[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S184-S197]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Amendment No. 2
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I call up my amendment No.
2.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for herself, Mr.
Hoeven, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Risch, Mr. Lee, Mr. Flake, Mr.
Daines, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Portman,
Mr. Alexander, and Mrs. Capito, proposes an amendment
numbered 2.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be suspended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Keystone XL Pipeline
Approval Act''.
SEC. 2. KEYSTONE XL APPROVAL.
(a) In General.--TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. may
construct, connect, operate, and maintain the pipeline and
cross-border facilities described in the application filed on
May 4, 2012, by TransCanada Corporation to the Department of
State (including any subsequent revision to the pipeline
route within the State of Nebraska required or authorized by
the State of Nebraska).
(b) Environmental Impact Statement.--The Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Secretary of
State in January 2014, regarding the pipeline referred to in
subsection (a), and the environmental analysis, consultation,
and review described in that document (including appendices)
shall be considered to fully satisfy--
(1) all requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(2) any other provision of law that requires Federal agency
consultation or review (including the consultation or review
required under section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a))) with respect to the pipeline and
facilities referred to in subsection (a).
(c) Permits.--Any Federal permit or authorization issued
before the date of enactment of this Act for the pipeline and
cross-border facilities referred to in subsection (a) shall
remain in effect.
(d) Judicial Review.--Except for review in the Supreme
Court of the United States, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for
the review of an order or action of a Federal agency
regarding the pipeline and cross-border facilities described
in subsection (a), and the related facilities in the United
States, that are approved by this Act (including any order
granting a permit or right-of-way, or any other agency action
taken to construct or complete the project pursuant to
Federal law).
(e) Private Property Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act
alters any Federal, State, or local process or condition in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is necessary
to secure access from an owner of private property to
construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities described
in subsection (a).
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I am pleased we are at this point in
time
[[Page S185]]
when we can start debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline. We have had some
good conversation on this floor while we have worked through procedural
issues. I appreciate that we have been able to avoid a midnight vote,
that we were able to work out an agreement. I thank my colleague and
the ranking member, Senator Cantwell, for her assistance in getting us
to this point, where we, during the daylight hours, can begin debate on
amendments. These amendments, I think, are particularly timely and
particularly important to where we are today from an economic
perspective, from an energy perspective, and from an energy security
perspective.
Keystone XL fits in with that. In front of us is the first amendment
to the Keystone XL Pipeline, S. 1, and it is in the nature of a
committee substitute. What I will assure Members is that the substitute
we have in front of us is almost a mirror image of the bill we reported
from the energy committee just last week. We reported it on a
bipartisan basis. We had good discussion at that point in time.
But we have in front of us that substitute amendment. When we look to
the amendment itself, it is pretty simple. We are truly talking about a
two-page bill, a bill that is clear in content, a bill that is very
readable in terms of what it does and what it does not do. Again, it
spans just over two pages--pretty wide font, pretty wide margins. One
can read it in a couple of minutes--and better yet, understand it.
That is because the bill itself is very simple. What this measure
does is approve the cross-border permit that is needed to construct the
Keystone XL Pipeline. It does this with important provisions. It fully
protects private property rights. It requires all State and local
obligations be met, including those related to siting. There has been
some discussion that somehow or other the Senate is engaging in
routing, engaging in siting. This bill does not approve a pipeline
route. We are not a planning board. Our bill only approves the
pipeline's cross-border permit. It only does that because we have been
waiting for 6 years for this cross-border permit.
Some have suggested this is somehow some big giveaway. There is no
subsidy in this bill. It is not a giveaway. It does not evade any
regulations. It does not preempt any environmental study. It will not
cost taxpayers a single dollar. Again, I would encourage my colleagues
to look critically at the language of this bill. What this bill does is
authorize a cross-border permit.
There has been a lot of discussion about the jobs created and the
environmental pros and cons on both sides. We have had good, strong
debate already, just as we have moved through the procedural process of
this. But what I think is important for us as a body to appreciate is
the point we are at now, the point where we as Members can take this
simple, straightforward bill and offer amendments we believe would make
it better or enhance it.
As we go forward, I am encouraging Members on both sides to bring
their amendments forward. Let us have the give and take, the back and
forth for which the Senate was once so famous. I have been asked: How
are you going to handle amendments on the floor? Is it going to be a
situation where the majority determines what the minority will
introduce, what we will have an opportunity to debate and decide?
That is not how we are handling amendments on this bill. The majority
leader has promised a full debate. He has said: It is not unlimited. We
are not going to be on this for months, but we are going to give
Members an opportunity to speak to the issues of the day, the issues of
the day that are so important to our Nation's economy.
The Presiding Officer comes from an energy-producing State, as do I.
We know the significance of energy jobs that come to our States and our
local economy. We know the independence that comes when we are not
reliant on others, particularly others who wish us ill, for a resource
that powers our country.
We are seeing firsthand the benefits of good energy production
throughout the entire country. So why would we not want to allow for a
piece of beneficial infrastructure, a piece of infrastructure to cross
a border from our closest friend and ally in Canada, moving a product
to our refineries in the gulf coast where they are set up to handle
this type of crude oil.
There has been a lot of discussion that this is just going to be a
transference of oil from the north in Canada through the United States
and exported to the rest of the world. But I think if we look to the
facts that are laid out in the State Department's report, in their
environmental assessment, we appreciate the fact that it makes no sense
to use the United States just as a conduit, when our refineries, those
refineries that are designed to handle the heavy crude, will be in a
position to refine that crude for our benefit in this country, for
those in Canada who are looking to again move their product.
What we are effectively going to be able to do is replace what we are
currently receiving from Venezuela, which provides us with that heavy
crude currently, which we refine in the gulf coast areas--in those
refineries we will be able to replace that with oil from our friend and
ally, Canada. I do not know about the Presiding Officer, but I would
much rather have a relationship with Canada than Venezuela.
Again, the benefits, the merits of this legislation are very
substantive. Keep in mind, this is not a case of first impression. This
is not the first pipeline we have crossing the United States-Canadian
border. There are 19 cross-border pipelines currently operating today.
So as we work to develop not only a relationship around our energy, I
think it is important to recognize the relationship we have with our
friends to the north is important as well.
One of the issues we will see come forward for discussion on the
floor is the environmental aspects of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the
oil sands from which they stem. We will have an opportunity to discuss
the issue of exports and the significance of our energy exports, in
terms of the benefits to our economy, trade perspective, balance of
payments, the significance of that, and the opportunities we have in
other areas related to energy, energy efficiency.
I know my friend and colleague from Ohio wishes to speak to an
amendment he will propose today. But this is a long time in the making
for us to not only have the chance to talk energy but the opportunity
for us to vote on energy-related amendments.
I have much I wish to relay and convey in response to some of the
comments that have been made by colleagues on this floor in the past
couple days. We will have an opportunity to speak directly.
As was noted in the agreement, we will have this measure in front of
us. We will put some amendments forward this afternoon. We will not be
voting on any amendments today nor will we be voting on any amendments
on Friday, but we will have an opportunity for good, concerted
discussion on Friday and going into next week.
On behalf of the majority leader, I have been asked to announce that
the next rollcall vote will occur on Tuesday, January 20.
Amendment No. 2
But what that allows us is an opportunity again, beginning today,
beginning now, to encourage Members to come forward with their
amendments and based on the agreement we have outlined--two on the
Republican side today, two on the Democratic side today--get those out
there, get them on the table, get them up, let's talk about them. We
will have the opportunity on Friday and will do more of the same on
Tuesday. Then we can actually start moving through a process that I
hope is good, robust, and encouraging--encouraging, not only for the
American public--but also encouraging to members of this body.
I think it will be good for us in the Senate to get back to a habit
of advancing amendments, of allowing the floor managers to work
together to decide a process, to lay out initiatives, to have the back
and forth, to take some tough votes--it is what we do or what we should
do--and to get back to what we know to be regular order.
I want that to be a terminology all Members understand instead of
just some who have been around for more years than others. Being able
to get back to regular process feels pretty good today. I am pleased to
begin this debate under regular process.
With that, Senator Portman was on the floor as we began our unanimous
[[Page S186]]
consent request, but I understand we will defer to Senator Markey to
first bring up his amendment and then turn to Senator Portman for his.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 13 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. MARKEY. I seek recognition, pursuant to the consent agreement, to
call up amendment No. 13.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. MARKEY], for himself
and Ms. Baldwin, proposes an amendment numbered 13 to
amendment No. 2.
Mr. MARKEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that oil transported through the Keystone XL
pipeline into the United States is used to reduce United States
dependence on Middle Eastern oil)
At the end of section 2, add the following:
(f) Limitation.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), none of the
crude oil and bitumen transported into the United States by
the operation of the Keystone XL pipeline under the authority
provided by subsection (a), and none of the refined petroleum
fuel products originating from that crude oil or bitumen, may
be exported from the United States.
(2) Waivers authorized.--The President may waive the
limitation described in paragraph (1) if--
(A) the President determines that a waiver is in the
national interest because it--
(i) will not lead to an increase in domestic consumption of
crude oil or refined petroleum products obtained from
countries hostile to United States' interests or with
political and economic instability that compromises energy
supply security;
(ii) will not lead to higher costs to refiners who purchase
the crude oil than the refiners would pay for crude oil in
the absence of the waiver; and
(iii) will not lead to higher gasoline costs to consumers
than consumers would pay in the absence of the waiver;
(B) an exchange of crude oil or refined product provides
for no net loss of crude oil or refined product consumed
domestically; or
(C) a waiver is necessary under the Constitution, a law, or
an international agreement.
