand on the screen, and it reads their
fingerprints. It checks the National Crime Information Center to find
out whether the person is wanted for murder in New York. He might have
caught him in Texas. It lets the officer know whether there are
warrants out for these individuals. This is the way the system works in
our country, and we need to use it with regard to people who come here
on visas.
It is an outrage that this hasn't been done, completed fully, and
made operational years ago. It is an outrage. It is in the law of the
United States. Congress has funded money for this project and it has
not yet been done. It will cost us in the future, as the 9/11
Commission has so warned. The 9/11 Commission demanded this system, and
it is designed to track those entering and departing the United States
on visas.
By the way, almost half of the people, at least 40-plus percent now
of individuals unlawfully in America entered on a visa. In other words,
they didn't come across the border unlawfully. They came lawfully--
perhaps using false documents, but they got a visa. They came to the
United States maybe lawfully, but they just did not return to their
home country when the visa expired.
My colleagues have to know no one is checking. We have no idea
whether they left the country or stayed in the country. We do not have
an operable exit visa system. This is so bizarre because it is not
expensive. It can be implemented rapidly. It will work and give us
valuable information that we must have if we are serious about this
process, and we must be serious about the process.
The individuals in France--I mentioned the ones in the United
States--left the country, went through Yemen, apparently, were trained
in some sort of terrorist camp, and came back and executed their
violent acts in France. So we have to do a better job of this, and we
can do it.
President Obama's administration has refused to implement the entry-
exit system as required by law. We have talked about this publicly and
debated it for years. Just last year the co-chairs of the 9/11
Commission, in an evaluation of how well the recommendations they made
back after 9/11 have been carried out--a 10-year review of how their
report had been received and how much of it had been accomplished--
issued this written statement.
Without exit-tracking, our government does not know when a
foreign visitor admitted to the United States on a temporary
basis has overstayed his or her admission.
Here is the language. We put it on a chart because it is important
that we understand this.
Without exit-tracking, our government does not know when a
foreign visitor admitted to the United States on a temporary
basis has overstayed his or her admission. Had this system
been in place before 9/11, we would have had a better chance
of detecting the plotters before they struck. . . . There is
no excuse for the fact that 13 years after 9/11 we do not
have this much capability in place.
Amen. That is exactly correct. That is from ``Reflections on the
Tenth Anniversary of the 9/11 Commission Report,'' Thomas H. Kean and
Lee H. Hamilton, in 2014.
In fact, the original report said this:
The Department of Homeland Security, properly supported by
the Congress, should complete, as quickly as possible, a
biometric entry-exit screening system.
That was the report from 2004. It is a very important report. They
went to great length to help this Nation figure out what is the
responsible thing to do to protect ourselves better from those
attackers on 9/11, many of whom were visa overstayers. They didn't come
across the border unlawfully; they came across on a lawful visa. Some
of them I think had false documentation to get that visa, but they came
on a visa, for the most part lawfully, and did not go home as they were
required to go home. They overstayed their visa. Nobody knew they had
overstayed. Nobody made an inquiry about it.
The ``Tenth Anniversary Report Card: The Status of the 9/11
Commission Recommendations,'' by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton,
2011, said this:
Full deployment of the biometric exit component of US-VISIT
should be a high priority. Such a capability would have
assisted law enforcement and intelligence officials in August
and September 2001 in conducting a search for two of the 9/11
hijackers that were in the U.S. on expired visas.
This would have helped. Indeed, of course, those of us who have some
experience in law enforcement know that when you get to one or two of
the guys, the whole scheme may get disrupted, and we can penetrate the
organization and break it up and stop crime from occurring. To me, it
is mind boggling, as the commission leaders have told us, that we
haven't completed this.
I am told there are forces that don't like the exit visa system. They
think it might slow things down a little bit. First, this is not
correct. When you come into the country, you are clocked in and you are
biometrically fingerprinted. What would you have to do when you leave?
Go to the airport, go in a certain line, go through, show your ticket,
show your passport, put your hand on a biometric screener, you are
read, and you are approved to leave. It is not going to take any
massive amounts of time. One excuse after the other has slowed this
down, and it is not acceptable. We have to do better.
In fact, the administration has suspended enforcement of the visa
system almost entirely. We have to understand, colleagues: If we don't
have even an exit visa system where we know
[[Page S140]]
who left the country, how do we know who overstayed and who stayed in
the country? Unless somebody overstays their visa and they are caught
for speeding and the police officer identified that, I will ask
colleagues, what happens? Under the policy of this President of the
United States, directed to the lowest officers in America, nothing
happens. If the individual does not commit a serious felony, they will
not be processed for deportation, even though they have come to the
country on a promise to leave on a certain date and flatly refused to
do so.
This is not acceptable. If we don't have a system that has integrity,
then everybody gets the message pretty soon: Just get a visa, come to
America, you never have to leave. If you don't get a felony charge
against you, you are never going to be deported.
This is the policy of this government at this very moment. It is hard
for anybody to believe, but that is the truth. We have approximately 5
million visa overstays in the United States. But as the National ICE--
Immigration Customs Enforcement--officers Council president Chris Crane
has explained:
ICE agents are now prohibited from arresting illegal aliens
solely on charges of illegal entry or visa overstay.
