[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 8 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S221-S235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.


[[Page S222]]


  Pending:

       Murkowski amendment No. 2, in the nature of a substitute.
       Markey/Baldwin amendment No. 13 (to amendment No. 2), to 
     ensure that oil transported through the Keystone XL Pipeline 
     into the United States is used to reduce U.S. dependence on 
     Middle Eastern oil.
       Portman/Shaheen amendment No. 3 (to amendment No. 2), to 
     promote energy efficiency.
       Cantwell (for Franken) amendment No. 17 (to amendment No. 
     2), to require the use of iron, steel, and manufactured goods 
     produced in the United States in the construction of the 
     Keystone XL Pipeline and facilities.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to an 
amendment offered by Senator McCain pertaining to the Merchant Marine 
Act of 1920, popularly referred to as the Jones Act.
  I will, of course, start by saying that the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Senator McCain, has a distinguished record of 
support for our men and women in the military and cares deeply about 
our national security, but on this amendment I respectfully disagree 
with our chairman.
  I wish to take a few minutes this morning to remind my colleagues why 
the Jones Act is an essential component of our national security policy 
and shipbuilding is a foundational component of American manufacturing.
  The Jones Act requires that our maritime vessels engaged in shipping 
goods between U.S. ports must meet three requirements: They must be 
built in the United States, at least 75-percent owned by U.S. citizens, 
and operated by U.S. citizens. The Jones Act helps to shore up our 
national security by providing reliable sealift in times of war. It 
ensures our ongoing viability as an ocean power by protecting American 
shipbuilders. As a result, the Jones Act provides solid, well-paying 
jobs for nearly half a million Americans from Virginia to Hawaii.
  In short, the Jones Act promotes national security and American job 
creation. Therefore, I am unclear why some of my colleagues are opposed 
to this commonsense law. I don't say this simply as a Member from an 
island State where we depend on the reliability offered by American 
shippers for fresh food, energy, and other everyday goods, but I say 
this as a Senator who cares deeply about supporting our strong and 
growing middle class and creating American jobs.
  First, shipbuilding is a major job-creating industry. According to 
the Maritime Administration, there were 107,000 people directly 
employed by roughly 300 shipyards across 26 States in 2013. 
Additionally, shipyards indirectly employed nearly 400,000 people 
across the country. This amendment would specifically knock out the 
Jones Act provision that requires that U.S.-flagged ships be built in 
the United States, jeopardizing good-paying, middle-class jobs. To me, 
that is reason enough to oppose this amendment.
  Secondly, this is not the time to create the instability this 
amendment would directly cause. After struggling through tough times, 
America's shipbuilding industry is coming back. Both this Congress and 
the administration have long stressed the need for creating and keeping 
manufacturing jobs here at home in the United States. According to the 
Navy League, there are 15 tanker ships being built here in the United 
States right now and slated to join our U.S. flag fleet. These ships 
don't create quick-turnaround jobs but hundreds of thousands of well-
paying, long-term manufacturing jobs. If these ships are not built here 
in U.S. shipyards by U.S. workers, where will they be built? Where will 
these jobs go? China? Other Asian countries? Europe? The shipbuilding 
industry in our country is rebounding.
  Repealing the Jones Act is a step in the wrong direction. Instead of 
dismantling a policy that supports American jobs, Congress should be 
focused on doing more to promote and grow American jobs and American 
manufacturing.
  Repealing the Jones Act's requirement to build ships here in the 
United States will unquestionably cost U.S. jobs and weaken our 
position as a manufacturing leader. Those are two strikes against the 
amendment.
  The third and final strike is the fact that the amendment would 
undermine our national homeland security. The Jones Act's 
requirements--along with American shipbuilding and the maritime 
industries they underpin--provide American-built ships and crews for 
use by the Department of Defense in times of need. It is easy to see 
why the Navy and Coast Guard strongly oppose repeal of the Jones Act 
and all of its components.
  The Defense Department has concluded:

       We believe that the ability of the nation to build and 
     maintain a U.S. flag fleet is in the national interest, and 
     we also believe it is in the interest of the DOD for U.S. 
     shipbuilders to maintain a construction capability for 
     commercial vessels.

  Therefore, there are three strikes against this amendment.
  If adopted, the amendment would dismantle the Jones Act, costing 
American jobs, hurting American manufacturing, and undermining our 
national security. I ask my colleagues to stand with me--and I 
certainly ask the chair of the Armed Services Committee to change his 
mind on this amendment--and nearly half a million middle-class 
Americans and vote against this amendment if it is brought up for a 
vote.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I know my colleagues are coming to the 
floor to talk about various amendments. It is likely that on Tuesday we 
will start voting on at least the pending amendments we have discussed 
so far. I come to the floor today to talk about the proposal by 
TransCanada Corporation and about the fact that, obviously, there are 
some here who want to give an expedited approval to that and usurp the 
President, who needs to review this project in detail to make sure we 
understand the interests of various people, property owners, and people 
affected by the pipeline.
  One particular issue in this debate is why Congress should be 
hurrying to give a special interest permitting go-ahead while the 
President still has issues to address and as do the local communities. 
I know many of my colleagues are going to come to the floor to talk 
about those special interest concerns, as well as the issues of energy 
efficiency, property rights, climate change, and a whole host of 
priorities. But I am here today to talk about an issue I think is 
particularly important, which is the fact that tar sands has a loophole 
and doesn't pay into the oilspill liability trust fund.
  Both of my colleagues, Senator Markey and Senator Wyden, are going to 
be putting forward amendments to close this loophole. As a country we 
have made sure the taxpayers aren't stuck with the tab of cleaning up 
oil spills. The principle behind that is to keep our waters safe and to 
keep our communities from paying the cost of this pollution. It means 
really to have commonsense laws on the books providing that polluters 
pay for cleanup. So that is the principle that drives the oilspill 
liability trust fund. It is something we have had in place for a while.
  Basically, what the oilspill liability trust fund means is simply 
that American taxpayers won't be left holding the bag for the 
responsibility of spills that happen. We currently in law have a 
loophole that means that companies that produce the tar sands don't 
have to pay into the trust fund. That is because they are considered as 
synthetic petroleum. So just by the definition, they basically have had 
a loophole. It is important to me, as the United States considers 
whether a pipeline should be built across our country that would 
include these tar sands, which is very thick and heavy material and it 
is often diluted with lighter oil so it can be easier to handle. But 
when the spills happen, and it spills in water as we saw with the 
Kalamazoo spill, it leaves a thicker oil behind that usually sinks to 
the bottom of the water. That makes it hugely expensive to clean up and 
really almost nearly impossible to clean up.
  These concerns are driving us to make sure that as the United States 
and Canada continue to look at tar sands production, we are getting the 
technology in place to deal with this and to get the job done and to 
make sure that those who are liable for those

[[Page S223]]

kinds of spills are actually paying into a fund that would help clean 
up the mess.
  That is why it is so important that the Senate take up action on one 
of these amendments, so that we will be paying into the oilspill 
liability trust fund for any pipeline that is carrying this crude 
material.
  I want to go back to why this trust fund was created and why it was 
so important. The oilspill liability trust fund was created in 1986 as 
part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act. 
This bill was signed by President Reagan, but it took 4 more years and 
a major disaster before the country actually funded the oilspill 
liability trust fund, and that disaster was Exxon Valdez. My colleague 
from Alaska will be on the floor later today, and I am sure she could 
talk a lot about this issue as well. I had many conversations with the 
late Senator Ted Stevens about this issue, and there were various times 
when we increased payments into the oilspill liability trust fund. When 
one comes from the State of Washington and Pacific waters and when one 
comes from Alaska, how we clean up these oil spills is incredibly 
important to our economies.
  What happened in 1989 is that an oil tanker hit a reef and ended up 
spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil. It didn't take long for those 
pristine waters of Prince William Sound in Alaska to be impacted. So 
the impacts of the Exxon Valdez disaster were devastating not just to 
Prince William Sound but to the entire Pacific Northwest, and the total 
cost of that cleanup was $2.5 billion.
  Ten years ago, a Federal judge ordered Exxon to pay $6.7 billion to 
thousands of Alaskans affected by that oil spill. Fishermen in the 
Northwest lost more than $300 million as a result of that oil spill. At 
the time, the livelihood of individuals was impacted and, obviously, 
the wildlife was impacted. It killed sea otters, harbor seals, and 
approximately 250,000 birds. The images of all this wildlife are seared 
into our memories even 25 years after the spill.