Mr. MARKEY. If I may speak briefly on the amendment, I thank the
chair of the energy committee. I thank her for her courtesy and the
Senator from Ohio as well.
While we will not be having the full debate at this time on the
Senate floor, we are in fact beginning with a critical issue, an issue
that relates to climate change, American energy independence, the
impact that legislation can have upon consumers--drivers in our country
in terms of how much they are paying at the pump.
It deals with actually the mission of young men and women in our
country who go overseas in order to protect tankers of oil that are
brought back to our country.
So the first question that will be asked in this debate is whether
the oil, which is going to be delivered through this pipeline from
Canada, is going to stay in the United States of America.
The Canadian tar sands oil is the dirtiest oil in the world.
The pipeline, similar to a straw, is going to be built through the
United States down to Port Arthur, TX, a tax-free export zone. You
don't have to have an MBA from business school to figure out what this
3-by-5 card looks like.
It is something that basically says, since the price of a barrel of
oil on the global market is $17 higher than what the Canadians can get
for the tar sands oil--that they want to get it out of the country,
which is why it is going to end in Port Arthur, TX, an export zone.
What the amendment I am going to be making on the floor of the Senate
says is that if the oil is drilled for in Canada, put through a
pipeline in the United States, that oil cannot be exported, that oil
stays in the United States, and that the promise of energy independence
in our country is in fact what this agenda is all about. Because
otherwise the United States is taking all of these environmental risks,
the planet is taking all of these environmental risks, but the economic
benefits are not flowing to consumers, drivers in the United States who
finally feel some relief at the pump--that they are not feeling--that
they are being tipped upside down and having money shaken out of their
pockets on a daily basis.
The oil companies have made many claims about this pipeline. They
have said it was for North American energy security, but it is about
exporting oil. They have said it is about reducing prices, but it is
about getting the highest profits. They said it would not harm the
environment but it in fact will worsen climate change and risk
dangerous oilspills.
They have been trying for 6 years to get this pipeline built, even
when it is clear that we do not need it. So this is the Keystone
``export'' pipeline--the KXL.
So this first amendment that we will be debating is one that says:
No, you cannot export it. We must keep that oil in the United States.
We must ensure that it is in fact something that benefits the American
people. Otherwise, the Canadians are just ripping this oil, this dirty
oil from their soil in Canada and putting it into a pipeline that then
will be exported, which will only ensure that the planet gets hotter,
that it becomes more dangerous for future generations.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very important debate. The planet is
running a fever. There are no emergency rooms for planets. We have to
engage in preventive care.
If this action takes place, and all we are doing is allowing Canadian
oil to go through our country and out the other end, then we haven't
done anything for the American consumer or for the planet.
I look forward to a more complete debate on this issue, and I yield
back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Amendment No. 3 to Amendment No. 2
(Purpose: To promote energy efficiency)
Mr. PORTMAN. I rise and call up amendment No. 3.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman], for himself and Mrs.
Shaheen, proposes an amendment numbered 3 to amendment No. 2.
Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Monday, January 12, 2015,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Murkowski for
giving me this opportunity. She spoke earlier about the fact that we
are going to talk about Keystone in an open process, going to allow
amendments, which seems very normal, but in the Senate it hasn't been
over the past several years.
This amendment is one that results to energy efficiency. I strongly
support the underlying bill, and we will talk about it in a moment, but
I also support the strategy of saying let's produce more energy, but
also let's use the energy that we have more efficiently. I believe
those are complementary, and I believe it is consistent with creating
more jobs in this country, making our businesses more competitive, and
improving the environment. So I appreciate her willingness to allow us
to move forward with this amendment.
This energy efficiency amendment we are talking about is a key part
of the ``all of the above'' energy strategy that a lot of us discuss,
whether it is nuclear, renewable, oil, coal or gas, efficiency ought to
be a part of it.
It is an amendment that is the result of a lot of years of work by
Senator Shaheen, who was mentioned earlier, myself but also Senator
Hoeven, Senator Ayotte, Senator Franken, and many other Members of this
body.
Our cosponsors this afternoon are Senator Shaheen, Senator Ayotte,
Senator Bennet, Senator Collins, Senator Gardner, and Senator Manchin.
This is legislation that is clearly bipartisan and legislation that
shouldn't be controversial. It takes part of the broader Portman-
Shaheen legislation that has already passed the House of
Representatives and brings it to the floor.
This is also legislation that has passed the committees in the Senate
and the committees in the House--energy committees--with wide
bipartisan margins. Also, it was on the floor of the House last year
and passed with a vote of 375 to 76, including with the support of the
Presiding Officer. I thank the Presiding Officer.
[[Page S187]]
There are four provisions and they are all pretty straightforward.
None of them has a mandate, none of them has a cost curve. The CBO, the
Congressional Budget Office, has told us they don't score. All of them
are voluntary.
The first one is an important one. It is called Tenant Star. It
establishes a voluntary market-driven approach to try and align the
interests of commercial business owners and their tenants. This is
important because a lot of the real estate folks would like to have the
ability to say this has the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. It is
like an Energy Star seal of approval that enables people to know it is
an energy-efficient building.
This is broadly supported in part because it is voluntary. It is not
a mandate, but it will help us in reducing energy consumption.
The second provision is one that is very timely. This is one that a
lot of us have worked on over the years. Senator Hoeven has talked
about this. We talk sometimes in the Senate about the unintended
consequences of regulations. This would be a great example.
Here we have the Department of Energy promoting a regulation that if
we don't stop it now will actually make our country less energy
efficient. It is unintended, perhaps, but it is something we need to
deal with legislatively now.
If we don't, then we are not going to be able to help save these
particular products, which are water heaters. Around the country there
are hundreds of electric cooperatives that operate voluntary programs
and use what we call electric resistance water heaters.
They use them to store energy at night, and then during a peak demand
period they don't have to turn on these electric water heaters. So it
is actually an energy efficiency effort.
It is the kind of grassroots, on-the-ground innovation we want to see
more of. But this regulation that we have to stop--from the Department
of Energy--establishes a new standard for water heaters that
effectively undermines this program. How? Because it makes it
impossible for these companies to produce these kinds of water heaters
that the co-ops are using. So the legislation exempts these water
heaters from business standards, allowing these co-op programs that are
good for energy efficiency to continue.
People probably heard from their rural electric co-op--if they are a
Member of this body--on this issue because it is important to them that
it be handled and handled now. If it is not, then these companies will
stop producing these water heaters and they will not be able to
continue these programs.
The third provision has to do with the Federal Government. Basically
it says the Federal Government ought to practice what it preaches.
The Federal Government talks a lot about energy efficiency. Yet it is
probably the biggest energy user in the world and probably one of the
most inefficient. This says simply that Federal agencies have to
coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget, with the
Department of Energy, and with the Environmental Protection Agency to
develop an implementation strategy that includes best practices,
measurements, and verifications for the maintenance, purchase, and use
of energy-efficient and energy-saving information and technology.
IT has been a source of great inefficiency in the government, and
this legislation simply says let's require these Federal agencies to
actually clean up their act so they will be more energy efficient in
the area of information technology.
Again, it is a nonpartisan approach. It is one that has been
supported by both sides of the aisle.
Finally, along the same lines, the fourth provision requires that
federally leased buildings without Energy Star labels benchmark and
disclose their energy usage data. Again, these are not Federal
buildings that have to report this information, but these are buildings
that the Federal Government leases.
So in effect all of us as taxpayers should have an interest in being
sure that these leased buildings also have the energy efficiency
provision to avoid wasting taxpayer money.
I think these are very important provisions. These are not
controversial provisions. I think they are consistent with the idea
that, yes, let's produce more energy. Let's make sure we have the
infrastructure to bring the energy to the consumer, but let's do it in
a way where we are using more energy but also using it more
efficiently.
I hope we will see the kind of strong bipartisan support on the floor
we have seen in the past on these provisions as they are part of this
underlying legislation.
I would like to talk for a moment about the underlying legislation.
This is the Keystone XL Pipeline construction. It seems as if we have
been talking about this forever. Frankly, we have. This has been going
on for almost 7 years now, I believe. Think about that. This is just to
get the approval of the pipeline--not to actually build it. Just to get
the approval it has taken 7 years. It is time to stop talking about it
and move forward on it.
The Keystone XL Pipeline has taken almost 7 years. In comparison, we
built the Hoover Dam in less than 5 years. The entire Empire State
Building was constructed in 1 year and 45 days. In fact, the entire
transcontinental railroad was constructed by hand in 6 years. So there
is no reason we shouldn't move ahead on this.
We have learned a thing or two about this Keystone XL Pipeline during
this period of time we have been debating it, and everything we have
learned leads us to the conclusion it just makes sense to move forward.
We know we can do it safely. We know we can do it in an environmentally
sound way. We know we can create thousands of good jobs during its
construction. Yet as we stand here today, with the Keystone XL Pipeline
a source of debate rather than a source of jobs, we are not moving the
country forward. I think we have waited long enough.
There has been debate before. I have heard it over the last couple of
days and last week. Is this going to create jobs? Yes, it will. The
State Department has said it will. The State Department is in the Obama
administration, and they are the ones who tell us it is going to
increase our economy by about $3 billion, increase the GDP of America,
and also create more than 40,000 jobs during its construction--both
through the actual building of the pipeline and through the sourcing of
pipeline projects to American manufacturers.
By the way, a bunch of those manufacturers are in my home State of
Ohio. Ohio produces pipe. Ohio produces the kind of steel--the
structural steel--that goes into the construction of the pipeline. Ohio
also produces the monitors that go on this pipeline. We also produce
other things, such as pumps and compressors. So this will create jobs
in my home State of Ohio. I have toured these factories and talked to
these workers. They are going to have the opportunity now to roll that
steel, build these compressors and so on, and for them this is
important too.