What a dramatic statement that is. And not only visa overstays, they
are prohibited from arresting and removing people who came across the
border illegally. That is what he means by illegal entry or visa
overstays.
This of course removes a cornerstone of integrity in any law system.
If we can't look people in the eye and say: We give you a visa, you
have a 6-month visa, but at 6 months you have to return to your home
country, and mean it, and say: Eventually you will be apprehended and
deported if you don't--then the system has no integrity. That is where
we are today.
Unsurprisingly, ABC News reported that the Obama administration had
lost track of 6,000 foreign students who had overstayed their visas and
were of ``heightened concern.''
In other words, these 6,000 had some special concern in their
background that made us worry about them, whether it was drugs or
terrorism or whatever. Of course they have lost sight of them. They are
not attempting to find them.
So the head of the union representing U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services officers, one of the three major components of the
Department of Homeland Security dealing with immigration, Mr. Ken
Palinkas, was explicit in his warning to us. It is remarkable what Mr.
Crane has said and now what Mr. Palinkas has said:
There is no doubt that there are already many individuals
in the United States, on visas--expired or active--who are
being targeted for radicalization or who already subscribe to
radicalized views. Many millions come legally to the U.S.
through our wide open immigration policy every year--whether
as temporary visitors, lifetime immigrants, refugees, asylum-
seekers, foreign students, or recipients of our ``visa waiver
program'' which allows people to come and go freely. Yet our
government cannot effectively track these foreign visitors
and immigrants.
This is the man whose officers do this job. They are the ones who
approve the visas and manage this system.
He went on to warn that the President's so-called Executive amnesty
would make the situation radically worse, saying:
I write today to warn the general public that this
situation is about to get exponentially worse--and more
dangerous. . . . Express your concern to your Senators and
Congressmen before it is too late.
It is a national security imperative to stop this Executive amnesty.
It sends exactly the wrong message. What it says is that if you can get
into America--through the border, by boat, by plane, on a visa--any way
you get into this country and pass the border, you are not going to be
asked to leave unless you commit some felony--some serious felony, for
that matter. Many felonies don't qualify. And we have over 100,000
people who have committed serious felonies who have been released into
America. We don't know where they are, and they are not going to be
deported.
We have to restore immigration enforcement, establish better controls
and screening on immigration from high-risk regions of the world. We
really should give more attention to that. It is perfectly legitimate.
The visa system, the immigration system of the United States, should
serve who? It should serve the interests of the American people.
Somebody doesn't have a constitutional right to come to America. The
decision is whether America feels like it is in its interests. We have
always accepted a large number of people. In fact, we have the largest
immigration numbers of any nation in the world. We admit 1 million a
year lawfully. When they come from high-risk areas of the world,
terrorist states, we should indeed give more scrutiny to those
applicants.
Census data shows that legal immigration to the United States from
the Middle East is one of the largest and fastest growing categories of
new admittances. For the national security of the United States, it is
imperative that Congress block Executive amnesty and restore essential
enforcement, basic bread-and-butter law enforcement. Anyone who claims
to be concerned about our national security should be resolutely
focused on this task. There is so much that can be done with relatively
little difficulty if we have the leadership and will to get it done.
It would be unthinkable for the President to veto the Homeland
Security appropriations bill in order to continue this illegal and
dangerous amnesty scheme during a time of growing threats abroad.
Again, let me say that this: the entry-exit visa system is an
unappreciated, important part of American immigration law. It is
critical to the national security of the United States, as the 9/11
Commission has so stated on more than one occasion. We can do this. Why
is it not being done? What forces, what special interests, are
interceding between the people of the United States, the national
interests, and their special interests that block this kind of system?
We can make it work. It is not that hard. We need a biometric system,
and that system should be founded on the fingerprint. It took us a
number of years, but I think the government has finally concluded it
must be the fingerprint for a lot of reasons, one of which is if
somebody got a visa to the United States and they committed a murder,
an armed robbery, a terrorist act, a major fraud, and a warrant was
issued for their arrest--if you don't clock it in at the airport, who
knows when they are leaving? So this would pick it up and would pick up
any warrants that might be outstanding for those individuals anywhere
in the United States that are put in the NCIC, National Crime
Information Center.
That is the way the system should work. It is long overdue. In the
course of the discussions we will have in the weeks and months to come
about the necessity of fixing a broken immigration system, the entry-
exit visa system has to be implemented. It is long overdue. We can make
it happen. It is not that expensive. It is relatively inexpensive,
actually, and it will make us much safer in the process.
I yield the floor, and 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. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted to each
side and utilized be counted against both sides equally during quorum
calls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, here we are at the beginning of a new
year and a new Congress, and I think we all feel a responsibility to do
what the American people voted for in the November 2014 election, which
is to come together in this body and in this Congress and work together
to find sensible solutions to the very real problems facing Americans.
[[Page S141]]
It is no secret that the last 6 years have been pretty tough for a
lot of people who are out of work or doing part-time work; kids
graduating from high school, graduating from college, graduating from
community schools, 2-year schools; going back and getting new training
and still unable to find meaningful jobs; finding jobs that are part
time, two or three of those together; parents trying to save money, pay
the mortgage, save money to send the kids to postgraduate school. It
has not been easy. So we have come to a point where we have legislation
in a new session of Congress, with commitments on a bipartisan basis to
stand together, to work together, to try to find solutions, to get
people back to work and get our economy moving again. Now we come to
the very first issue up for discussion and debate and hopefully passage
in this new Congress--the Keystone Pipeline.