  When the gulf spill just recently happened, we revisited a lot of 
those issues because we wanted to make sure we were getting things 
right. It was very interesting to see the environmental effects years 
later and some of the things that still had not recuperated from the 
oil spill in Prince William Sound.
  In 1990 Congress passed the Oil Spill Pollution Act, and it was 
signed into law by President Bush. It added sweeping improvements to 
the oil spill response and held parties responsible. It established the 
mechanism actually to invest in the oilspill liability trust fund. 
Specifically, the bill said: Let's have a per-barrel tax to raise the 
revenue for the fund. So today that is an 8 cents per-barrel tax on oil 
products.
  As I mentioned, this was signed into law by President Bush, who 
specifically praised the funding of the oilspill liability trust fund. 
He said that ``the prevention, response, liability, and compensation 
components fit together into a compatible and workable system that 
strengthens the protection of our environment.''
  The reason I am bringing that up is because if the oilspill liability 
trust fund was good enough for oil products promoted by a Republican 
President, then it ought to be good enough for us in Congress to add 
tar sands. That literally was just not thought of under the current 
definition because of the way the definition was written. Because it is 
a synthetic fuel, they have a loophole. It is a question whether we are 
going to close this loophole or whether we are going to let them pay 
zero into the trust fund.
  The fund is used to pay for immediate cleanup costs and spills in 
navigable waters. This is a very important point. Some people would 
say: Well, aren't people just liable for their own mess, and why don't 
they just clean it up?
  I can tell you that in trying to protect Puget Sound and trying to 
clean up the waters off the coast of Washington, you might think it 
would be easy to figure out where the oil came from. It is not. When 
you have a busy waterway like Puget Sound, and all of a sudden somebody 
sights an oil slick or oil product in the water, they don't know how 
serious it is. It takes months and months, sometimes years, to figure 
out where the pollution came from.
  Yes, in the case of Exxon Valdez we had a ship that hit a reef and 
caused a problem. But in many cases, sometimes you don't know where the 
spill is coming from. A lot of people will say: Well, it wasn't us. Or 
they start this process. An oil spill needs an immediate response, and 
that is why we established the oilspill liability trust fund--to have 
an immediate response so that we are not sitting around waiting for 
weeks and months to figure out who did the oil spill, and so somebody 
can start the process immediately and work with the Coast Guard to 
actually clean it up.
  You would think this doesn't happen that frequently, but it happens a 
lot more frequently than people realize. That is why an immediate fund 
is important, and that is why everybody who is producing oil should pay 
into it. Yet there is a loophole in the law, so the per-barrel tax 
doesn't apply to tar sands.
  In 2011 the IRS issued a ruling stating that the tar sands imported 
into the United States were not subject to the excise tax on petroleum. 
The ruling was actually based on a 1980 House Ways and Means Committee 
report that crude oil does not include tar sands. As I said earlier, it 
is considered synthetic. Therefore, according to the IRS, it is not 
subject to the tax.
  We should simply clean this up and have those responsible for their 
mess also be responsible for paying in to clean it up. When the 
oilspill liability trust fund was established, it was intended to be a 
mechanism for all oil spills--not the definition of oil as a product.
  Congress should fix this next week when we vote on this legislation 
and figure out exactly how to make sure the Commandant of the Coast 
Guard would have the tools to deal with this.
  I, too, have concerns about the fact that we don't really have the 
tools yet to accurately clean up tar sands. When the Commandant of the 
Coast Guard was before a commerce hearing just a year ago--because I 
have a great deal of concern about the moving of this product on a 
variety of transportation means--I asked him about tar sands because 
the last thing we want to see is product out on our waterways. He said: 
Our technology is not as sophisticated when you have tar sands. They 
are heavier, they sink into the water, into the ocean bottom, so it is 
a challenge for us. Once it settles on the sea floor, our technology is 
lacking in that regard.
  Basically, I am finding that some of the dirtiest oil out there does 
not pay into the oilspill trust fund, and we don't even have the 
mechanisms for cleaning up. Unfortunately, we learned that lesson very 
hard in the 2010 Enbridge pipeline, which was owned by another Canadian 
company, along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. It ruptured, and it 
spilled 1 million gallons of tar sands into the river.
  This is a picture of that cleanup and the process, which was $1.2 
billion that was spent. So for those of you who don't know Kalamazoo, 
it was an incredible economic, environmental, and historic issue for 
the people of Michigan. The river was closed for business for 18 months 
after that spill. More than 35 miles of the river had to be off limits 
because it was difficult to clean up.
  Today, 4 years later, they are still impacted. As I said, the cost 
was $1.2 billion because they had to dredge the bottom of the river. So 
any oil spill of that magnitude is damaging. Yet, when we look at this 
issue, the fact that these tar sands were sinking to the bottom made 
that dredging even more serious.
  It is the reason why we need to make sure these tar sands are taxed 
just as any other oil that is produced in the United States and pays 
into this trust fund. A Cornell University study found that ``this 
spill affected the health of hundreds of residents, displaced 
residents, hurt businesses, and caused a loss of jobs'' in Kalamazoo. 
This study is located online at: https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/sites/
ilr.cornell.edu/files/GLI_Impact-of-Tar-Sands-Pipeline-Spills.pdf.
  I think it is just the start of what the challenges will be for us 
when we allow this kind of tar sands development to move through the 
United States. Our spill responders are very skilled. First, they know 
we need to do everything we

[[Page S224]]