Some of the critics of the pipeline have attempted to undermine these
numbers by claiming the jobs related to the pipeline are not permanent.
I don't know what to say about that except are any construction jobs
permanent, by that definition? We certainly want construction jobs.
This administration--the Obama administration--talks all the time about
the need for more infrastructure projects to create more jobs. This is
an infrastructure project. By some measure it may be the biggest
infrastructure project in America over the next couple of years if we
approve this thing. It will create not just jobs but good jobs. This is
the kind of work we want to have more of in this country.
This is a why a lot of labor unions, including the building trades,
are excited about this, because they know it is going to be able to
lower unemployment and get the people back to work who have lost their
jobs.
Others have expressed environmental concerns. Let's look at the
facts. Let's look at the science. With every environmental study that
has been conducted, the pipeline has passed. In fact, we know the
pipeline is safer and more environmentally sound than the alternative.
What is the alternative? What is happening now--it is transporting this
oil by truck, transporting this oil by train. As we know, and as the
CRS report has said, a lot of this oil actually doesn't even come from
Canada. It comes from the Bakken. The Bakken is actually in America. It
is in North Dakota and in other places. So some of
[[Page S188]]
that oil is now being moved by truck and train. It is better that it go
by pipeline. It is more efficient, of course, and less costly, but it
is also safer environmentally.
Let's debate this issue. I am happy to do that, but let's try to
stick to the facts. The fact is this thing just makes sense. For those
who oppose it, I would ask: Why is it so different from all the other
pipelines we have constructed in this country? In all our States we
have pipelines. When we build this, it won't be the first pipeline to
carry oil across international boundaries, by the way. It won't be the
second or the third. It will actually be the 20th--the 20th pipeline to
carry energy across international boundaries. It will be the fourth one
to import oil--specifically oil from Canada.
Just to give some idea of how the permitting process of XL has been,
of the three other Canadian pipelines that have been approved, it took
the Federal Government 15 months on one, another was 24 months, and
another was 28 months. The permitting process for this one--the
Keystone XL--has now dragged on for over 76 months and counting.
So look, I have heard people on the floor say: What is the rush? Why
are we rushing this? I don't think we are rushing. I think this makes
sense. Just as we have approved other pipelines, we go through a
process, and now we should have the ability to move forward on these
jobs and the energy security that it provides.
By the way, when this debate is over, we also need to think about our
permitting system. To me, this is really an indictment of our entire
permitting system in this country. We need to do something about it,
where you simply can't get a project approved. And by the way, I am not
just talking oil and gas projects. I am talking about other energy
projects--solar projects. I am talking about siting windmills. I am
talking about hydro projects.
I first got involved in this issue because there was a hydro project
on the Ohio River, of all places, that was being held up by Federal
regulations. The folks who were trying to get this through came and
said: We can't believe how complicated it is to get a permit from the
Federal Government. As soon as we get one permit from one agency
another agency comes in. They require it be done sequentially, and it
is taking us forever, and we are losing investors. Those investors are
going not just across the Ohio River to another State, they are going
to another country because the Federal permitting system is so bad in
this country.
That is why I intend to introduce bipartisan legislation called the
Federal Permitting Improvement Act. Senator McCaskill of Missouri is my
cosponsor. We are hoping to bring that to the floor very soon too
because the American government shouldn't be standing in the way of
good projects, particularly these energy projects that are so
important. The American Government shouldn't be standing in the way of
good American jobs. That is exactly what is happening. We need to
streamline the approval process. It can be done and be done in a
bipartisan way.
So it comes down to this. We hear a lot about an ``all of the above''
energy strategy in the Senate. Everyone seems to be for it. It is a
position the American people support, by the way, overwhelmingly. I
have been to the floor many times to express my support for an energy
policy that includes everything from nuclear to oil, natural gas,
renewables, coal, and of course, increased energy efficiency, as we
talked about earlier. We will need all of those if we want to continue
to see energy prices fall and to continue to see our reliance on
dangerous and unstable parts of the world decline.
An ``all of the above'' energy strategy includes the Keystone
Pipeline and other projects like it. So if you want to say you support
all of the above, you better support Keystone. If you don't support the
pipeline, I think you have to explain to the American people why you
stood in the way of 40,000 good-paying jobs, why you opposed a project
that is more environmentally safe than the alternatives out there now,
and you need to explain why you opposed an ``all of the above'' energy
strategy that can keep prices low and help secure North American energy
independence. That also affects our national security. For us not to be
dependent on these volatile and dangerous parts of the world is good
for our national security. Let's stop sending the money to the Mideast.
Let us keep the money here in North America.
Let's stop the delay. Let's make construction of this pipeline a
reality. The American people are watching. We have all spent time in
our States over the last month. We have all heard over and over again
that the American people want us to work together. They want us to
cooperate where we can, particularly on issues that relate to jobs and
the economy and getting things moving in this country. I think this
current legislation can be a model for how the Senate can operate and a
sign that we have heard the message the voters sent in November.
This final bill will be the model, as I said earlier, of an open
process where people can come to the floor to debate, as I have today,
and not just on the underlying legislation but on the amendments on
energy efficiency. That is good. At the end of this process, it will
likely contain some policies that I fully support. And by the way, the
final bill will probably contain some policies I don't support, because
that is what happens when you have an open process. People will be able
to come out here, make their best argument, and people will vote yea or
nay, depending on how they feel it affects them, their States, and
their constituents. That is what is happening on the Senate floor, and
that is a good thing for our country and a good thing for getting to
the right policy.
When the amendment process is complete, I believe we will have
produced a bill that advances this goal of implementing a true ``all of
the above'' energy policy, while creating more jobs for the American
people and protecting our environment in better ways. That is what we
all want, and that is why this legislation is a win for all Americans.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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.
Paris Unity Rally
Mr. COATS. Madam President, throughout history a single picture has
revealed the political reality of the moment.
Before we had photography, there were artist depictions of Caesar
entering Rome, General Washington crossing the Delaware, and Napoleon
crossing the Alps. When photography came, we could see the images that
defined America's role in the pivotal moments of existential threats to
our values, our faiths, and our way of life: Roosevelt and Churchill
sitting beside Stalin in Tehran and later at Yalta, President Kennedy
at the city hall in Berlin, and Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate.
The pictures that define the moment, the pictures that are seared
into our minds, images that stay with us throughout our life are all
powerful, and they have the common theme and the common purpose of
confirming America's essential leadership role in global affairs.
In all of these examples and thousands of others, we can see the
world looking on Americans with respect and with the expectation that
we will be there at moments critical to the world's future--they are
there not just to participate but there to lead where U.S. leadership
is essential to the success of the endeavor.
Today, possibly the most powerful image that evokes most clearly a
new reality is this image right here. Here, we see many of the world's
leaders of major nations--some of the most significant, influential
leaders--walking arm-in-arm down a Paris boulevard as a united protest
against the grotesque barbarism that threatens us all. The leaders of
Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and even those who in other
circumstances are not united, are united arm-in-arm, marching in front
of literally millions of Europeans from France and other countries.
Yet something is tragically missing. The most profound significance
of this picture--which has been shown around the world and which has
been seared
[[Page S189]]
into our minds as a defining moment--is that America is nowhere to be
seen, looking at this picture, with the world's leaders, some
diametrically opposed ideologically to each other but united here. And
we are told that throughout the millions of people who were there, if
there was the presence of an American representative, that person was
not seen.
If the world needs any further demonstration of America's decline and
our growing irrelevance, it is this utter absence at this potentially
defining moment of rallying the nations of the world to address this
existential threat to the most basic of our values and our freedoms.
It is not just an image problem, although the image itself carries
the message, it is a substance problem.
This group of world leaders and millions of others joined together in
Paris last weekend to show the entire world that a threat to our
principal freedoms is entirely unacceptable to us all and will be
resisted by all of us, an unacceptable mortal threat to freedom of
expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of
the press.
My friend and former colleague Joe Lieberman wrote a piece in today's
Wall Street Journal that articulately defines this threat and how we
must respond. In his piece, he wrote:
In rapid order, the three attacks in France last week
showed more clearly than ever that the international movement
of violent Islamist extremism has declared war on Western
civilization's foundational values, which are embraced by so
many people throughout the world. The murders of police
officers, cartoonists and Jews were attacks against the
West's most central values and aspirations--the rule of law,
freedom of expression and freedom of religion. This radical
extremism will continue to threaten what we hold dear unless
it is fought and eventually defeated.
Millions gathered not only because 16 people died so tragically, they
also gathered because those who would pervert their faith in order to
lure deluded young people into violent extremism must know that we will
all oppose them no matter what it takes.
So how can we reconcile this vital mission with America's utter
absence? No excuses are sufficient. No apologies or explanations about
bureaucratic ineptitude will be enough to undo the damage caused by our
absence and depicted throughout the world.
Some may say the President didn't attend because of security
concerns. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan said,
``Life is a security concern, you must do what's right.''
Sadly, the President's absence is an accurate reflection of how this
administration sees our role in the world. During the past year we have
seen a long list of foreign policy disasters--the rise of the most
potent and violent terrorist organization in history; the continued
disintegration of Syria; American hostages beheaded in full public
view; a resurgent Taliban conducting more attacks in Afghanistan; and
the Government of Iraq losing control of a third of the country,
including cities and provinces soaked with the blood of American
troops. We have seen our old enemy Al Qaeda and its affiliates
metastasize throughout the Middle East and north Africa to mount
threats from Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and now even France. We have seen
the Islamic State mount media campaigns that have persuaded thousands
of Americans, Europeans, and others to flock to their black banners. We
have seen an ill-conceived and poorly prepared Middle East peace
initiative collapse under the weight of unattainable expectations.