This is an issue that has been going on for 6 years. The President
has been obstinate in his obstruction in letting this go forward, in
making a decision. Yet here we are, finally, with an opportunity to not
only pass legislation which has passed the House of Representatives,
again, just last week with very significant bipartisan support--but now
in the Senate to take up this legislation and to move it forward
tonight with this vote, to start the process to allow amendments, to
allow debate, and to move forward and hopefully enjoy bipartisan
support with over 60 votes and then move it to final passage and then
send it to the President for, hopefully, signing.
This project is the largest, ready-to-build infrastructure project in
the United States. It supports tens of thousands of jobs. The estimate
has been well over 42,000. It invests billions of dollars in the
American economy. It increases revenue to States and local governments,
all without spending one dime of taxpayer money. This is a private
sector initiative that can be of great benefit to our country. It can
provide meaningful jobs and has many benefits for us in the future.
It is supported by Democrats, by Republicans, and by a number of
labor unions. For instance, the Indiana State Building and Construction
Trade Council, which represents 75,000 working Hoosiers in my State,
reached out to me recently and asked me to support construction of the
Keystone Pipeline, calling it ``an important job creation and energy
security issue.'' They are right on the mark. They know I have been a
longtime supporter of this effort, but they wanted to put it in
writing. I am not sure it was necessary, and they weren't weighing this
on the basis of Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative; they
were saying that this is good for us and we hope all of our Senators
can support it. We hope it passes. This is an initiative that puts our
people to work. Other labor unions, including the North America's
Building Trade Unions and the Laborers' International Union of North
America support this project.
I mentioned the President, for 6 years, has come up with more feeble
excuses in terms of why he believes this should not go forward. The
last excuse was: We are in a process here and the process has to go
forward. That process was waiting, apparently, on the Nebraska Supreme
Court approval of the pipeline route through Nebraska, and that was his
excuse for why he would have to veto it. I am sure my colleagues now
have the word that the Nebraska Supreme Court has upheld State approval
of the Keystone Pipeline. In fact, the President's own State
Department, in response to numerous calls for environmental studies--
all of which were used as an excuse for not going forward--the
President's own State Department has repeatedly approved this, saying
it will not have a negative environmental imprint.
So what could possibly be the reason the President remains
intransigent on this particular issue, because every other box has been
checked? We have to come down to the inevitable conclusion that it is
all political, that an extreme environmental wing of the President's
own party is simply putting untold pressure on him to not go forward
with anything having to do with fossil fuels or providing energy
security for America from our own resources. After all, a significant
portion comes from Montana and North Dakota--and the last time I
checked they are in the United States--and from our friendly neighbor
to the north, Canada. If this doesn't go through, we will keep
importing large quantities of oil from the Middle East. We know what
complications there are in terms of securing that oil and how much
volatility occurs there based on what is happening today in the Middle
East.
So getting this product from our Northern States of North Dakota and
Montana and getting this product from our friend to the north, Canada,
simply makes a great deal of sense in terms of our energy security, our
energy supplies, and lessening our reliance on the volatility that
comes from getting oil from other sources.
To conclude, let me just make it clear what it is we are trying to
do. This will help the United States diversify its energy supply. It
will offset our dependence on Middle East oil. It will support tens of
thousands of American jobs in construction. It will invest billions of
dollars in the American economy. It will increase revenue to State and
local governments. It will not harm our environment, as numerous
studies have indicated--all these benefits without spending a dime of
taxpayer money.
So after 6 years of delay, procrastination, and evermore feeble
excuses, it is time for the President to make a decision. Soon he will
have an opportunity to use that pen he so famously talked about not to
sign a veto or to declare a veto but to sign a bill approving the
Keystone Pipeline into law.
I strongly support construction of this pipeline and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request?
Mr. COATS. I certainly will. I didn't see my colleague. I am happy to
do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I am happy I was here for the comments of
my colleague from Indiana on the Keystone Pipeline and, similar to the
Senator from Indiana, I am also happy to finally have this debate. The
comments he made are very sincere and passionately believed. I accept
that. I only challenge one aspect of the comments, which is the
suggestion that opposition of Keystone is feeble or only for political
reasons.
I am a pro-energy Senator. The first bill I introduced in the 114th
Congress was a bill I am cosponsoring with Senator Barrasso of Wyoming
to expedite American exports of liquid natural gas, but I am an
opponent of Keystone on environmental and economic grounds, and I wish
to spend a few minutes describing why.
To begin with, it can probably be summed up in a question: Why
embrace dirty energy when America is in the midst of a clean energy
revolution? That is a primary reason I oppose Keystone. The United
States, thank goodness, is on a clean energy roll. Not only are we on a
clean energy roll, we are on an energy production roll that is helping
our economy, helping our trade deficit, and hurting some of our most
significant global adversaries, notably Russia and Iran.