can to prevent spills, to begin with. They are developing technologies 
to respond to the case of an emergency. They are doing everything they 
can to use this trust fund.
  So we need to make sure we are having those who are producing this 
product pay into the trust fund. We need to make sure we are closing 
this loophole. So my colleagues--as I said, Senator Wyden and Markey--
have been working on this issue for some time. Senator Wyden, the 
ranking member on the Finance Committee, I know he feels very strongly 
they should be paying into the oil spill liability trust fund and 
paying their fair share of revenue. I know Senator Markey has worked on 
this issue in the House of Representatives before coming to the Senate.
  So we need to make sure people understand that dredging is not good 
enough, that our country needs a plan, that we need not just to rush 
through this pipeline and basically to think that we have all of the 
technology, all of the methods, all of the appropriate emergency funds 
to clean this up. We need to make sure we are not sitting here arguing 
with a company--a Canadian company--that just wants us to clean up the 
mess and leave the U.S. taxpayer paying the bill.
  In fact, there was some debate in the Kalamazoo spill whether the 
Enbridge company had hit their liability cap and so the trust fund 
should pay for it, even though they never paid into the trust fund.
  So are we going to let the American taxpayers clean up a Canadian oil 
mess at our expense--that we paid in--and everybody is affected by 
that? I think we should slow down this process and make sure we are 
getting things like the oil spill liability trust fund right and that 
we are getting this added to this legislation before it moves out of 
the Senate.
  I know my colleagues will get a chance to look at this next week. As 
I said, we will probably start voting early next week on some of these 
amendments that are being offered. But I hope my colleagues will close 
these loopholes and make sure that the U.S. citizen and taxpayer is not 
left on the hook paying for oil spill responsibility that should be the 
responsibility of these individual companies. I know we are expecting 
some of our other colleagues to come to the floor shortly to speak on 
their amendments.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, when the new Congress opens there is a 
choice as to which issues we should start to work on. Would it be 
infrastructure jobs, clean energy jobs, a minimum-wage increase for all 
of America? No, no. That is not what the new majority decides to bring 
up. No. Instead, it is a Canadian oil export pipeline.
  Next week I am going to offer an amendment that the Senate will 
consider to ask whether we will put Americans first or oil companies 
first, whether we will keep this oil and gasoline here for Americans or 
send it to foreign nations to help them instead.
  If my amendment is defeated, it will make clear this is not an energy 
plan that is ``all of the above,'' it is oil above all.
  My amendment says that if we build the Keystone Pipeline, we keep 
that oil here. We keep that gasoline here. We keep the diesel, the jet 
fuel, the heating oil. We keep it all here, because if we send it 
abroad, what are we doing? We are helping Canadian oil companies get a 
higher price for their oil. We are acting as the middlemen between 
dirty foreign oil and thirsty foreign markets.
  Without my amendment, there is nothing in the bill or U.S. law that 
would prevent this oil from being exported. Eighty percent of our 
refined fuel exports go out of the gulf coast, exactly where Keystone 
would end, and foreign crude oil--including crude oil from Canada--can 
be freely reexported.
  We know what TransCanada's plan is because I asked him at a 
congressional hearing--a senior TransCanada official--whether he would 
commit his company to keeping the oil and refined products from 
Keystone in the United States of America, and he said no.
  Why do the oil companies want to export this Canadian tar sands oil? 
Because they can get a higher price and make more profit.
  Tar sands crude in Canada trades for $13 less than the U.S. crude 
benchmark. The international prices are $3 higher than our prices.
  If we do all of this, if we build this pipeline and then we send this 
oil to foreign countries, then we have turned Uncle Sam into ``Uncle 
Sucker.'' Because, make no mistake, without my amendment this bill will 
not do anything to help people at the pump. It will just serve to pump 
up the profits for oil companies.
  We shouldn't export in oil, even as we are forced to send young men 
and women to defend oil interests in the most dangerous parts of the 
world.
  Let us have that debate. As we import--still--oil from the Middle 
East, coming into the United States on tankers, this proposal we are 
debating next week will actually export oil that is already in the 
United States. We still import millions of barrels of oil every single 
day.
  What we hear from the Canadians, what we hear from the oil industry 
is that this is all about energy independence. Energy independence 
cannot, by definition, include the exportation of oil while the United 
States of America is still importing millions of barrels of oil per 
day. That is heading us away from, rather than toward, the goal of 
energy independence.
  That, ladies and gentlemen, is at the heart of the issue of what it 
is that we must understand about this Keystone Pipeline debate. We want 
lower prices for consumers, lower prices at the gasoline pump, lower 
prices for home heating oil, lower prices for diesel, and lower prices 
all across America. It is akin to a tax break that is going into the 
pockets of every single American, giving them more spending money 
because they are paying much less for oil in all of its forms in the 
United States of America right now, and it is giving an incredible 
incentive for economic growth in America.
  What makes America great? What makes America strong? What makes us 
strong is when we are strong at home. What makes us strong at home is 
our economy, because the stronger our economy, the stronger the United 
States is in projecting power across this planet.
  That is why on this debate the exportation of oil is so central. It 
goes right to the heart of what we must be discussing and debating in 
our country. This is an incredible opportunity for our country.
  Let's take it to the next step. The next step includes what is the 
taxation on the Canadian oil. There is a loophole, believe it or not, 
in the American Tax Code that allows tar sands oil from Canada--such as 
that that would flow through the Keystone Pipeline--to not pay into the 
Federal trust fund to respond to oilspills in the United States--
understand that?
  Canadian oil, the dirtiest in the world, coming through the pipeline 
that the Canadians want to build through the United States, in the 
event of an oilspill, will not have paid into the oilspill liability 
fund for oilspill accidents in the United States.
  I wrote to the Treasury Department in 2012 urging them to close this 
loophole through executive action, but their response indicated that 
they do not believe they have the authority to close this loophole on 
their own, and they need legislation to do so.
  Yet there is nothing in this bill that would close this tax loophole 
for Keystone tar sands oil. Tar sands oil can be more difficult to 
clean up than regular crude but receives a ``get out of Canada tax-
free'' card. That makes absolutely no sense. We are already importing 
more than 1.2 million barrels per day of tar sands oil into the United 
States. But oil companies don't have to pay into our cleanup fund to 
import that dirty oil.

  There are roughly 30 oil companies importing tar sands crude into the 
United States. If you are one of those 30 companies, you are getting a 
great deal. But if you are one of the hundreds of other oil companies 
out there that do pay into the oilspill trust fund, you should hate 
this loophole, and the American people should hate that loophole as 
well because the Canadians and

[[Page S225]]

their oil companies are not paying their fair share of the dues to be 
able to participate in our great American society. They want to build a 
pipeline like a straw right through the middle of the United States, 
send the dirtiest oil right down that straw, and if that straw breaks, 
if there is a spill, the Canadians have not contributed to the oilspill 
liability trust fund. Does that make any sense? Does that make any 
sense? Of course it doesn't.
  That is why this debate is so important. The Congressional Budget 
Office says this is going to cost the United States of America hundreds 
of millions of dollars because the Canadians escape their 
responsibility of paying for the accidents. That is why Senator Wyden 
and I are working here to make sure we have an ability to close this 
loophole, and we are working with Senator Cantwell, the ranking member 
on the committee. Along with Senator Cantwell, we are going to make 
sure we have this important debate on the Senate floor.
  I know Senator Cantwell was out here earlier today raising this 
issue, highlighting this issue, pointing out how unfair and unjust it 
is that the Canadians escape their responsibility to pay and that it is 
just another giveaway to the oil industry that ensures this is nothing 
more than a giveaway to those Canadian companies.
  I say this on a day when it is being reported there are now 140,000 
people in America employed in the solar industry--140,000. There is 
another 50,000 employed in the wind industry--nearly 200,000 people 
employed in industries that, for the most part, didn't really even 
exist in a meaningful way 7 years ago. That is how quickly our own 
domestic wind and solar industries have been developed--creating jobs 
here in the United States, creating growth here in the United States, 
creating opportunity here in the United States.
  So this, colleagues, is really what we should be debating. But once 
again, when the Republicans are in control, we do not debate all of the 
above. We don't debate wind and solar and biomass and energy efficiency 
and oil and gas and nuclear. The Republicans always make it one 
subject, and that is oil above all, not all of the above.
  So I am looking forward to this debate. It goes right to the heart of 
the security of our country, the economy of our country, and the 
environment of our country. This is the dirtiest oil in the world. This 
oil is going to contribute dangerously to the warming of the planet. 
Last year--2014--was the single warmest year ever recorded in the 
history of the planet--2014. You don't have to be Dick Tracy to figure 
out this is a problem that we are passing on to the next generations 
without the debate this issue must have if we are going to discharge 
our responsibilities to those next generations.
  The Keystone Pipeline is the central opportunity we are going to have 
to raise this issue of global warming, of the national security of our 
country, of making our economy stronger, and of ensuring we discharge 
our responsibility to the next generation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, climate change is one of the greatest 
challenges of this century. We have a profound choice before us. We can 
deny that our climate is warming, we can fall behind our economic 
competitors, we can ignore the danger to our planet and to our 
security--that is one choice--or we can move forward with the 
diversified energy portfolio that includes clean energy, with an energy 
policy that makes sense, that creates jobs, that protects the 
environment, and that will keep our Nation strong.
  There is a lot of work to be done. We can work together, we can find 
common ground, become energy independent, move us on a path to energy 
independence, grow our economy, and fight climate change. But instead, 
unfortunately, our focus today is on the Keystone XL Pipeline. The new 
majority has not chosen to start with energy policy as a whole or 
innovation or manufacturing policy or our response to climate change. 
Instead, we are debating on the floor of the Senate just one pipeline 
project, which primarily benefits another Nation.
  There is really one basic question. Is the Keystone Pipeline in our 
Nation's interest--not Canada's interest or Wall Street's interest but 
our Nation's interest. I do not believe it is. I say this for two 
reasons. First, we are being asked to do something I believe is 
unprecedented--for Congress to step in and promote a bill for one 
private-sector energy project, to wave ahead a private pipeline for a 
private foreign company so that Canadian oil can be piped to Texas for 
export to other nations. Again, how does this serve our Nation?
  We are told it is about jobs. Keystone will create jobs, and, of 
course, we are all for that. But how many jobs? About 3,900 temporary 
construction jobs. But how many permanent jobs--jobs that American 
families can count on for years to come? Maybe about 50. Yet with all 
the challenges we face, at home and abroad, this is the priority. This 
is priority No. 1 for the new Republican Congress. This is one choice. 
It is the wrong choice and the wrong priority.
  This brings me to my second point. We are at a crossroads in our 
energy policy. We can still lead the world in clean energy production--
wind, solar, advanced biofuels--to reduce global warming pollution, to 
become energy independent, and to create permanent American jobs. That 
is our future. That should be our priority.
  New Mexicans are already seeing the impact of global warming. The 
Southwest is at the eye of the storm, with historic drought, with 
severe flooding when it does rain, and with more and more wildfires. I 
talk to farmers and ranchers in my State, and they are struggling. 
According to a study at Los Alamos National Laboratory, by 2050--not 
far away--we may not have any forests left in my State. It will be as 
if New Mexico were dragged 300 miles to the south. Our climate will 
resemble land that is now in the middle of the Chihuahuan Desert.