All of these problems and many others--some colossal disasters--have
been aggravated by U.S. policy failures. Those failures have come from
a White House isolated in a wasteland of confusion. The Obama
administration has no coherent strategy for dealing with the world
other than, in a now famous paraphrase, ``Don't do stupid stuff.''
Shrouded in this fog of indecision and failures, is it any wonder that
we could not find the vision to join with the rest of the world to show
purpose in Paris?
It is deeply ironic and appropriate that the events in Paris were all
generated by the power of imagery--cartoons, no less. Those events have
now produced this new imagery, a picture of global common action in
which the United States is tragically absent.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we are awaiting the arrival of
Senator Franken to bring up the amendment relating to U.S.-made steel
that is part of the agreement we entered into just a little bit ago
that would allow for a series of amendments to be brought forward to
the floor. The first was my substitute amendment to S. 1; Senator
Markey has brought forward his amendment No. 13; Senator Portman, his
energy efficiency bill.
What I would like to advise Members is that these are the matters
pending before the body at this point in time. We certainly welcome
debate on these issues.
Obviously, energy efficiency is very key to any energy debate. The
aspect of export is one also that is worthy of discussion and, I hope,
good debate on both sides as we go forward.
I would encourage Members to speak not only to these issues, but if
there are other issues they would like to have brought to the floor--
while we won't be in a position to allow other Members to offer their
amendments at this time under this agreement, there is certainly plenty
of time to be talking about them.
Prior to the entry of the agreement, Senator Sanders came to the
floor and spoke about his intention to offer an amendment at a later
point in time.
I again invite Members to be engaged, to be part of this open
amendment process we are part of. I think for some it is new and it may
take a little bit of getting used to, but that is a good thing. It is a
good thing because these are areas that are worthy of debate on the
Senate floor. When we are talking about jobs, when we are talking about
our energy security, when we are talking about the strength of our
economy, it is always timely to have this debate.
I will again remind colleagues that our next opportunity to discuss
these issues will be Friday morning, when we will be in session to take
them up.
I look forward to more discussion from across the aisle.
Madam President, 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 17 to Amendment No. 2
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Franken, I call
up his amendment No. 17.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell] for Mr. Franken,
proposes an amendment numbered 17 to amendment No. 2.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To requie the use of iron, steel, and manufactured goods
produced in the United States in the construction of the Keystone XL
Pipeline and facilities)
After section 2, insert the following:
SEC. __. USE OF UNITED STATES IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED
GOODS.
(a) Limitation.--Subject to subsection (b), to the maximum
extent consistent with the obligations of the United States
under international trade agreements, none of the iron,
steel, or manufactured goods used in the construction of the
Keystone XL Pipeline and facilities approved by this Act may
be produced outside of the United States.
(b) Nonapplication.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
extent that the President finds that--
(1) iron, steel, and the applicable manufactured goods are
not produced in the United States in sufficient and
reasonably available quantities with a satisfactory quality;
or
(2) inclusion of iron, steel, or any manufactured good
produced in the United States will increase the cost of the
iron, steel, or any manufactured good used in the Pipeline
and facilities by more than 25 percent.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, we have made some progress with
proceeding to this very important issue and Members are obviously
coming to the floor to talk about their amendments and offer their
viewpoints on this legislation.
I would just point out that I hope we have a chance to consider some
of the
[[Page S190]]
other amendments we have been talking about, the issue of whether
companies in the tar sands business should be paying into the oilspill
liability trust fund. We talked earlier today about how the oilspill
liability trust fund which U.S. companies are required to pay into and
is critical for cleanup. I want to add some documents to the Record of
this case we had in Kalamazoo where the company may have hit its cap
and where it may--for that Kalamazoo spill on tar sands--be asking the
oilspill liability trust fund to actually recoup the benefits they had
to pay out.
To me this is a very important issue. Here is a company where we have
tar sands spilling into the Kalamazoo River and actually costing, I
think, something like $1.2 billion, and instead of this company paying
into the trust fund and paying for costs on this, they basically are
going to take money that U.S. companies paid into the trust fund and be
recouped because of this. So I just want to get this right, and I hope
we can work with our colleagues on another amendment on that process.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that
just appeared in the paper from the AP about how TransCanada is said to
offer landowners a price for their land in Nebraska at which point if
they don't come to an agreement by this Friday the company can use
eminent domain to take the land.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Associated Press, Jan. 13, 2015]
Attorney: Landowners Still Have Options in Pipeline Dispute
(By Grant Schulte)
Lincoln, NE (AP).--Nebraska opponents of the Keystone XL
oil pipeline will continue to fight the project, even though
the state's highest court allowed its planned route to stand,
an attorney for the group said Monday.
Omaha attorney Dave Domina said landowners on the route can
challenge the project again once pipeline developer
TransCanada uses eminent domain to get access to their
property. Once the company begins that process, Domina said
individual landowners can fight the company in court battles
that could take two to three years with appeals.
In addition, Domina said the landowners could file a new
legal challenge against the law itself, using landowners who
live directly on the route. Or they could lobby Nebraska
lawmakers to try to change the law. It's too early to know
which approach they'll choose, Domina said.
``This decision has simply been punted down the road, to be
answered another day,'' Domina said in an interview. ``It's
up to TransCanada to make the next move.''
The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday ruled against three
landowners who sought to overturn Nebraska's 2012 pipeline-
siting law, which they say violates the state constitution.
Not all of the plaintiffs owned property along the route, but
the group sought legal standing as Nebraska taxpayers
challenging an illegal use of state money to review the
project. TransCanada later reimbursed the state.
The Nebraska attorney general's office argued that, among
other things, that the landowners didn't have legal standing
to bring the case.
The high court ruled 4-3 that the plaintiffs had standing,
and four judges also deemed the law unconstitutional. The
remaining three declined to review the constitutional
arguments, arguing that the landowners lacked the legal
standing. A five-judge supermajority was needed to overturn
the law because it raised a constitutional question.
Pipelines are generally reviewed by the Nebraska Public
Service Commission, but the siting law allowed then-Gov. Dave
Heineman to approve it after a review by the state's
environmental department. Heineman, a Republican, supported
the pipeline, and the environmental department is a part of
the governor's administration. Public Service Commission
members are elected.
TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said offers to
landowners are set to expire on Friday, at which point the
company can begin eminent domain proceedings. Howard said the
company will continue to discuss deals with landowners who
are still negotiating in good faith. When warning letters
were sent in December, the company said it had voluntary
agreements from 84 percent of landowners along the route.
The $8 billion pipeline would carry oil from Canada through
Montana and South Dakota to Nebraska, where it would connect
with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of
crude oil a day to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.
Environmentalists and other opponents argue that any leaks
could contaminate water supplies, and that the project would
increase air pollution around refineries and harm wildlife.
But many Republicans, oil industry members and other backers
say that those fears are exaggerated and that the pipeline
would create jobs and ease American dependence on oil from
the Middle East. They note a U.S. State Department report
raised no major environmental objections.
Ms. CANTWELL. So while I think this is very interesting that Congress
is trying to expedite a process here by which the TransCanada pipeline
is approved and the Nebraska Supreme Court made a decision basically on
standing and had four of the seven justices say that this was
unconstitutional--what the legislature did in trying to take away the
public interest standard--this company is not waiting one second to say
that property owners who never got the public interest standard met are
going to get short-shrifted again and they are just going to go ahead.
So I don't see why Congress is trying to help a special interest hurry
and make a decision when they are not trying to give any landowner the
benefit of a process or give landowners the ability to negotiate. They
are just going to go ahead with eminent domain.
So it is a very interesting tale we are going to talk a lot more
about in the ensuing days about all the special attempts that
TransCanada has done to try move ahead with this pipeline without
following due process.
As I noted earlier this morning I found it very interesting that at
the very time the State Department was saying to TransCanada that their
current proposal goes through an aquifer and really should go somewhere
else, TransCanada was looking for support in Congress to go ahead and
approve the pipeline through the aquifer by saying the State Department
had to approve it. Clearly, here is somebody who just wants this
pipeline no matter what, no matter where, and is going to use every
attempt to not follow the rules. So we hope that we will have a very
healthy debate about why Congress shouldn't be entering into this kind
of special interest deal on behalf of this company.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Congratulating the North Dakota state University Bison On Winning The
2014 NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision Title Game
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to make a number of points in
regards to the Keystone XL pipeline approval bill, the legislation we
are currently considering. But before I do so, I am planning to submit
a resolution on behalf of the North Dakota State University Bison who
won their fourth national championship on Saturday against the Illinois
State Redbirds. It was a spirited and wonderful game in Frisco, Texas.
I know, Madam President, that you had a team that was in the hunt, so
to speak, and played a tremendous game in New Hampshire against the
Illinois State Redbirds. It is a testament to the quality of the teams
in the FCS championship, the Division I playoff series. Teams such as
the University of New Hampshire had a tremendous year of outstanding
coaching and great student athletes.
I watched the game between the Illinois State Redbirds and the
University of New Hampshire. It was a fantastic game that went right
down to the wire. It just speaks to the fact that there are excellent
teams in this division and tremendous athletes. A lot of teams had
great seasons. So I certainly want to begin by commending all the teams
that were in the playoffs, including our opponent in the championship
game, the Illinois State Redbirds. They did a great job.
But North Dakota State University, the coaches, everybody on staff,
the leadership of the North Dakota State University and these student
athletes had just a fantastic year. So I want to congratulate them.