We have embraced over the last few years a set of conservation and
efficiency investments, probably most notably the increased CAFE
standards that have saved energy use in the vehicle sector as well as
helped the American auto industry significantly rebound. Our natural
gas revolution, of which I am a strong supporter, has enabled American
industry and consumers to get lower priced energy, and it has enabled
us to lessen our dependence on dirtier fuels in the production of
electric power and other aspects of our power usage. Wind and solar and
other noncarbon energy developments have rocketed ahead. Nearly one-
third of the energy that has been added to the American electricity
grid since 2005 has been in the wind and solar area. We are one of the
few nations in the world that in the period from 2005 to 2012 actually
saw a reduction in our carbon emissions.
We are on a clean energy roll. We are innovating for the world and we
are selling technologies to the rest of the world and that is good for
our economy as well as good for the environment.
We are also asserting American energy leadership not just in the
advances in clean energy but also in the significant advances in
American energy production. I think we should feel
[[Page S142]]
good about the fact that we are a country that has gone from being one
of the greatest net importers of energy in the world to now a country
that is going to be one of the greatest energy producers in the world,
and in many energy areas we are now a net exporter. So emissions are
going down. Production and exports are going up.
The other thing that is great for Americans is that prices are going
down. A barrel of oil right now is in the $50-a-barrel range, which is
putting about $1,000 a year back into the pockets of an American
family. It is helping American businesses, and it is imposing, as I
mentioned earlier, some significant harm upon two of our most
persistent global adversaries--Iran and Russia--that rely on energy
exports to drive their economy.
This energy revolution--higher production, greater economic
efficiency, greater cleanliness--has all been happening without the
Keystone Pipeline. It has all been happening without the United States
embracing tar sands oil. We are going in the right direction now. I
oppose the Keystone Pipeline because accelerating the use of tar sands
oil turns us around. Instead of going in the right direction to more
production, more national security and greater emissions control, the
Keystone Pipeline accelerates tar sands oil and takes us in the wrong
direction. Simply put, tar sands oil and the exploitation of that
resource is a bad bet for the environment and, I believe, a bad bet for
the economy.
Last month, December 2014, a magazine I really like that normally has
a lot of articles about the outdoors, Outside magazine, ran a lengthy
article on the area of Canada in Alberta where tar sands are mined. The
article is called ``The High Cost of Oil.''
To anyone who is interested in this debate--pro, con or undecided--go
online to Outside magazine, December 2014, ``The High Cost of Oil,''
and read what the mining of tar sands oil does to this part of Canada
and to this planet.
Tar sands oil is not like conventional gas or petroleum. Tar sands
oil, the mining and refining and production of it, produces about 15 to
20 percent more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy than
conventional petroleum. Natural gas produces dramatically less
CO2 than conventional petroleum, but tar sands oil produces
dramatically more. If you care about the emissions of CO2--
and I think we should all care about the emissions of CO2
because I accept the science that says CO2 emissions cause
significant climate effects--if you care about CO2
emissions, then tar sands oil is absolutely the worst thing that can be
done.
Over the 2 years now that I have been in the Senate, I have had a lot
of folks come to me and talk to me about Keystone. They never say a
word about greenhouse gas or CO2 emissions--not a word.
Senator Coats didn't say a word in his comments about CO2 or
greenhouse gas emissions. I ask individuals, when they come and talk to
me about Keystone: What do you think about CO2 emissions?
What do you think about the fact that tar sands oil is significantly
more carbon dense than normal petroleum? The response I find myself
getting is: I don't know; I am not a scientist. In fact, I heard that
from an energy CEO who employs tons of scientists in his organizations:
I don't know; I am not a scientist.
The scientific consensus I believe is very clear. We have to do what
we can--not drastically and dramatically but in an incremental way--
every day to bring down our CO2 emissions. I believe we need
to do that in smart ways. Yet, from an emissions standpoint, tar sands
oil goes exactly in the wrong direction. It is not just CO2
emissions. Tar sands oil also involves the mining of it. I would
encourage you to read this article. It involves scraping up vast
acreages of an arboreal forest in Alberta to get to the tar sands
underneath. So far, an area about the size of the State of Rhode Island
has been completely despoiled to look like a moonscape to get to tar
sands, and this will significantly accelerate the more tar sands are
built.
In the area of Alberta where the mining and refining is taking place,
there has been a dramatic increase in respiratory illness and other
illnesses associated either with airborne emissions or with the
contamination of the area's water supply.
Probably one of the most powerful things about the article is not the
lengthy analysis, not the words, it is the pictures. The pictures in
that article are staggering. When you see what has to be done to these
arboreal forests to mine tar sands oil, you come back to this question:
Why would we embrace a dirtier technology when America is on a clean-
energy revolution that is driving down prices, driving up production,
and also driving down emissions.
Tar sands oil takes us in the wrong direction. It is not so much
about the pipeline. We rely on pipelines in this country, but it is
about the acceleration of the development of a resource that, frankly,
just doesn't need to be developed.
I will conclude and say this. Some say--and I made this argument--
well, look, it is going to be mined anyway and refined anyway. If the
pipeline doesn't go through the United States, it will go westward or
eastward through Canada or another direction. I am not completely sure
that is correct. The article in Outside discusses the fact that
Canadians, who know this better than anybody because they live in the
neighborhood, are fighting against pipelines being built in Canada.