  I am not a scientist; neither are my colleagues. But the experts at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory and scientists all over the world are 
clear: If we do nothing, it will only get worse. We are already seeing 
the impact. Recently the Government Accountability Office issued a 
warning: Climate change will continue to increase costs to taxpayers 
for the Federal Flood and Crop Insurance Programs. FEMA is already $24 
billion in debt due to extreme weather events such as Hurricane Sandy 
and last year's floods in New Mexico. The cost of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program has increased 68 percent just since 2007. If left 
unchecked, these costs will continue to skyrocket.
  But this is more than numbers, disturbing as they are. This is the 
burden of climate change on farmers, ranchers, and our communities. The 
damage is real. The threat is here. But so are the solutions and the 
opportunities, and there are many opportunities. With the right 
priorities, we can encourage the production of clean energy. We can 
create a clean energy economy that leads the world. We can create the 
jobs of the future right here at home and revitalize rural America.
  I have long said we need a ``do it all and do it right'' energy 
policy. That includes traditional energy sources. Oil and gas play an 
important role in my State. New Mexico is a leading producer of both 
oil and gas. We have strong, independent companies. They employ over 
12,000 New Mexicans. They help pay for our schools and our other public 
services. They are an important part of the mix, and so are renewables 
such as wind and solar. The United States has incredible wind energy 
potential, enough to power the Nation 10 times over. New Mexico has 
some of the best wind resources in the Nation, enough to meet more than 
73 times the State's current electricity needs. Wind power emits almost 
no carbon pollution. It uses virtually no water. It already saves folks 
in my State 470 million gallons of water a year. The U.S. solar 
industry employs more than 143,000 Americans--more than coal and 
natural gas combined. Solar jobs grew 10 times faster than the national 
average. The majority are in installation, sales, and distribution. 
Those are well-paying local jobs. Those are permanent

[[Page S226]]

jobs, and they won't be shipped overseas.
  Now is the time to build on the momentum and invest in a clean energy 
economy. Now is the time to create energy at home and jobs at home. 
Now. Not later. And we need to do it before we lose too much of the 
market to our overseas competitors in Germany, China, and elsewhere. 
They can see the future too, and they are going after it.
  A national renewable electricity standard would help us get there. 
The proposal I have introduced for many years would require utilities 
to generate 25 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2025. 
New Mexico and over half the States already have one. The States are 
moving in that direction. The Nation needs to move in that direction. 
We need a national standard. Experts have said a national standard 
could create 300,000 new jobs. I have pushed for this ever since I came 
to Congress. The House of Representatives has passed it. The Senate has 
passed a version of this three times. We have to get it right. We have 
to do this. Let's get it done.
  America can lead the world in a clean energy economy. We have the 
technology, and we have the resources. We just need the commitment and 
the cooperation.
  This is a new Congress. Let's find common ground where we can move 
forward. Just as we invested in the oil industry, we need to invest in 
wind, solar, and biofuels. We should support tax credits for 
renewables. We should encourage important cutting-edge energy research 
at great institutions such as Sandia and Los Alamos National 
Laboratories. What we don't need is Congress simply acting as a 
permitting agency for a Canadian pipeline.
  I understand the frustration that this project has been pending for 
so long. I believe the President should make a decision now. The 
necessary studies have been done. The recent litigation is over. We 
have debated this project extensively in this Congress and in several 
elections. If the President decides to approve it without some strong 
conditions that mitigate its climate impact, I will be very 
disappointed. If the President rejects it, the supporters can raise 
this issue in the next election. But Congress should move on to real, 
pressing policy debates.
  Let's get our heads out of the tar sands and work together for our 
economy, for our energy independence, and for our future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is good to be here on the Senate 
floor talking about where we are in the process to hopefully finally 
move toward approval of a permit to allow for construction of the 
Keystone XL Pipeline.
  It has been interesting--the past couple speakers this morning have 
all mentioned that they don't understand why the first order of 
business in this new Congress should be this measure, that there are a 
lot of issues out there. And there certainly are. There will always be 
issues in the Senate. This is what we do. These are all weighty issues. 
But I would remind my colleagues that one of the reasons we are moving 
early to the Keystone XL Pipeline legislation is because in many ways 
this is a bit of unfinished business.
  It was just 6 weeks or so ago that we had this measure before us on 
the floor of the Senate. It was before this body for debate--a good 
debate--led by our former colleague from Louisiana who was absolutely 
passionate--absolutely passionate--in her defense of why this was 
timely, important, critical that this measure be approved. We had that 
debate, and unfortunately in the final vote we were shy one vote and so 
we did not see passage. It was a measure that was in front of us 
because it was timely and also because of the work this body had done 
to advance it. The energy committee had hearings, process, and we had a 
bill in front of us.
  It is the first week of this session, and we have a lot of measures 
that we will be taking up that are extremely important, but they are 
perhaps not as primed, if you will, for action on the Senate floor 
because that legislation hasn't been drafted. The committees have not 
met to work through some of the legislation that will be before us.
  So why not move to advance the Keystone XL Pipeline, a measure that 
will provide for good-paying jobs in this country; a measure that will 
work to enhance that relationship with our closest friend and ally to 
the north, Canada; a measure that will help us from an energy security 
perspective when we are able to displace oil coming in from places such 
as Venezuela with oil coming in from Canada. That is a relationship 
that this Senator would much rather enhance and further.
  So for a host of different reasons we are on this measure in the 
second week of this new Congress. I am pleased we are at this place 
where when we reached unanimous consent earlier to proceed to 
consideration of amendments on this bipartisan bill. It has been 
interesting. As I have talked to not only colleagues but reporters out 
in the hallways--just people having conversations--and there was a fair 
amount of skepticism that if Republicans were to regain the majority, 
would we return the Senate to what we know as regular order, where 
there is a processing of amendments and a regular committee process, 
but that is what we are doing, folks. Those who are observing what is 
going on, beginning today, are seeing something that hasn't been seen 
around here in a number of years. It was unfortunate that we hadn't had 
that process, but it is never too late to do the right thing. It is 
never too late to get back to a deliberative process that allows for 
the open exchange and consideration of ideas on the floor.
  When we talk about an open amendment process, clearly it is not just 
open for amendments for those of us on this side of the aisle. It is an 
open amendment process for the full Senate so Members on both sides can 
offer their ideas and work to get votes on them. The majority leader 
has said several times that this process is going to be open, but it is 
not going to be open-ended. We are not going to be on this measure for 
a full year or even a full month, but we will be taking the time to do 
the deliberation that I think is important. I think you have already 
got some people saying: Oh, we are spending enough time on it. It is a 
mixed message with those saying it is not timely, we shouldn't be 
taking it up, and then others complaining that we have been on it now 
since last week. I think it is important for Members to know we are 
expecting to see amendments filed. We are expecting to see Members come 
to the floor to call up amendments. I would encourage Members not to 
wait until the last minute because to use the majority leader's words, 
this is not going to be open-ended. So let's get to our business and 
let's get it done.
  We have three amendments that are currently pending before the body. 
Before I speak to each of those, I would like to very briefly address 
my support for the underlying bill from the perspective of Alaska and 
being one who is immersed in Alaska's energy process and politics.
  I heard from more than a couple of folks back home who have seen the 
debate and discussion playing out, whether it is on C-SPAN or in the 
media, and I have been asked: We understand Keystone is in the national 
interest. We get that. But is it truly in Alaska's best interest? Folks 
back home are a little worried right now. We are seeing the price for 
oil sink to lows we have not seen in years, sitting around $46 a barrel 
today. It has certainly had an impact on our State's budget--
dramatically so. It is not just Alaska, I think we are seeing it in 
other oil-producing States. It is good news to have lower oil prices, 
but it is kind of a double-edged sword for some.
  The questions that are being asked at home are legitimate, fair, and 
very important questions such as: OK. How does this fit in with the 
Alaska piece?
  We certainly have large-scale infrastructure projects, particularly 
energy projects of a serious magnitude.
  We have a world-class oilfield in Prudhoe Bay and the connector that 
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline provides from Prudhoe Bay down to tidewater 
in Valdez, an 800-mile silver ribbon that bisects our State, is truly a 
modern