Four years in a row is unprecedented. Nobody has won the national
championship in Division I football in their division in the playoffs
in history. So this was certainty a great achievement.
I am planning to submit the following resolution to honor the North
Dakota State Bison. It says:
Whereas, the North Dakota State University (referred to in
this preamble as
[[Page S191]]
``NDSU'') Bison won the 2014 National Collegiate Athletic
Association (referred to in this preamble as the ``NCAA'')
Division I Football Championship Subdivision title game in
Frisco, Texas, on January 10, 2015, in a hard fought victory
over the Illinois State Redbirds by a score of 29 to 27;
Whereas, NDSU has won 12 NCAA football championships;
Whereas, NDSU has now won four consecutive NCAA Football
Championships since 2011, an unprecedented achievement in
Football Championship Subdivision history;
Whereas, the NDSU Bison have displayed tremendous
resilience and skill over the past four seasons, with 58 wins
to only three losses, including a streak of 33 consecutive
winning games;
Whereas, Coach Chris Klieman and his staff, through their
dedication and talent, have continued the excellence of the
Bison football program;
Whereas, the leadership of President Dean Bresciani and
Athletic Director Matt Larsen has helped bring both academic
and athletic excellence to NDSU;
Whereas, an estimated 17,000 Bison fans attended the
Championship game--
Including myself--a fantastic game--
reflecting the tremendous spirit and dedication of the Bison
Nation that has helped propel the success of the team; and
Whereas, the 2014 NCAA Division I Football Championship
Subdivision title was a victory not only for the NDSU
football team, but also for the entire State of North Dakota:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1), congratulates the North Dakota State University
football team as the champion of the 2014 National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division I Football Championship
Subdivision title;
(2), commends the North Dakota State University players,
coaches, and staff for their hard work and dedication; and
(3), recognizes the students, alumni, and loyal fans for
supporting the Bison on the successful quest of the team to
capture another Division I trophy for North Dakota State
University.
I will be entering that resolution into the Record to honor and
recognize the team in a program that has done just an incredible job
this year. I know how hard those student athletes worked. It is a
privilege to honor them with this resolution and commend them on their
outstanding achievement this year winning their fourth consecutive
national championship.
Thank you, Madam President.
Now I would like to shift to the continued discussion of the Keystone
XL Pipeline approval legislation that is currently pending on the
floor. I am pleased to say that we have reached agreement now to
proceed to the bill. In fact, we will be voting on amendments--not this
week. But we can at least tee up amendments this week, and we will be
starting votes on these amendments beginning next week.
That has been the idea all along--first, to advance to this bill; it
is important energy infrastructure legislation--but also to have an
open process to return to what we have referred to as regular order on
the Senate floor in an effort to work truly in a more bipartisan way
and to get the work of the Senate done for the American people.
That is the idea with this energy legislation--to make sure we are
having the debate so we give everybody the opportunity to come forward
and to present their amendments. We will debate them. They can then get
a vote. For the amendments that can command 60 votes--it takes a
bipartisan vote to pass anything because neither party has 60 votes--it
requires bipartisanship. Any amendments that can garner 60 votes will
be added to the legislation, and I hope that fosters the best
legislation possible and enables us to get our work done on behalf of
the American people--not only on this bill but on other important
legislation to help move our country forward as well.
There are a number of arguments that have been made this afternoon by
some of the critics of the bill, and while greatly respecting their
right to come forward and present their opposition to the legislation
and any criticisms they feel they want to present, I also want to take
the opportunity to rebut a number of those. Of course, that is the
whole focus and effort here in terms of the debate--to have this debate
and hopefully convince people that what we have is good legislation. If
we can make it better with amendments, great, but at the end of the
day, we pass this legislation and get this project approved on behalf
of the American people.
It is about energy, it is about jobs, it is about economic growth,
and it is about national security. It is a great place to start in this
new Congress, where we are focused like a laser on growing our economy
and creating jobs for the hard-working taxpayers and people of our
country, for the middle class, for the folks out there working every
day. And for those not working and looking for a job, let's find ways
to make sure we get this economy going and that we get jobs for
them. This is a great example. This is the largest shovel-ready
project--at almost $8 billion--that we have, and it is ready to go. It
doesn't cost one single penny of government money. It is privately
financed, and it is all about creating the kind of business climate and
powering the kind of investment that will help grow our economy.
One of the discussion points I have been hearing is this whole issue
of, well, this somehow is just for Canada and not the United States or
that we are doing this for Canada. I will start with the premise that
our closest friend and ally in the world is Canada, so the idea of
working with Canada makes a lot of sense to me. They are our largest
trading partner. We work with them all the time. We have a unique and
wonderful relationship that very few countries have.
So to start with this criticism that this is just for Canada and not
for the United States, I am thinking: Yes, and it is a bad idea to work
with your friends, why? It seems to me that that is a good selling
point. If this is good for Canada, then great. I hope we are doing good
things for Canada, and I hope they are doing good things for us. That
is how friends and allies work together. The whole concept that somehow
this is a bad idea is lost on me. To me it seems as though it is a
positive when we can work together with Canada.
The fact is it is not just good for Canada--it is good for Canada,
but it is really good for the United States too, and that is the whole
point. In that line of argument that it is somehow good for Canada and
not good for the United States--the critics say it is good for Canada
because they produce oil up here in Alberta, and they are going to move
that oil down to our ports and they are going to export it. Well, that
is not the case.
Is it possible that some oil could be exported? Yes. But the reality
is a lot of this oil is coming to our country and will be used in our
country, and even more than that, it is not just Canadian oil. The
argument that this is somehow just Canadian oil and it is going to be
exported is wrong. It is wrong on both counts. I wish to take a minute
to rebut that because that argument has been brought up a number of
times.
As a matter of fact, I believe it is the focus of one of the first
amendments that has been offered by the good Senator from
Massachusetts. He wants to include a provision that says none of the
oil can be exported because it is all Canadian oil and it is all going
to be exported. Well, on both counts, that is wrong. Oil from North
Dakota and Montana, out of the Bakken formation--our State oil in North
Dakota produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day. We are second only to
the State of Texas. But because we don't have enough pipelines, we have
to move 700,000 barrels a day on rail.
We are trying to move agricultural goods. We are the leader of 14
different major agriculture commodities. We have all kinds of other
products that we produce, as do the States in our region, which
includes Minnesota, South Dakota, and Montana. But we have tremendous
congestion on our rails because we are putting more and more oil on
rail. We have 700,000 barrels a day going out on rail and growing as we
continue to grow our production in this part of the country. So we need
more pipelines.
What you see on this diagram is the original Keystone Pipeline that
was constructed and built when I was Governor of North Dakota, and this
yellow shows the sister pipeline we are trying to build.
As you can see, this goes right through our State, and the new
pipeline goes right next to our State. The whole point is we want to
put 100,000 barrels a day--at least for starters--of our light sweet
Bakkan crude in this pipeline.
It is not just moving Canadian oil, it is moving domestic oil as
well. It is moving U.S. oil. When you hear that it is just going to
move Canadian oil,
[[Page S192]]
that is already wrong. How about we stick to the facts? How about we
make sure we foster real understanding? How about we tell people what
is really going on here? It is not just Canadian oil, it is Canadian
and it is U.S. oil.
The whole point is this is the kind of infrastructure that helps us
achieve North American energy security. What do I mean by that? I mean
by the United States working with Canada, we can produce more energy
than we consume, and that is energy security. That means we don't have
to depend on importing it from OPEC, that means we don't have to depend
on importing it from Venezuela. When push comes to shove, we produce
more oil and energy than we consume. That is a national security issue.
When you drive up to the pump today to fill up your car, take a look
and check out the price at the pump. It is less than $2. It is about
half of what it was maybe a year ago, right? That equates to $100
billion to $125 billion in savings for American consumers. Why is that
happening? Is it that OPEC decided: Hey, let's give America a Christmas
present? Is it because Vladimir Putin decided: Hey, let's get some
energy over to America? Is it because Venezuela said: Hey, let's drop
the price at the pump in America? Why is that happening? The reason it
is happening is because we are producing so much more energy in our
country in places such as North Dakota and Texas and the Bakkan and in
the Eagle Ford. We are producing more natural gas in places such as the
Marcellus and Utica, and the shale across our country, and because we
are getting more oil from Canada because we have more supply, that is
bringing the price down. More supply puts downward pressure on prices.
Every consumer is benefiting at the pump. A 60-cent drop in the price
of gasoline translates from a $100 billion to $125 billion tax cut for
the people of our great country, for the small businesses, and for all
the industry sectors that rely on energy, and that is most of them,
right? That is the benefit we are creating by working together with
Canada to produce more energy. It truly is more energy, lower prices
for our energy, making us more competitive in a global economy, it is
jobs for our people, economic growth, and it is a national security
issue. It truly is a national security issue.
Back to the point it is all going to be exported. First, it is not
just Canadian oil. It is Canadian and U.S. oil, and I have gone through
that.
On the issue that it will be exported--they say, look, the pipeline
goes from Hardisty in Alberta all the way down to these ports--Port
Arthur. So that must mean it is all going to be exported. No. It is
going from where it was produced to where it is refined and consumed.
It comes from Hardisty, down to Steele City, and from there it can go
to Patoka, IL. Why? Because there are refineries there and pipeline
networks where it can go into the eastern part of the United States.
It also goes to Cushing, OK--a huge pipeline network that goes all
over the country, and it is based out of Cushing, OK, so it can go
almost anywhere.
The idea that building a pipeline is somehow an unusual or difficult
thing to do--well, let's take a look at all the pipelines we have
moving oil and gas around this country. The whole point is when you
bring that pipeline through, you can interface with all of these
networks so you can move it all over the country.