There is also the matter with oil now at a significantly lower price
than it has been. Even the economics of this tar sands oil, which is
pretty expensive because of what you have to do to refine it, may not
make any sense. But even if we set those arguments aside and somebody
says to me, why shouldn't the United States just give the big green
light to tar sands oil because somebody is going to get it, the reason
I think we shouldn't is the United States is showing the world right
now what it means to be an energy leader.
With increased production, lower emissions, lower prices through
innovation--through American innovation--we are showing the world what
it means to be an energy leader. We are a leader because we have
embraced a simple effort.
I am not an engineer, but as I look at what happened in innovation in
the last decade, the ethic we have embraced is: Let's do it cleaner
tomorrow than today. That is pretty simple. Let's do it cleaner
tomorrow than today--not dramatically cleaner. It doesn't have to turn
day and night from today to tomorrow. Let's just get a little bit
cleaner tomorrow than today.
That is what we have been doing as a Nation. It has been increasing
supply. It has been driving down demand. It has been driving down
prices. It has been helping us control emissions. That is what we
should keep doing. I am a pro-energy Senator, but I am a deep skeptic
about the use of tar sands oil. For that reason, I am glad we are going
to have the debate. I think we should finally be at it. But I am going
to oppose the Keystone Pipeline because tar sands oil is going
backwards and not forwards. We are showing the world what it means to
go forward, and that is the direction we should continue to go.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so
ordered
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we are going to be voting shortly on the
motion to proceed to S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline. I am here to urge
my colleagues to vote no on that motion to proceed. We had a couple of
chances to come to the Senate floor already today and last week and
talk about the important issue of energy development in the United
States and how we move our country forward with job creation and energy
development. The President--we got to hear his remarks and certainly we
respect people's points of view that this issue is an issue we have had
a lot of time to discuss.
Mr. President, the issue is whether the American public and people in
affected States have had a lot of time to talk about this issue and
whether they have had a transparent process to talk about this issue.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that
[[Page S143]]
was in USA TODAY whose headline is ``Permit problems plague Keystone XL
pipeline's S.D. leg.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From USA Today, Jan. 7, 2015]
Permit Problems Plague Keystone XL Pipeline's S.D. Leg
(By John Hultjhult)
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission on Tuesday
voted down a move by tribal and environmental groups to force
a reboot to the Keystone XL pipeline's state-level permitting
process. (http://www
.argusleader.com/story/news/2015/01/06/sd-permit-keystone-xl-
still-question/21359367/)
PUC commissioners said there are clear questions about
whether South Dakota's stretch of the massive and
controversial project is still due the construction permit it
earned in 2010, given a series of changes to its original
scope.
The 2014 version of the pipeline would be able to carry
crude from North Dakota, for example, along with the
anticipated crude extracted from tar sands in Alberta,
Canada.
Even so, commissioners ruled that forcing pipeline owner
TransCanada to start over without being offered a chance to
explain how it could make those changes while meeting its old
obligations would be a denial of due process.
``We need to go through the process to find out,''
Commissioner Chris Nelson said.
TransCanada asked for re-certification of its 2010
construction permit in September. The company had to ask for
re-certification because four years had passed since the
permit was granted.
The pipeline stalled as President Obama chose Tuesday to
delay the issuance of a federal permit indefinitely, a move
that has frustrated supporters, who say the project will add
jobs and boost energy security. If completed, the Keystone XL
pipeline would release more than 800,000 barrels of oil a
day.
The GOP-controlled Senate is expected to take up the issue
this week.
In a new application for the 313 miles of pipeline planned
for South Dakota, the company notes 30 changes to the
original project, including the addition of North Dakota oil,
minor route changes, alterations to construction plans and
costs.
The Yankton Sioux Tribe filed a motion to dismiss the
company's application based on those changes, saying the re-
certification process is meant for projects that have been
delayed, not those that have altered dramatically in scope.
The permit was issued with a set of 50 conditions, which
were based on the project as approved four years ago.
Thomasina Real Bird, a lawyer for the Yankton Sioux Tribe,
told commissioners that the changes to the pipeline are
simply too significant to allow the company to apply for re-
certification.
The company isn't just asking to re-certify a stalled
project, she said.
``They're going a step beyond, and that step is not allowed
by law,'' Real Bird said.
Several others spoke in support of the Yankton Sioux
Tribe's motion to dismiss, including Kimberly Craven of the
Indigenous Environmental Network.
``I would urge the commission to start over,'' Craven said.
``It's a new permit, a new ballgame.''
Bill Taylor, a lawyer for TransCanada, told commissioners
that re-certification is meant to determine whether delayed
projects still fall within the scope of an old permit.
Dropping a re-certification request because a project changes
renders the re-certification process pointless.
Keystone XL has changed, but Taylor said the company is
prepared to prove that it still meets each of the 50
conditions attached to its 2010 approval. The pipeline is
still a pipeline, the product is the same, and the end result
is more energy security for the U.S., Taylor said.
``The current iteration of the project can and will meeting
the conditions upon which the permit is issued,'' Taylor
said.
The PUC voted 3-0 to deny the motions to dismiss the
application brought by the Yankton Sioux Tribe and joined by
others. The hearing on the merits of the re-certification is
planned for May.