[[Page S227]]

marvel. A State can have the resource, but if they don't have the 
infrastructure to move the resource it doesn't do them much good. It 
doesn't help their economy and it doesn't help fund education if they 
cannot move it to market.
  As I mentioned, Alaskans are a little nervous right now. A New York 
Times article recently described what is happening in Alaska. The 
journalist described it as economic anxiety hanging over the State 
because of the drop in the price per barrel of oil. When a State relies 
on oil for about 90 percent of its revenues to fund its budget and the 
price drops dramatically, they notice it.
  One way to deal with the variations and variables in price is to have 
sufficient production. Alaska is suffering from this economic anxiety 
because our oil production, which was over 2 million barrels a day, has 
dropped precipitously over the past couple decades. We are now talking 
about an oil pipeline that is less than half full. What does that mean 
to a State such as Alaska when the artery for the State's revenues is 
not pumping at an optimum level? We are in that place right now. As a 
State we are looking at what can we do to make a difference when it 
comes to production because there will be price variables. As long as 
OPEC is in play there will be price variables we are not able to affect 
as much as we would like.
  We have the resource. We have an estimated 40 billion barrels of oil 
in our Federal areas, offshore in the Chukchi and Beaufort, on our 
coastal plain within the NPRA. We are not looking at a situation in 
Alaska where we are running out of oil or about to run out of oil. Our 
problem straight up is our limited ability to be able to access it. The 
holdback we get, the pushback we get from our own Federal Government, 
the policies that keep us from being able to access that resource has 
been our challenge.
  Now back to the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline is not 
going to be carrying any Alaskan crude. Don't get a mixed message. We 
have a pipeline. We have already built it. It is waiting to be filled 
back up. The need isn't infrastructure in Alaska but permission--
consent from the Federal Government to access our lands, access our 
waters to achieve that energy potential.
  When I am talking to Alaskans about the imperative for Keystone and 
how it intersects with Alaska, there are a couple of messages. The 
first one is simple. There is plenty of demand within just the United 
States for all the oil Canada and Alaska can produce at the same time. 
The demand is there, even with the surge we have seen coming out of the 
Bakken and the amount of increased production we have seen domestically 
in this country. We are continuing to import that oil. Again, it is 
better for us to rely more on ourselves. The world view that supports 
the construction of Keystone XL is the same one that leads to new 
production in my State of Alaska; that is, the recognition that 
affordable energy is good. This is my mantra. I keep advertising it. I 
have a bumper sticker that says ``energy is good.'' Affordable energy 
is good. The understanding is that low prices result when world markets 
are well supplied along with the desire to achieve North American 
energy independence. This is something I feel very strongly about.
  Approving the Keystone XL Pipeline is not going to eat into the 
markets for Alaska's oil. This is an important message for Alaskans to 
understand. In fact, it is going to help us preserve the markets we 
have because right now our North Slope crude is shipped predominantly 
to the west coast--makes sense, it is in closer proximity--where it is 
refined into gasoline and other petroleum products for use in the lower 
48.
  We take it down our 800-mile pipeline, put it to tidewater, and it is 
refined on the west coast. We enjoy the benefit of it here. But this 
ANS crude--Alaskan North Slope crude--as we call it, is now finding 
itself in competition from the shale plays out of the Bakken. So what 
we are seeing is, without a Keystone XL Pipeline oil, the oil that is 
being produced out of the Bakken is finding a home somewhere. It is not 
just sitting there. It is being moved.
  Where is it being moved to? It is being moved to refineries that have 
capacity. It is going west. It is going west to those west coast 
refineries that are used to getting Alaska crude. Keep in mind that as 
it moves west, if we don't have the pipeline, how is it moving there? 
How are we moving it? We are moving it by rail, predominantly.
  Again, we will have that discussion about the environmental impacts 
of rail or truck versus a pipeline and the safety and emissions issues. 
If you want a cleaner way to transport oil, it will be in a pipeline. 
If you want a safer way to transport oil, it will be in a pipeline. We 
have had this discussion in the past--and again, so Alaskans 
understand--and the Keystone XL Pipeline will benefit us in terms of 
being able to continue to send our crude to those west coast 
refineries.
  We have heard--I believe repeatedly and incorrectly--that the 
Keystone XL Pipeline is a foreign project that is going to carry 
Canadian oil to the gulf coast. We know where the name TransCanada 
derives from. We know that much of the oil to be transported will be 
from Alberta, but I think it is important to acknowledge that we have 
about 100,000 barrels of Bakken crude that will come from North Dakota 
and Montana and down through the midcontinent. If we have the Keystone 
XL Pipeline constructed, it will avoid the west coast.
  The last point I will make for the folks back home, for whom I work 
and who are following this issue, is that I really think the Keystone 
XL Pipeline is a test for us. It is a test of whether we as a nation 
can still review, license, permit, and build a large-scale energy 
infrastructure project. We are looking at that in Alaska. We need to 
know that can continue to be done in this country, because if we cannot 
do it even here in the lower 48, where the costs are lower and there is 
an existing infrastructure that you tie into, which the Keystone XL 
will--you have the southern leg already completed--if we can't 
demonstrate that we can get beyond the process of permitting a leg of 
this pipeline over the Canadian border and into the United States, what 
confidence do we have that we are going to be able to do other big 
energy infrastructure projects? That worries me a great deal.
  When people say that we are rushing this too quickly or that it is 
premature or that we need to let everything play out, I think we need 
to remind ourselves that 6 years is a pretty long time to play 
something out. Most companies don't have the wherewithal to wait 
something out over the course of 6 years because the cost of 
constructing this pipeline has not gone down during this intervening 
time period. If anything, the costs are going up. We know the costs are 
going up. We are working on the Keystone XL Pipeline right now, but it 
is just the first step of many I believe we need to take and to do in 
order to improve our energy policies.
  I will be continuing my conversation with Members to explain how my 
State has an awful lot to offer our country--whether it is increasing 
the flow of oil in our Trans-Alaska Pipeline or getting production up 
so we are not half full and instead are full, so we can share that 
resource with people throughout the country. As we look to move our 
natural gas--our amazing quantities of natural gas--that massive 
infrastructure project is a way in which we can work to advance that 
resource.
  Alaska has so much to offer the country, but we need to have the 
chance and the opportunity to do so. Our pipeline up north is already 
built. It was completed just after I got out of high school. In fact, I 
was privileged to have the opportunity to work up in Prudhoe Bay at 
that time and saw what actually happened out there in the oil fields. 
It has operated successfully, safely, and efficiently for decades. It 
has far surpassed what we believed we would be able to ship through 
that line, but it remains surrounded by billions and billions of 
untapped oil that can be brought to market, which would then bring in 
jobs, generate revenue, and keep prices as low as possible, and 
increase our security. We all want that.
  This is a conversation that will continue until the conditions of 
Alaska's Statehood--those promises that were made to us back in 1959 
when we became a State--are fulfilled and we are allowed to produce our 
resources as a State.