For somebody to look at this and say: Oh, gee, look, because it goes
from Hardisty down to here, it will all be exported. Come on, let's
tell people what is really going on. There is the pipeline. It can go
through many different routes and across the country. Don't just take
my word for it because I am an advocate for the pipeline. People say:
Well, he is pushing for the pipeline, and that is what he says. Fine.
Let's go to what the State Department and the Department of Energy say.
Let's go to the Obama administration's State Department and the
Department of Energy and see what they say.
Here in January of 2014, the State Department determined in its final
environmental impact statement--
[The export of the oil] appears unlikely to be economically
justified for any significant durable trade given transport
costs and market conditions.
That was in the final environmental impact statement, section
1.4.6.2. I will repeat that statement.
[The export of oil] appears unlikely to be economically
justified for any significant durable trade given transport
costs and market conditions.
So there we have the State Department and the environmental impact
statement saying they are going to use the oil in the United States.
How about the Department of Energy? In its report, the Department of
Energy determined that it does not make economic sense to ship the oil
to China. Furthermore, any export would need to obtain a Department of
Commerce license before it is exported. I am not saying that none of it
will be exported, I am saying that according to the State Department
and the Department of Energy, it will be used in this country, and
before it could be exported, you would have to have the Secretary of
Commerce say it is OK for some of that oil to be exported. The Obama
administration would have to approve exporting some of that crude
before it could be exported.
Furthermore, refiners that have contracts with TransCanada, which is
Valero, have publicly confirmed that the oil that will be shipped
through the Keystone XL Pipeline will be used for U.S. domestic needs.
The United States retains 99 percent of all crude within the country
and uses 97 percent of the gasoline refined in the country. A large
majority--over 90 percent--of transportation fuel refined in the United
States is for use in the United States.
Look, these are global markets. I am not saying that there is none
that would be exported, but my point is we are going to use this oil in
the United States, and if we don't build this pipeline, then one of two
things will happen--again, according to the environmental impact
statement that was done by the Obama administration.
If you can't build a pipeline, then it is going to have to be railed
into this country, the same way I got done telling you that we rail
700,000 barrels a day out of my State of North Dakota. We will have to
rail more of the domestic crude that I mentioned out of here,
continuing the congestion on the rails, and we will have 1,400 railcars
a day moving that oil because you can't move it on the pipeline. All of
those locomotives produce emissions, right? We will either have to have
1,400 cars a day railing it or you are not going to build the pipeline
and Canada is going to build pipelines to the west coast of Canada, and
then they will load it on tankers and take it to China, thereby
producing more greenhouse gas emissions, and refining the oil in
Chinese refineries with higher greenhouse gas emissions.
And, by the way, since we are not getting that oil, we will have to
bring more in from OPEC for us, right?
Under this scenario where they build the pipeline to the west coast
and send it to China, how much of it will come to us then? Then it is
all exported, isn't it?
This argument that some of it might get exported, then the converse
of that--or the result is to say, we don't want the pipeline because
some of it might get exported. So, in essence, we blocked it from
coming here, and so then it will all be exported and it all goes to
China. Wow. That makes sense? Let's see, because some of it might get
exported, then let's make sure we don't have the pipeline so make sure
it all gets exported, but we don't want it exported.
What am I missing here? Where is the common sense? When push comes to
shove and we are not in a situation like we are right now where prices
are low, when prices start going back up based on supply and demand and
all of those things, or when there is conflict in the world that
disrupts supplies, would we rather have control of that supply of oil
from Canada or would we rather make sure it all goes to China?
When push comes to shove and we need the energy, when prices are
high, or when there is volatility or conflict in the world, do we want
to make sure that all of those resources are going to China and then we
can go hat in hand and ask them for it, or would we rather have control
of it? That is why I wanted to take a few minutes to rebut the argument
that, oh, gee, it is all going to be exported rather than a more
commonsense view of, well, gee, some might be exported because it is a
global economy, but if it is, they have to get the Obama
administration's approval to do it.
[[Page S193]]
If you don't build the pipeline, you are either going to have it all
come by railcar or you are not going to have any of it, and 100 percent
of it will be exported because we would force all of it to go to China.
Under any of those scenarios, you are still producing the energy up
there, aren't you?
I will shift to the environmental argument. I will go back to this
chart. There is another argument I wish to rebut for a minute. The
argument is, oh, gee, all of this might be exported so we don't want
the pipeline because we are trying to prevent the oil sands from being
produced because of the environmental aspect of greenhouse gas.
As I just pointed out, even without the pipeline, the oil is still
going to be produced. Again, this is not me saying that. Go back to the
environmental impact statement. Go back to the science. Go back to the
report done not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but
five times by the Department of State and their environmental impact
statements--three draft statements, two final environmental impact
statements, five different studies. What they say is the oil is still
going to be produced so if we don't build the pipeline, our emissions
are going to be higher from greenhouse gases than if we build the
pipeline. Why is that? I went through some of that already. No. 1, we
will have it all moved through railcars, which produce more greenhouse
gases than a pipeline--1,400 rail cars a day. It will be shipped to
China, which will refine it in refineries that have higher emissions
than ours. And we are going to have to haul it in from other places
such as Venezuela. So we have greenhouse gas emissions from the ships
as well. So the reality is--and the environmental impact statements
show it--that we have lower greenhouse gas emissions with the pipeline
than we would without it.
As we have talked about on the floor many times, everybody is
entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own
facts. Those are the facts as laid out very clearly, as I say, in not
one or two environmental impact statements but in three draft
environmental impact statements and two final environmental impact
statements.
The other point I wish to make on the environmental aspect is that we
produce oil in California and we import oil from Venezuela that has
greenhouse gas emissions that are as high or higher than oil produced
in the Canadian oil sands.
Another point I wish to make is that Canada is working to reduce both
the greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental footprint of their
production in the oil sands. Since 1990, on a per barrel basis, in
Alberta, Canada, the producers of oil from the oil sands have reduced
the greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent--almost a third. So that is
a 28-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in oil sands oil
from 1990 to the present on a per barrel basis. So they have reduced it
by almost a third, and they are continuing to find ways through better
drilling techniques, through cogeneration, and through other efforts to
improve the environmental stewardship of what they are doing there.
That is the way it works. Rather than blocking investment in needed
infrastructure, rather than blocking investment in new technologies, we
need to encourage that investment because when we encourage that
investment in our country and work with Canada, we produce more energy
more cost-effectively with better environmental stewardship. When we
block it, we don't get that technology, we don't get the energy, and we
don't get the improvements in environmental stewardship.
That is the way we should be approaching this. We should be
encouraging the investment.
As I said before, not one penny of government money is expended on
the pipeline. We are simply allowing a project to go forward. Private
companies invested almost $8 billion in the largest shovel-ready
project we have after the project has been held up by the Federal
Government for more than 6 years--held up after every single State--all
six States--every single one of them has approved it. But here we are 6
years later and the Federal Government is saying to those States that
even though every single one of those States on the route has approved
it, even though they want it, even though all the States will realize
hundreds of millions of dollars in cash revenues and benefits not only
from construction but from property taxes and other sources of revenue
in building the project, and even though it won't cost the government
one single penny, the Federal Government said no. Even though we have
studied it for 6 years, that is not good enough. Even though in poll
after poll 65 percent of the American people want it built, even though
Americans want energy security here at home and in Canada, even though
a bipartisan majority in the House and in this Senate support it, the
President says: No, that is not good enough somehow. We would rather
keep importing oil from OPEC.
That has to be music to OPEC's ears. Oh, good, the Americans aren't
going to get serious and work with Canada and make sure they are energy
secure. They are going to keep getting oil from OPEC.
That has to be music to China's ears. They want it. They are trying
to buy these oil resources in Canada. They are not only trying to buy
the oil. They are trying to buy the resources in Canada. But last I
checked, we work for the American people, and the American people want
energy security.
So we have an absolute obligation to make sure that as we are talking
about this project, we are talking about the facts. We are not talking
about our opinions. I know we are striving for clarity and an
understanding of what is really going on.
When it comes to the environmental aspects and when it comes to
whether the energy is going to be exported or used here, when it comes
to the economic impact, when it comes to the job creation, and to all
of these different issues, let's debate them. If somebody has an
amendment we can add, let's debate that, too. It needs to get 60 votes.
But let's make sure we are fostering understanding of what is really
going on here so we talk about climate change and that type of issue
that is relative to this project. Let's make sure we are clear. Let's
make sure we are telling the people that this project will have no
significant environmental impact, according to the U.S. State
Department--the Obama administration's State Department. According to
the Obama U.S. State Department--the Obama administration--according to
their environmental impact statements, including three draft statements
and two final statements done over more than 6 years: no significant
environmental impact. Then when we talk about greenhouse gas emissions
and the oil that comes from the oil sands, let's be clear that this is
not just Canadian oil. It is also domestic oil from our country, from
States such as North Dakota and Montana. Let's also talk about how the
investment in new technologies is reducing the environmental footprint
and reducing the greenhouse gas for oil sands production. There has
been a reduction of 28 percent in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990
in the oil sands because of their investment in new technologies, in
better drilling techniques, as well as their efforts going forward.
I do believe we are going to have officials from Alberta and from
Canada coming during the next weeks to talk about what else they are
going to do to make additional improvements in terms of environmental
stewardship and the efforts they are undertaking to reduce further the
environmental footprint and the greenhouse gas impact of the energy
they are producing.
So with that, I wish to close. This really is an opportunity to work
with our good friend Canada on a project of great mutual benefit, and
that is energy security for North America and energy security for our
country as well as for Canada. I think this is a project Americans very
much want.