Ms. CANTWELL. This is an article that just recently appeared in the
paper about how South Dakota is bringing up objections to the pipeline,
and they want to do due process with their public utility commission to
make sure this project meets the criteria of environmental and safety
concerns and security concerns that State wants to see met.
The reason this is still an issue in South Dakota is because part of
the pipeline will go through South Dakota. There have been many changes
since the original proposal was put forth, and people in South Dakota
want to know exactly what these changes are and exactly how they will
go through the process. In fact, one Native American tribe
representative who was objecting said:
The company is not just asking to recertify its old
project. They are going a step beyond that that is not
allowed by law.
So there are people who want them to go through the normal process
because siting of a pipeline of this nature is of great concern to
local residents, to property owners.
I find it interesting that in the debate on this issue, we on this
side of the aisle are the ones who are advocating and standing up for
property owners to make sure there is not a taking of their property
without a transparent process and input for that process because that
is exactly what transpired here when the company, with the help of the
State of Nebraska, did not continue to proceed through their public
service commission, their public utility commission, and instead tried
to pass a law saying that the environmental review and security issues
and oversight could be done by the Governor.
Now, my colleagues who are Governors know that when you are Governor,
you do not have the most transparent process. It is not as if citizens
are going to come to hearings in the Governor's office. It is not as
though all of that is there for review. Certainly those citizens do not
have the ability to object and make sure they are getting the right
compensation for their property and make sure issues of safety and
security are addressed.
So that is why some private property owners sued. Because the
legislature and the Governor did not have the right to act; the law
taking the power away from the utility commission and giving it to the
Governor was unconstitutional. The separation of powers is divided
between the Governor and their public service commission. It is the job
of those UTCs--utilities and transportation commissions around the
country--to protect the interests of the public in the siting of these
facilities. That this authority was now moved up through the
legislature to the Governor to decide all of that was clearly something
that was not constitutional. I find it very interesting that four of
the seven supreme court justices said, in fact, yes, that law passed by
the legislature was not constitutional.
So my question is, What is the hurry? Now that this issue, based on
standing and the other justices not deciding, has the process to move
forward, Congress feels some sort of urgency to be a siting commission
and site a pipeline that has, No. 1, failed to go through the public
process in the State of Nebraska; No. 2, has a public process now being
questioned in the State of South Dakota, raising concern and urgency
that those issues of the public be addressed; and No. 3, goes over what
the President of the United States has said he wants to follow as a due
process and make sure all the issues are brought to the table.
I will remind my colleagues that if everybody here had their way, the
President would have approved the original Keystone XL pipeline route.
Congress thought they should stick their hands in the middle of this
siting and land use issue and put in legislative language on a passed
bill by the Congress saying the President, if it was a national
security interest, must decide and site the Keystone Pipeline. Thank
God those at the State Department and the White House decided that was
not such a smart idea because that current pipeline went through a
major aquifer that served eight States and posed a great deal of
concern to landowners, farmers, residents, and various individuals
about that particular proposal.
So if this body would have had its way before--those who support this
pipeline--they would have pressured the President to approve what is
now a defunct, horrible idea of what was proposed by TransCanada. So
now I ask my colleagues, are you sure all of the issues have been
addressed here at the local level? Because clearly there are people in
Nebraska and people in South Dakota who do not think so.
Last I checked, our job is not to site pipelines; our job is to move
our country forward on an energy strategy that will produce jobs,
diversify our resources, and make the United States a leader in energy.
I know my colleagues feel as if we will get a chance to address a lot
of issues if we do move forward in a debate, and I am sure there will
be many on many sides. I question whether we shouldn't be spending our
time focusing on a bipartisan energy bill with lots of support on a
whole myriad of
[[Page S144]]
others issues we need to work on, as we did in 2007, to make sure we
are helping in the transformation of energy policy moving forward that
will produce a lot more jobs.
This particular proposal, as many of my colleagues have pointed out,
while there are some immediate construction jobs, the long-term jobs
are very few compared to many of the other things we have been doing.
I would also like to point out that since Keystone has undertaken
more development in the United States, that part of that development in
the United States has also come into question lately. The security of
the welding on the pipeline that has been done in the southern part of
that pipeline has come into question, even to the point where I think
the State Department has said to the company: We are going to have a
third-party validator approve whether you are actually meeting the
standards we would like to see in the development of this pipeline in
the United States.
But there are many issues here about safety and security, as my
colleagues can point out who have brought up these issues before. My
colleague from Michigan suffered one of the most devastating oilspills
in her area. That was a tar sands oilspill. My colleague from Michigan,
Senator Stabenow, has actually flown over that oilspill and cited that
it took 4 years and $1.2 billion to clean it up and that the tar sands
sunk to the bottom of the river and the river had to be dredged.
So this is something my colleagues may not quite understand, that the
tar sands, even according to the Commandant of the Coast Guard--we do
not really have a solution for its cleanup when it spills in water.
That is why I want to make sure that tar sands pay into the oilspill
liability trust fund, as any other oil source does, so that we can make
sure we are planning for the future and for getting help and response
for any of these oilspills that could occur in the future.