[[Page S228]]

  So watching what is going on with Keystone is something that is of 
great interest to the folks back home. We will continue to watch it and 
hopefully be encouraged that we do the right thing from a jobs 
perspective, from a revenue perspective, from an economic perspective, 
and an energy-security perspective.
  We have three amendments which are pending. I was privileged to be 
sitting in the Chair a little while ago when the junior Senator from 
Massachusetts spoke about his amendment. His amendment relates to 
exports from the Keystone XL Pipeline. My colleague from Massachusetts 
is not from a big oil-producing State, as I am.
  I believe it is fair to say that his State cares a lot about the cost 
of energy. They have cold winters, infrastructure challenges, and other 
issues as it relates to energy, and I appreciate that. But it is 
important to understand what my colleague's amendment would do. It 
would specifically prohibit the export of oil that is brought into the 
United States through the Keystone XL Pipeline, as well as the export 
of the finished products made from that oil. It is not just the raw 
crude that is put into the line. It is what goes down to the refineries 
in the gulf coast and is then refined into products--whether it is 
diesel or some other product. It is saying that the export of that 
should be prohibited.
  Basically, his amendment is a full-on, flat-out statement saying that 
you can't have any aspect of it--any drop of that--leave this country. 
It essentially says that all of this--every ounce of this new Canadian 
resource--will be brought into this United States and will stay here.
  My colleague has raised the concern that the United States should not 
be that passthrough entity. He used the terminology that it is similar 
to a straw from Canada down to the gulf, and then it goes out the back 
end from there. The President, in a comment, used the term conveyor 
belt and that the United States should not be that conveyor belt. The 
argument is that we should not just be a passthrough where Americans 
get none of the benefits. Well, if we didn't get any of the benefits, I 
think we should be talking about that.
  It is important to know this is not the first time we have had this 
discussion or this idea in front of us. Back in early 2012, it was part 
of an amendment that came before the floor. It was defeated 33 to 65. 
We had many of our Democratic colleagues join with all of the 
Republicans to reject a statutory ban on exports.
  I am hopeful this amendment that has been offered and is pending will 
see the same fate and ultimately be defeated by at least the same 
margin. I say that because I think it continues to be unnecessary, and 
I strongly believe it takes our export policies in the wrong direction.
  This is not just Lisa Murkowski saying this takes us the wrong way. 
The Department of Energy has looked critically at the issue of the 
Keystone XL oil being exported and whether or not that makes sense. In 
their analysis--and they state it pretty succinctly--they say: Without 
a surplus of heavy oil in PADD 3--that is the gulf coast area--there 
would be no economic incentive to ship Canadian oil sands to Asia via 
Port Arthur, which is where it is coming out of.
  The Department of Energy's conclusion--they had a pretty broad 
discussion about it. But their conclusion was then reinforced by the 
State Department in its final supplemental EIS for Keystone, which is a 
document that everybody should read--granted that it is 1,000 pages 
long, or thereabouts, but there is a summary that helps to condense so 
much of it. In the State Department's final EIS, they say that ``such 
an option''--that being export--``such an option appears unlikely to be 
economically justified for any significant durable trade given 
transport costs and market conditions.'' Think about that. I believe 
these conclusions make some pretty good sense here.
  The purpose of the Keystone XL Pipeline is to bring Canadian and 
American oil--let's not forget the 100,000 barrels coming out of 
Montana and North Dakota--to the gulf coast. It does not make any sense 
to bring oil all the way--850 miles--to refineries that can refine it--
remember, these refineries in the gulf coast are set up to deal with 
exactly this type of oil. So we have the line that brings it from the 
north to the south where you have refineries that are able to handle 
this. So tell me why it would make sense to just use this pipeline as a 
passthrough--as a conveyor belt or straw--and then ship it to 
refineries around the world that will add that transport cost to it. As 
the State Department EIS said, it would not be economically justified.
  It is important to understand, again, what is going on down there in 
the refineries in gulf coast, and the State Department looked at that. 
What they found was that the traditional sources of heavy oil used on 
the gulf coast are declining. Why are they declining? What we 
traditionally see coming in as imports there--coming in from Venezuela 
and Mexico--has been drawn down or lessened, if you will, for a host of 
different reasons, but not the least of which is because we are 
producing more here in the lower 48 States in the Bakken.
  We have talked a lot about the misalignment that is going on within 
our refineries and what is being produced and what we are capable of 
refining. But again, what we are seeing in the gulf coast is an ability 
to take on more capacity for this heavy oil. The opportunity to refine 
the product that is coming out of Canada there in the gulf coast 
refineries is real. It is there.
  Now, I think it is important to be honest here. I don't want to be 
written up in somebody's fact checker. Believe me, we looked at that. 
There are small amounts of oil from Keystone XL that could be 
reexported as a matter of economic efficiency, but that should not give 
anyone a reason to panic or get everybody all excited. It may come as a 
surprise to some, but the reexport of Canadian oil that is not 
commingled with the domestic crude is already completely legal. It is 
already a routine matter where the Commerce Department just routinely 
signs off on it. This is no big deal. There is no change in policy that 
is dramatic.
  The Obama administration has already approved dozens of licenses to 
reexport crude oil all across the world.
  I think it is important to recognize that this amendment offered by 
my colleague from Massachusetts would not just block the export of the 
crude, it would block the export of finished products. As he said, it 
would be everything. It would be the crude, and it would be everything 
that is then produced. Every bit we have he would have stay here. But 
blocking the export of finished products would be a reversal of 
existing law and current practices. And think about it--just from a 
practical perspective, how do we enforce this? How would we 
realistically enforce this measure of diesel that came from this 
refinery, from this pipeline here in the lower 48--that we can go ahead 
and export--and this is what we do. It is not any great state secret. 
We move our refined products, and we do so in a significant way to the 
benefit of our Nation. So how do we fence off everything that comes out 
of Keystone XL and say: The refined product from this particular 
pipeline can't move outside this country. It creates potential havoc, 
and maybe that is the point.
  I think the Senate should recognize that this amendment is not going 
to improve this bill. I don't think it will change anybody's mind. I 
don't think it is going to bring new support. I think it is meant to 
kind of poison the well and perhaps ensure that this pipeline will 
never be built and that it can't operate.
  I encourage my colleagues to look at a couple different documents. I 
mentioned the final supplemental environmental impact statement the 
State Department did. It is an important read for the critical analysis 
that went into it. I have cited those areas where they speak 
specifically to the impact of the export. There are others who have 
reviewed not only that but other documents, other outside facts.
  I mentioned that President Obama had made reference to the conveyor 
belt theory or tagging Keystone XL as being a conveyor belt for the 
oil. He made that statement when he was in Burma in November. His 
specific words were that it would provide ``the ability of Canada to 
pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it 
will be sold everywhere else.''
  So the fact checkers got on President Obama for that and did a pretty 
good analysis. I felt it was a pretty good