Again, I urge my colleagues to come forward to engage in this debate
and, at the end of the day, let's get this done for the American
people.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, this is my first speech to the Senate.
It is interesting because as a child I would read about how the
Senate was a great deliberative body. I would read of the debates in
which issues were discussed that changed the course of our country's
history. The key issue here is that it is a deliberative body.
[[Page S194]]
I was in the Senate energy committee the other day and one of the
opponents of this Keystone bill said we need to be guided by science. I
like that thought. We are not to be guided by our prejudice. We are not
to be guided by what we want to be the case. We are to be guided by the
facts, because just as when I was a kid and I would read about how this
great deliberative body would decide issues that would then decide our
country's future, this Keystone bill decides the future for many
issues.
With that said, let me also say that I just came over from the House
of Representatives and one of the nice things I had the privilege to do
was to enter a Keystone bill quite similar to this one, which passed.
In the course of that being introduced, debated, passed, et cetera, I
heard the arguments of those who were opposed to the Keystone bill, and
I have been able to think about them.
I am pleased to say I think there actually is common ground. If the
American people want the Senate to work together to come up with
solutions on a bipartisan basis, and if we are to be guided by science
and the facts and not by our prejudice, and if what we deliberate will
help determine the future of our country and the many families in our
country, I am pleased to say that we have common ground.
The opposition is concerned about climate change, increased carbon
emissions, the amount of oil that might be spilled, whether this
encourages the use of fossil fuels, and are the jobs being created
worth being created? We can address these factually, not by prejudice
but by using, actually, President Obama's own State Department
information. With that kind of source--it is President Obama's State
Department providing the answer to these questions. So let's go through
them.
First, the President's own State Department says that building the
pipeline will decrease carbon emissions, there will be less oil
spilled. By the way, it will not only create jobs, but it will also
save workers' lives. We are deliberating a bill here which, according
to President Obama's State Department, will save lives. That is truly
changing the future of somebody.
In detail, on page 34 of President Obama's State Department report,
it says that the pipeline would have no significant environmental
impact. It will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 28 to 42
percent relative to not building the pipeline at all.
President Obama's own State Department also acknowledges that these
oil sands are going to be developed whether we build the pipeline or
not. If they are not piped to the gulf coast of Louisiana and Texas to
be processed, they will be sent to overseas markets such as China,
creating Chinese jobs instead of American jobs.
I think it is also safe to say--we read about how in China people
can't see the blue sky. Their environmental standards are far more lax
than ours. If it goes to the gulf coast, I can tell my colleagues I
just came from Louisiana yesterday and I saw blue skies.
With all of our environmental standards, this will be processed in
such a way which is most environmentally friendly. If it goes to China,
there will be pollutants put out in the air which the jet stream will
blow over the United States. If we are to be guided by science and not
by prejudice, the science would say we should build the pipeline to
allow the oil sands to be processed in the United States.
I heard one person say that he would be for the pipeline if he was
sure the oil would not be exported. I don't quite know how to respond
to that because if we don't build the pipeline it will absolutely be
exported. It will be exported to China, and then quite likely we will
buy the refined products that the Chinese then produce. On the other
hand, again referencing President Obama's State Department, they have
said that if we pipe that oil to the gulf coast, our gulf coast
refineries are uniquely equipped to process that oil in an
environmentally safe way, and so it is unlikely that it will be
exported. I will add to that, according to the World Trade Organization
guidelines, if we accept an import from another country, we cannot not
export it should there be higher value.
But I return to what President Obama's State Department said, which
is that the gulf coast refineries' unique ability to refine this in an
environmentally sensitive way means that despite World Trade
Organization restrictions, it is unlikely that it will be exported.
There are other benefits as well. It is clear that it will diversify
our energy security. Instead of buying our oil from the Middle East or
from countries like Venezuela who don't care for us--in fact, use the
money we pay them in some cases to finance terrorism--it will come from
a trusted neighbor who will spend that money that we pay Canada for
this commodity back into the North American economy creating jobs
indirectly in the United States that otherwise would not be, which
leads us to the question, are these jobs worth having? In a word, the
answer is absolutely. Now, we all know that creating better jobs for
American families is what should be the Congress's priority.
For 6 years we have been talking about building the Keystone XL
Pipeline and we have, if you will, postponed the creation of these
jobs.
Let's just look at it. Refineries in my State of Louisiana and along
the gulf coast would benefit because it would be roughly 100,000
barrels a day of crude oil transported to us. In Louisiana up to 12
percent of that oil would end up in our refineries, more than $1
billion in revenue to our economy. It would create over 40,000
construction jobs over a 1-to-2 year period.
Some will oppose this and say these jobs only last for a week or two.
I was outside the energy committee hearing room and there were a couple
of fellows from trade unions who stopped me. They said, We need these
jobs.
I said, what about the argument of the other side that the jobs will
only last 2 weeks?
Those are the nature of our jobs. If you bring a master welder in, he
or she will do their job for 2 weeks and then move on to another. But
for our union members to get their union benefits, they have to work a
certain number of hours per quarter or per month--I forget the unit of
time--but this will allow them to meet that minimum requirement in
order to continue to receive their union benefits.
I can tell you the crafts unions think that these jobs are worth
having. These are well-paying jobs with good benefits. They are not the
service sector in which hours might have been reduced from 40 to 30
hours a week. These are great jobs and great benefits.
The American people want Washington to work together. As I mentioned
earlier, I introduced and passed Keystone legislation in the House of
Representatives. Keystone has become a symbol for North American energy
independence. Approving this pipeline is not the final step in this
independence but it is the next step. It is a good step.
The case for approving this pipeline and other energy infrastructure
projects is clear. I encourage my colleagues to join in approving the
Keystone XL Pipeline and putting this debate to rest because I truly
believe we have common ground, if we are to be guided by the science
and the facts and not by prejudice. We know from President Obama's
State Department that it reduces carbon emission, it will decrease the
amount of oil spilled, it has minimal effect upon the environment, it
will save the lives of the workers while strengthening our national
security and enhancing our energy independence and creating 40,000
American jobs. That is why more than 60 percent of Americans support
this bill. It is a jobs bill, a national security bill, and it is a
bill which should be passed.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I say to the distinguished Senator
from Louisiana, he indicated this was his maiden speech on the floor of
the Senate. If that is so, I urge him to make additional speeches. I
don't think I ever heard a more concise summary with regard to the
pipeline issue than he just gave. We can certainly see why the people
of Louisiana sent him here. It was perfect, it was cogent, and it was
short. It was interesting. He had a bill very similar to this and
Senator Cassidy passed it in the House and he is now in the Senate. We
hope that with enough debate we can have truly
[[Page S195]]
a bipartisan effort with comity. This is a new beginning. We are so
happy to have the Senator here. I thank him for his remarks.
Mr. CASSIDY. I thank the Senator from Kansas.
(The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 168
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. ROBERTS. 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. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are getting close to a time when we are
going to be able to see a reality here that we have been talking
about--the Keystone Pipeline--for a long period of time now. When I go
back to Oklahoma, people say: If you have something that no one is
against who does not have a particular institutional reason to be
against it--everyone is for it. When you see the jobs--no single thing
we have dealt with in the last 3 or 4 years that I can recall has
talked about 42,000 new jobs that otherwise are not going to be there,
good-paying jobs.
I admit that I am biased a little bit because being from Oklahoma--
Cushing, OK, is right in the center of the State. It is the hub of all
of the pipelines going through America. But I see that there is really
no logical reason--I heard someone on the floor just a few minutes ago
saying: All those dirty oil sands up in Alberta are going to be--there
is a great environmental risk from that. Yet they know full well that
if for some reason the people who are opposed to fossil fuel
altogether--such as President Obama--are successful, they are still
going to produce that stuff up there.
China is chomping at the bit right now because China has a great need
for the very ingredients in the pipeline that we do here in this
country. They already have talked about transportation to the western
part of Canada to get it to China. So it is going to happen. In fact,
you could argue, if you are concerned about some of the environmental
problems, if they do exist, they would be greater if China did it than
if we did it. For example, China does not have any emission controls on
all of the stuff that we are talking about the way we do in this
country.
I think there are some things that are factual. I think everyone is
aware of it. One is that President Obama has had a constant war on
fossil fuels since the time before he was even President of the United
States. When we look at what he has done and how he has committed--and
we have heard all of those quotes from when he was talking to the far-
left environmental groups, the Tom Steyers and others like him who have
put in the money to fight fossil fuels. He is one who is solidly
opposed and doing everything in his power to keep us from finishing the
pipeline.
Having said that--I will put the chart up on what happened just a
year ago in my State of Oklahoma. The only visit the President has made
to my State of Oklahoma was about a year ago--2 years ago. He came in
and was--in the background there, that is a picture of him in Cushing,
OK, and those are the barrels--this is what is taking place right now
in Cushing.
He was talking about--his quote there, as you can read:
I am directing my administration to make this project a
priority--
He was talking about the Keystone Pipeline--
to go ahead and to get it done.
Well, he made that statement and he came down to hold that meeting in
Cushing, OK, to try to make them believe he was actually for a
pipeline. He went on to say that he was going to make sure that he was
not going to do anything to keep the pipeline from going on further
south.
Now, let's get the picture here. You have Cushing, OK, which is right
in the middle of the United States, and the pipeline will continue to
go south to the Texas coast. Well, he said he was not going to do
anything to stop that. There is a good reason for this; that is, he
cannot. He does not have any jurisdiction. That did not cross an
international boundary. The borders--the international border that it
has crossed is in Canada. So that is the area where he is still to this
day doing all he can to keep that from being a reality. The southern
leg could be finished and he cannot do anything about that.