But needless to say Michigan and the Kalamazoo spill taught our
Nation how dangerous this oilspill process could be. So why are we
prematurely trying to cut off the debate on this issue at the local
government level and say that we in Congress know better than these
utility and transportation commissions and their transparent siting
process for the American public? Why do we somehow know better that
this is where a pipeline should go and how the process should work?
So I hope my colleagues will stop and think more about how
TransCanada proposal. I know some of my colleagues like to talk about
being a good neighbor, and I like to say, you know, we in the Pacific
Northwest consider British Columbia a very big friend and neighbor.
There are many times that people talk about two provinces and five
States working together as an organization on economic issues. So that
structure has been in place for many years in the Pacific Northwest.
But the people of British Columbia have not been a big supporter of tar
sands oil expansion. Something like 60 percent of the public of British
Columbia opposes having a tar sands pipeline cross their province.
TransCanada knows they are not going to be successful in getting this
oil from Alberta across British Columbia out to the Pacific because the
people of British Columbia do not want it. So, of course, why not come
to the United States? Why not ask them if they want a pipeline going
through the middle of their country?
British Columbia Premier Christy Clark laid out five principles that
ought to have been met in order to site a pipeline of tar sands. Those
conditions have not been met, and the province is officially opposed to
the pipeline. So there was a lot of opposition and concern there.
I will note for my colleagues that when a public UTC--a utility
commission or public service commission--when they evaluate a project,
they have to look at the environmental impact, and that is water
supply, wildlife, vegetation, plants, and they have to look at the
economic and social impact. They need to look at alternative routes,
the impact to future development near the pipeline, and the views of
cities and counties. Again, I will note that I think all of those are a
part of having a transparent process instead of a political process on
siting.
So I am not for moving forward on what I consider special interest
legislation, Congress siting for a special interest--this TransCanada
company--a project that even people in Canada have raised suspicion
about.
I hope that we will allow the President to still do due process on
such an important issue of environmental concern and that we will not
start setting a standard that if you want to short-circuit the eminent
domain and protection rights of individuals, we will just bypass all of
that at the local level and somehow go to Congress and they will get
that done for you. I think that is a very bad message.
I hope my colleagues will turn down this legislation, I hope that we
can move on to other energy issues that will help our country diversify
and move forward in the future.
I yield the floor, and 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 rise to again talk about the Keystone XL
Pipeline approval bill. We will be voting on cloture on the motion to
proceed in about 15 minutes or so.
I believe we have a bipartisan majority. We have 60 sponsors of the
legislation, and we will have some others join us in voting to proceed
on the bill.
That is important, not just because this is bipartisan legislation,
important energy legislation for our country but, as I have said
before, this is an opportunity for all the Members of this body--
Republican and Democrat--to come forward with their amendments in an
open amendment process and really have an energy debate.
Let's talk about the energy future of this country and let's bring
forward amendments to this legislation that can be good amendments and
help us build the right kind of energy plan for our country.
What I would point out about this Keystone Pipeline approval bill is
that as we work to build an energy plan for this country, as we work to
produce more energy so we are truly energy secure--a lot of people call
it energy independence--but the way I define it is energy security for
our country where we produce more energy than we consume, so we control
our destiny. If we produce more energy than we consume, then we control
our destiny when it comes to energy. But to do that, we would not only
have to produce that energy, we have to have the infrastructure to move
it safely, cost effectively, and efficiently from where it is produced
to where it is consumed.
We have this incredible opportunity with Canada to have North
American energy security. We are working with our closest friend and
ally in the world. We together produce more energy than we consume, and
we have the infrastructure in place to move it from where it is
produced to where it is consumed in our country. Now we control our own
destiny.
When it comes to OPEC or when it comes to Russia or when it comes to
China, when it comes to geopolitical events that affect the price of
energy, we are in a strong situation. Look at what is going on in
Western Europe right now. Look at what is going on in Ukraine. They are
in a tremendously difficult situation because they are dependent on
Russia for their energy, for their natural gas, at a time when Vladimir
Putin is undertaking very aggressive action in Europe. He is invading
Ukraine. He has taken Crimea. He continues his aggressive efforts. And
at the same time the European Union is trying to support Ukraine,
Ukraine is fighting with Russia. This is a situation where Ukraine is
depending upon Russia for its energy.
Does America really want to be in that kind of a situation in the
future when we have real problems in the Middle East, when we have real
problems with fundamentalists, Islamic jihadists conducting terror on
our people and other freedom-loving people around the world? Do we want
to be in a situation where we continue to depend upon the Middle East
for our oil?
Well, the answer to that is no. The American people resoundingly
answer that question--no.
[[Page S145]]
Also, the American people well know that the reason gas prices at the
pump today are lower is not because OPEC just decided to give us a
Christmas present. They know the reason energy prices are low in this
country, that when they pull up to the pump they are saving money, is
because we are producing so much more energy in this country and we are
getting more energy from Canada.
Unless OPEC cuts back their production, more supply drives prices
down. So it is not only about low prices now, it is about making sure
we are able to control our energy destiny in the future. We have to
take a long-term view. It is working.
Of the 18 million barrels of oil a day this country consumes, we now
produce 11 million barrels in this country. We are up to 11 million
barrels that we produce in this country of the total we consume, so we
are still importing about 7 million barrels a day.