[[Page S229]]

analysis. They laid it out in clear English and ultimately decided that 
the President was going to be awarded three Pinocchios for that 
statement. For those who aren't familiar, if a person makes a 
significant factual error or obvious contradiction, they get three 
Pinocchios.
  But it wasn't just the Washington Post and Glen Kessler who did this 
assessment. We also had another fact check come out of PolitiFact, and 
they also rated that statement mostly false on their Truth-O-Meter.
  I ask unanimous consent that both of these fact checks be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 20, 2014]

Obama's Claim That Keystone XL Crude Would Go `Everywhere Else' But the 
                             United States

                           (By Glenn Kessler)

       ``I won't hide my opinion about this, which is that one 
     major determinant of whether we should approve a pipeline 
     shipping Canadian oil to world markets, not to the United 
     States, is does it contribute to the greenhouse gases that 
     are causing climate change?''--President Obama, news 
     conference at G20 summit, Brisbane, Australia, Nov. 16, 2014.
       ``Understand what this project is. It is providing the 
     ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our 
     land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere 
     else.''--Obama, news conference, Rangoon, Burma, Nov. 14.
       Twice during his recent overseas trip, President Obama 
     asserted that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline was designed 
     to take Canadian crude oil to the world markets. The 
     implication of the president's words is that the United 
     States would be simply a conveyor belt for the oil.
       The pipeline would allow the Canadians ``to pump their oil, 
     send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be 
     sold everywhere else,'' the president said in Burma. The 
     question he faced, he said in Australia, is whether ``we 
     should approve a pipeline shipping Canadian oil to world 
     markets, not to the United States.''
       The White House did not provide an on-the-record comment.
       Update: The Natural Resources Defense Council, in a 
     response to this column, said we were relying on ``outdated'' 
     information. It noted that in recent months there has been a 
     jump in unrefined crude oil exports from the Gulf Coast, 
     contradicting the conclusions of the State Department. ``Data 
     from the Gulf Coast today show that some of the tar sands 
     from Keystone XL will be exported internationally before it 
     sees a U.S. refinery,'' the NRDC said. ``some'' at the moment 
     amounts to about 200,000 barrels a day; for reference, a 
     supertanker carries 2 million barrels. We did adjust some of 
     the language concerning exports in response to the NRDC 
     critique.


                           the pinocchio test

       The president seriously overstates the percentage of 
     Canadian crude that might be exported if the Keystone XL 
     pipeline is built. He suggests all of it would be exported, 
     without mentioning that it first would almost certainly stop 
     on the Gulf Coast to be refined into products. On top of 
     that, current trends suggest that about half of that refined 
     product would be exported. That is not insubstantial, but it 
     is certainly much smaller than 100 percent.
       All of this is laid out in the extensive report issued by 
     the State of Department earlier this year. The president 
     might want to study it before he addresses the Keystone 
     question again. In the meantime, he earns Three Pinocchios. 
     We nearly made it Four Pinocchios, but it is correct that at 
     least some of the product would be exported, based on current 
     market conditions.


                            three pinocchios

       Is this really the case?


                               the facts

       First of all, the president leaves out a very important 
     step. The crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, where it 
     would be refined into products such as motor gasoline and 
     diesel fuel (known as a distillate fuel in the trade). As our 
     colleague Steven Mufson reported more than two years ago, the 
     refineries on the Gulf Coast are ``eagerly waiting'' for the 
     Canadian crude, since there isn't enough oil in the area 
     anymore to feed the refineries.
       ``The modernized Valero refinery [in Port Arthur, Tex.] can 
     turn 310,000 barrels a day of some of the world's worst 
     quality crude oil--such as the bitumen-laden mixture from 
     Canadian oil sands--into gasoline and diesel fuel for cars 
     and trucks,'' Mufson wrote. ``Valero, the largest U.S. oil 
     refining company, would be one of the biggest customers of 
     oil from the Keystone XL pipeline, buying about 150,000 
     barrels a day.''
       Indeed, the State Department's final environmental impact 
     statement on the Keystone XL project specifically disputed 
     claims that the oil ``would pass through the United States 
     and be loaded onto vessels for ultimate sale in markets such 
     as Asia,'' saying it was not economically justified. The 
     State Department noted that the traditional sources of crude 
     for the Gulf Coast, such as Mexico and Venezuela, are 
     declining, and so refineries would have ``significant 
     incentive to obtain heavy crude from the oil sands.''
       So then the question turns on what happens to that oil 
     after it leaves the refinery. Oil is a global commodity, of 
     course, and where it travels often depends on market 
     conditions. In Obama's telling, however, the refined Canadian 
     oil goes ``everywhere else'' and ``not to the United 
     States.''
       But that's not right either, according to the State 
     Department report. U.S. exports are not affected by various 
     pipeline scenarios but instead by market conditions, such as 
     ``domestic demand versus domestic refining capacity, the cost 
     of natural gas, and refining capacity abroad, including in 
     foreign markets currently importing U.S. refined products 
     such as Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and Europe,'' the report said. 
     The demand for exports, in other words, is completely 
     unrelated to building the Keystone XL pipeline.
       For the sake of argument, let's look at the percentage of 
     exports currently from the Gulf Coast area, using data for 
     refining output and product exports from the Energy 
     Information Administration. Depending on how you crunch the 
     numbers, the percentage of exports for finished products 
     ranges between 35 percent and 50 percent. The State 
     Department pegged the rate of exports at just over 50 
     percent, noting that ``this increased volume of refined 
     products is being exported by refiners as they respond to 
     lower domestic gasoline demand and continued higher demand 
     and prices in overseas markets.''
       In other words, at least half of the oil that is refined on 
     the Gulf Coast stays in the United States. Market conditions 
     could change, of course, but there is little basis to claim 
     that virtually all of the product would be exported. (The 
     Fact Checker has previously noted that, contrary to the 
     claims of advocates of the project, Keystone XL is unlikely 
     to have much impact on gasoline prices.)
       Opponents of the Keystone project have seized on slides, 
     such as the one below from one of Valero's presentations to 
     investors, to suggest the plan ultimately is to export the 
     production from Canadian oil sands.
       But Bill Day, a spokesman for Valero, says ``it's a mistake 
     to interpret this to mean that Gulf Coast products would ONLY 
     go to export markets.'' The slide is simply showing the flow 
     of trade, from various refineries; diesel currently is more 
     popular in Europe while gasoline is king in the United 
     States, though demand for diesel is growing in both markets. 
     Day noted that currently the vast majority of the company's 
     products stay in the United States for domestic consumption.
                                  ____


                    [From PolitiFact, Nov. 20, 2014]

 Obama Says Keystone XL is for Exporting Oil Outside the U.S., Experts 
                                Disagree

                          (By Lauren Carroll)

       President Barack Obama and many other Democrats think 
     there's little to be gained by building the Keystone XL 
     pipeline.
       On Nov. 18, Senate Democrats voted down a proposal to build 
     the oil pipeline--which would stretch from Canada to Steele 
     City, Neb., where it would connect with an existing pipeline 
     that goes to Texas' coast. But the issue isn't going 
     anywhere. When the new Republican-led Senate takes over in 
     January, it will likely be at the top of their priorities 
     list.
       Obama and other Keystone critics have argued that the 
     pipeline would have a negative environmental impact, while 
     having little benefit for the United States. For example, 
     constructing the pipeline would result in few permanent 
     American jobs.
       ``Understand what this project is,'' Obama said at a Nov. 
     14 press conference in Burma. ``It is providing the ability 
     of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down 
     to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. That 
     doesn't have an impact on U.S. gas prices.''
       Two days later, in Brisbane, Australia, Obama described 
     Keystone XL as ``a pipeline shipping Canadian oil to world 
     markets, not to the United States.''
       Predicting the effect of the pipeline on gas prices is a 
     little tricky. Experts tend to agree that it could impact gas 
     prices, but the effect would be indirect and minimal. But in 
     this fact check, we're going to focus on the export 
     question--whether or not, as Obama said, Keystone XL's 
     primary destination is beyond the United States.
       We found that Obama's off the mark.