I mentioned Tom Steyer. I want to put up that chart so people know--
in case they have not been introduced. He is probably a very fine
person. He has a strong commitment to try to stop fossil fuels. He is
the one who made the statement back before the November elections that
he was going to raise $100 million--put in $50 million of his own money
and raise $50 million in addition to that--and put it in eight
campaigns--I think we know probably which campaigns they were--to see
whether he could resurrect the issue of global warming and whether he
could stop the pipeline.
Well, all that happened back then. I think it is important that
people understand that he was not able to--he was willing to put his
millions of dollars in, but he could not raise the 50. So instead of
that, he put $70 million of his money in the race. This is not me
talking; this is all--he is very proud of it. Frankly, I appreciate the
fact that he is not trying to hide what he is doing. I know he has some
political interests. I know he has a commitment to try to stop the
pipeline. I am not sure what that is based on other than just the
people to whom he caters.
But nonetheless he has a great deal of influence with this
administration. It was reported a couple of weeks ago that he had
visited the Obama White House 14 times--that is as of that time--which
led a member of the watchdog group Public Citizen to say, ``Tom Steyer
has not just got the ear of the President, but he clearly has the
President's attention.'' Again, that is this watchdog committee making
that statement.
So we are looking at it now. We know that the White House meetings
were often with President Obama's counselor and chief environmental
advisor, John Podesta. We remember John Podesta from the Clinton
administration. He has been a lobbyist now for quite some time. He is
very actively involved in this issue. Reports have also surfaced that
Steyer and Podesta met with billionaire liberal activist George Soros
just days after Steyer made his commitment.
Anyway, that is behind us now. That affected the election, there is
no question about that; however, they still lost. If I am guessing
right on the races he was involved in, there is not one of those who
won. Republicans took over 10 seats. That was quite a good year. So
maybe he wasted several million dollars. But when we looked at it and
if you think about what he has done to fossil fuels, that has been his
war.
Twice today already I have heard people on the floor saying: Well,
look at the success the oil industry has had under the Obama
administration. Well, I have to suggest that it has been in spite of
the Obama administration. The proof is very easy. The revolution that
is going on right now within the oil industry is one that has been very
successful. On private land and on State land, the amount of production
since Obama has been in office has actually increased by 61 percent.
That is incredible.
They say: Well, you must be really pro oil and gas because of that.
In reality, all of that, 100 percent of that 61-percent increase has
been on State and private land. On public land, the Federal land that
he has control over, there has not be an increase of 61 percent or even
6 percent. As a matter of fact, there has been a reduction of 6
percent.
So that is going on and it is all a part of this war that is taking
place right now. I am very anxious to see how these votes turn out. I
know that people, when they realize the number of jobs that are there,
I get very excited about it, and I can't help but think we are going to
be successful.
I wish to mention though--I wasn't going to--a person whom I consider
to be a very good friend is on the floor, and we have philosophically
disagreed with each other about as much as any two people can; that is,
the Senator from Vermont.
He is sincere. He believes what he says. Yet some of the things he
says I believe are wrong, but he believes
[[Page S196]]
them. I don't want to question whether he is telling what he believes
is the truth--and others too.
Another good friend of mine is the Senator from California, Mrs.
Boxer. Frankly, I will miss her in the Senate. I understand she has
announced her retirement.
But nonetheless, on the issue they are talking about on global
warming, I listen and I think: Where do they come up with this stuff?
Because we know for a fact that many of the things that they talk
about are not true. We keep hearing that 97 percent of the scientists
are saying they believe CO2 is the cause of the catastrophic
climate change, the world is coming to an end, and we are all going to
die.
This goes back to about 2002 when this became an issue. I will
remember this for a long time because that was when the first bills
were introduced. At that time everybody thought global warming was
true. They were all going to try to do what they could to stop it.
Frankly, at the very first I thought it must be true--that is what
everybody said--until they did a study at the Wharton School. Some of
their scientists, along with MIT, Charles Rivers and Associates, and
others said what the cost would be. Because everybody was talking about
the world coming to an end and they asked: But what is cost going to
be?
They all agreed on a range, and that range has not been refuted by
anyone. The range is between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. I
immediately went back to see. Whenever I hear a big number, I go back
to Oklahoma and I count the number of people, families who file a
Federal income tax return and then I do my math.
That would cost the average person and family in Oklahoma $3,000. So
we think: All right. Are we sure we are going to get something for the
$3,000?
I will share with you--because a lot of people have forgotten this--
that Lisa Jackson was the first Administrator of the EPA who was
appointed by President Obama. I asked her on the record, live on TV, in
our committee, I said: Now let's assume we passed some of this
legislation that puts in cap and trade or do it even by regulation. Is
this going to stop CO2 emissions or lower CO2
emissions worldwide?
She said: No.
These are her words, not mine. She said: The reason is the problem
isn't here in the United States, the problem is in China, it is in
India, it is in Mexico, and it is in other places.
So in the event they were able to do that, then this would not lower
it. In fact, we could use the same argument and say if we passed a cap
and trade and did something--as they are talking about doing and we
have heard on the floor today--then it would have the effect of not
reducing but increasing CO2 emissions, and this is why.
As we chase our manufacturing base overseas where they have to
somehow find someplace where they can generate electricity, it will be
in countries such as China and India where they don't have any of the
restrictions in emissions.
So even if someone is a believer that the world is coming to an end,
that global warming is going to kill everybody and it is all due to
man-made gas, if they truly believe that still, even in spite of that,
it is not going to reduce worldwide emissions. I guess that is what
they want to do, so we hear about the consensus.
I remember at that time I made a speech on this floor questioning the
science. I said: I assume there are scientists out there who are not a
part of the IPCC--that is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change--and that those scientists know better. They know what the
reality is.
I started getting phone calls. I got phone calls from scientists. On
this chart are recognized scientists. There are 58.
Richard Lindzen, I see his picture. He is a scientist at MIT. I think
we could argue he would be in contention with the very best informed
scientists.
Richard Lindzen said:
Controlling Carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control
carbon, you control life.
Is that real, these people, or what? I remember how upset he was with
Al Gore. Richard Lindzen made the statement again--this is him, not me,
Richard Lindzen of MIT:
To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough. To
do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.
Now we have so many things that have happened. Just the other day--it
wasn't long ago, I don't have the exact date--one of the universities
did a survey of all the weathercasters, and they came back that 63
percent of weathercasters believe any global warming that is occurring
is the result of natural variation and not human activities.
To say ``97 percent of scientists'' is just not true, but if you want
to believe it badly enough you will. So we have a lot of information.
Nature journal, which is a well-respected journal, in their 2013
paper said that ``there is considerable uncertainty as to whether
[increases in extreme climate variability] is occurring.
Munich Reinsurance Company said: ``Global weather related disaster
losses have declined by 25% as a proportion of GDP.''
We have all these statements.
The IPCC, they are the ones that are always being quoted, and it is a
branch of the United Nations. That is where all this started and
certainly it would enure to their benefit to have people believe that
we have to look at some international organization such as the United
Nations to protect us from all these droughts and all these things that
they say are going to happen.
We had another little thing happen recently. I only mention this
because nobody has yet on the floor. I think everyone used to believe
that everyone was already aware of it, but remember Climategate?
Climategate was when they were having one of the big United Nations
parties. It was going to be in Copenhagen. I remember a lot of our
people went over there to tell the 191 countries that were
participating that the United States was going to pass cap and trade,
they were going to do all of these things.
I went over at the very end of it, made my little talk, and assured
them that in spite of the fact that President Obama had been there,
Secretary Clinton at the time had been there and now-Secretary Kerry
and all the rest of them--to say we are not going to be doing it in the
United States of America. If anybody believes what they said, that we
are going to pass cap and trade, we are not going to do it. They had
tried it already. There were 35 Members--and at that time it was a much
more liberal Senate than we have today--only 35 would actually vote for
something like that.
Incidentally, it was at that time when Climategate came up.
Climategate was when they analyzed some of the things IPCC had said,
and they had all these quotes and emails that totally debunked the
credibility of IPCC. Still today they are talking about it.
To give us an idea, Christopher Booker, with the UK Telegraph, said:
``Worst scientific scandal of our generation.''
That scandal he is talking about is to try to have them make people
believe climate change is going to destroy the world.
Clive Crook of the Financial Times said:
The closed mindedness of these supposed men of science . .
. is surprising, even to me. The stink of intellectual
corruption is overpowering.
Again we are talking about Climategate. Nobody talks about it any
more, but still this is a fact.
A prominent physicist from the IPCC, who is no longer there, said:
``Climategate was a fraud on a scale I've never seen,'' talking about
how they are rigging the information to try to cook the science.
So we have all of these--this is Newsweek. It said: ``Once celebrated
climate researchers feeling like the used car salesman.''
``Some of the IPCC's most quoted data and recommendations were taken
straight out of unchecked activist brochures. . . . ''
So these are the things that are going on, and I hope the people, as
we develop this right now--we should be concentrating on the vote that
is going to be coming up having to do with the pipeline. But as the
committee of jurisdiction is looking at this, I can assure you we are
going to be having hearings.
One hearing we are going to have is to get some of the best
scientists
[[Page S197]]
around to evaluate and to see what the truth is on the global warming
issue.
But in the meantime let's go back to the pipeline. I can't think of
any argument against it that is overwhelming, and the mere fact that
people say they don't like the Alberta sands or the production, it
doesn't mean we in the United States of America are going to stop them
from doing it because they will just do it and ship it to China.
So we have a huge issue we are concerned with. I can't think of
anything I have seen in the past 4 or 5 years that is going to be
producing more jobs in America than this issue.
With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________