Canada is now up to 3 million of those 7 million barrels, so we are
down to only importing about 4 million barrels a day, but if we keep
working at this, we can continue to produce more in this country.
Canada's production is continuing to grow. And if we build the
infrastructure, we can make sure that we control that energy--North
American energy security.
That means not only now do our consumers and small businesses and our
whole Nation benefit from lower energy prices, lower gas prices at the
pump, but we have that ability to make sure we control our destiny and
that we benefit in the future.
Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past where we return to this
dependency on OPEC down the road because we haven't built the
infrastructure, we haven't worked with Canada, and we haven't brought
our domestic industry to North America so that we truly are energy
secure. If we don't build the necessary infrastructure, if we block the
necessary infrastructure, we can't build that energy plan for the
future.
I have heard my counterparts, some of the critics, say: Well, it is
not up to us to issue a building permit for infrastructure.
Really? So you mean it is the President's job and it is Congress's
job to block critical energy that will get us to energy security? Our
job is to block it? Our job is to prevent the very infrastructure we
need to build energy security for this country, to block the private
investment, the $8 billion that private companies want to spend to
build this infrastructure, to create jobs, to produce more energy in
North America, and to help make this country's energy security? The
President's job and this body's job is to block the ability of our
country and Canada to build this necessary infrastructure? Well, I
don't think so.
If you want to put it in terms of: Oh, well, we are not supposed to
issue a building permit--really? So our job is to prevent the building
of critical infrastructure even when it does not cost one single
penny--not one penny--of government money?
This is almost $8 billion of private investment that will generate
hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue--State, local, and Federal.
Every State on the route has approved it.
There is an idea somehow we are jumping the gun after 6 years? Let's
see, it has been in process for 6 years. Every State on the route has
approved it. We are not spending any Federal money. We are saying our
job as a Congress and the President is to block that kind of
investment, block that kind of job creation, block that kind of energy
development, and block our ability to get to energy security for this
country.
Then there is this argument: Oh, well, it is TransCanada. It is one
company. It is only one company, so it really doesn't matter.
Really? Well, if you were a company--a Canadian company or a U.S.
company--and you were about to build infrastructure so that we could
continue to produce more energy in this country, would you do it? If,
in spite of the process that the Federal Government has to approve this
project, where all of the requirements have been met--not once, but
over and over again--and Congress and the President continue to block
your ability to build that infrastructure, are you going to jump up and
spend billions of dollars and do it? I doubt it.
And isn't that really what this is all about? That is what it is
about, isn't it? It is for the folks, for the extreme environmental
groups that don't want the development of fossil fuels--they are going
to block it. This is sending the message and making sure they shut her
down here. That has to be music to OPEC's ears. I have to believe that
OPEC is going: Boy, that is great; they are not going to build the
infrastructure in their country to produce the energy.
That is going to keep OPEC in business.
There is another country that I think will be very pleased, really
excited, if this project gets blocked, and that is China. China is so
anxious to get this oil, they are trying to buy that production in
Canada. Because, make no mistake, if the energy doesn't come to the
United States, it is going somewhere else, and it is most likely going
to China.
So when we get back in that situation down the road when oil prices
move back up, energy demand goes back up, and we have prevented our
industry from growing--and Canada is sending all the oil to China, and
we have to go back hat in hand to OPEC, Venezuela, and all of these
countries, remember----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. CANTWELL. Reserving the right to object. Is the vote scheduled
for 4 minutes from now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the vote is scheduled for 5:30 p.m.
Ms. CANTWELL. I am happy if the Senator speaks until the time of the
vote, but I think we should keep to the vote schedule.
Mr. HOEVEN. What time is the vote scheduled?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is scheduled at 5:30 p.m. That would
leave the Senator 2 minutes.
Mr. HOEVEN. I note the presence of the chairman of the Energy
Committee. I defer to her for some time if she wishes to speak before
the vote. That would be my question, whether we could get maybe a
couple of minutes for that purpose. I can certainly wrap up in a couple
of minutes.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I defer to my colleague, the sponsor of
this legislation, Senator Hoeven from North Dakota, to conclude his
remarks within the remaining time so that we can begin our vote at 5:30
p.m. We appreciate his leadership on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. HOEVEN. I will wrap up on this note.
Let's not get back into the same predicament we have gotten ourselves
into before. Let's build this vital energy infrastructure so we can
develop energy security for our country, together with Canada.
The other point I want to make is on the environmental point: No
significant environmental impact. That is the finding of the Obama
administration's environmental impact statement done by the State
Department. That is their own report: No significant environmental
impact.
I look forward to having more discussion on the environmental aspects
as well.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will state.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
motion to proceed to S. 1, a bill to approve the Keystone XL
Pipeline.
Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Chuck Grassley, Richard
Burr, Tim Scott, John Boozman, Ron Johnson, Lindsey
Graham, James Lankford, James M. Inhofe, Dean Heller,
Rand Paul, Kelly Ayotte, Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn,
David Vitter, John Hoeven.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to
[[Page S146]]
proceed to S. 1, a bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Florida (Mr.
Rubio).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Cassidy) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden)
are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 32, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 3 Leg.]
YEAS--63
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Carper
Casey
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
King
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--32
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Warren
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--5
Brown
Cassidy
Reid
Rubio
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are
32.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
____________________