                               Crude oil

       In recent years, the United States has become a net-
     exporter of refined oil products, like gasoline, jet fuel and 
     asphalt (meaning it exports more products than it imports), 
     according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 
     However, it is a net-importer of the crude oil it uses to 
     make those products.
       Keystone XL would transport crude oil from Canada's tar 
     sands through the Midwestern United States down to the Gulf 
     Coast, and there are refineries all along the proposed route.
       America gets more crude oil from Canada than any other 
     country. Nearly all of Canada's exports go to the United 
     States, and this accounts for about a third of America's 
     total crude oil imports. Much of its oil already makes it to 
     the United States by rail and existing pipelines.
       We asked several energy economics experts, and they believe 
     that quite a bit--if not most--of the Keystone XL crude oil 
     will be bought and used by American refineries.

[[Page S230]]

       ``It's difficult to say with any certainty, but it is most 
     likely that most would be refined in the U.S.,'' said Kenneth 
     Medlock, an expert in energy economics at Rice University in 
     Texas.
       A recent State Department report argues that it would not 
     be ``economically justified'' for Canada to primarily export 
     its Keystone XL oil to countries other than the United 
     States, when there are plenty of American refineries to 
     consume it.
       Some independent refineries--particularly those in the 
     upper Midwest, but also in Texas--are in desperate need of 
     crude oil, said Charles Ebinger, a senior fellow in energy 
     security at the Brookings Institution. Currently, the 
     refineries have to import crude from places like Venezuela 
     and Mexico--though it would be cheaper and better for overall 
     energy security to buy from a North American source, rather 
     than pay high transport costs.
       On Nov. 17, TransCanada told Reuters, it ``makes no 
     business sense for our customers to transport oil down to the 
     U.S. Gulf Coast, pay to export it overseas but then pay to 
     transport millions of barrels of higher-priced oil back to 
     the U.S. refineries to create the products we rely on.''
       Ebinger added that many American refineries are geared to 
     use heavy crude, which is what Keystone would transport from 
     Canada's tar sands.
       There would, though, likely be oil coming through the 
     Keystone XL pipeline in excess of what the American 
     refineries would be able to use, noted Eric Smith, an energy 
     economist at Tulane University. This excess oil could go to 
     other countries capable of refining it. Still, most Keystone 
     oil would stay in North America.


                            Refined products

       Some Keystone XL critics have focused on the fact that 
     American refineries could export some of the products they 
     make with the Canadian crude oil, such as gasoline, diesel 
     fuel or asphalt. They argue that because products made in the 
     United States, using Keystone XL oil, will leave the country, 
     the pipeline wouldn't improve domestic energy security or 
     independence.
       Anti-Keystone XL environmental group Tar Sands Action (part 
     of the larger 350.org) said in a Keystone XL fact sheet, that 
     American refineries will process the oil but, ``much of the 
     fuel refined from the pipeline's heavy crude oil will never 
     reach U.S. drivers' tanks.''
       However, American oil refineries' product exports are ``not 
     sensitive'' to the addition of a new pipeline, the State 
     Department study says. Export trends are more dependent on 
     demand--both domestically and abroad--as well as the cost of 
     natural gas and foreign refining capacity. American oil 
     refineries are already increasing their exports, and that 
     trend could continue independent of Keystone XL.
       ``Refined product export levels have already increased and 
     some of the crude used is from foreign sources,'' the report 
     says. ``As this may already be occurring, it may continue 
     with or without (Keystone XL).''
       Further, the report says, ``The economic viability of 
     exports does increase the demand for crudes in the United 
     States,'' but, ``this demand does not depend on the proposed 
     project.''
       Even if exports are increasing, the majority of oil 
     products refined in the United States stay in the United 
     States. For example, in 2013, Gulf Coast area refineries 
     produced about 946,000 barrels of finished motor gasoline per 
     day. They exported about one-third of that--323,000 barrels 
     per day.
       In January, Our friends at the Washington Post's Fact 
     Checker looked at an ad by liberal PAC NextGen Climate that 
     said, ``(China is) counting on the U.S. to approve 
     TransCanada's pipeline to ship oil through America's 
     heartland and out to foreign countries like theirs.'' A 
     spokesman for NextGen told Fact Checker that they were 
     referring to refined product exports, rather than crude oil. 
     Fact Checker gave the ad its lowest rating of Four 
     Pinocchios.
       Even if Keystone XL isn't built, experts said Canada will 
     find other ways to transport their oil to the United States. 
     Canada already sends crude from the oil sands into the United 
     States by rail and other pipelines.
       ``I have no doubt that Canada will develop alternate means 
     of monetizing its crude oil, whether that be via expanded 
     rail shipments or by building pipelines to one or both of its 
     coasts,'' Smith said.
       The longer that politicians debate Keystone XL, the more 
     time Canada has to figure out these alternate means.
       ``Keystone XL is rapidly becoming irrelevant,'' said 
     Michelle Foss, energy economist at the University of Texas' 
     Bureau of Economic Geology.


                               Our ruling

       Obama said, Keystone XL allows ``Canada to pump their oil, 
     send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be 
     sold everywhere else.''
       The general consensus among experts, as well as the State 
     Department, is that American refineries would be the primary 
     buyers of crude oil transported through the Keystone XL 
     pipeline, by a vast margin. Some Keystone XL critics have a 
     point that American refineries would likely export some of 
     the products that they make with crude oil transported by the 
     pipeline. The State Department says, however, that product 
     exports are already increasing, and that trend would likely 
     continue independent of a new pipeline. Additionally, 
     American refineries tend to keep more products in the country 
     than they export.
       We rate Obama's claim Mostly False.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Again, I think it is important to have a full 
understanding of what we are talking about when we talk about the 
export of Keystone XL and the imperative that in order for something to 
work, as the Senator from Massachusetts has suggested that we are just 
going to have this passthrough, it has to make sense for those who are 
moving this product. There has to be economic justification at the 
other end. And what makes sense is to move that product to the gulf 
coast, where our refineries have the capacity to handle that heavy 
crude, turn it into product there, and continue to create jobs within 
that region.
  I am not going to support the amendment of the Senator from 
Massachusetts, which I think is obvious from my statement, but I 
believe it is important to give some of the background. I would commend 
to colleagues some of these articles I have referenced.
  There are two other amendments that are pending before us, and I will 
speak very quickly to the amendment that has been offered by the 
Senators from Ohio and New Hampshire. They have once again teamed up to 
offer this bipartisan amendment on energy efficiency. They have worked 
very closely on these issues over the years. We are to the point where 
we can't think about energy efficiency without thinking Portman or 
Shaheen, so I commend my colleagues for their diligence. I have been 
happy to support them in their efforts, and I am happy, quite honestly, 
that we will have an opportunity to vote on an amendment that does 
relate to energy efficiency. It is not the full-on energy efficiency 
bill my colleagues introduced previously, but it is an amendment with 
text that is identical to the measure that came out of the House, the 
Energy Efficiency Improvement Act. This is a bill that moved through 
the House 375 to 36 during the last Congress, toward the end. We tried 
to move it through in the Senate, and we came close to advancing it by 
unanimous consent, but there were still a few outstanding concerns we 
couldn't get around, so it is back before us once again. But really 
nothing has changed since then, and in my view this is a good reason 
why this proposal is really regarded as important and noncontroversial. 
It is cost-neutral. It contains four provisions, one of which is 
extremely time-sensitive.
  Sometimes people don't want to get down into the weeds of certain 
aspects of what we are dealing with. The time-sensitive provision we 
are dealing with is these energy efficiency standards related to water 
heaters where we have a consent decree from back in 2010 that our water 
heater manufacturers have until April 16 of this year--so actually 3 
months from today--to meet these revised minimum efficiency standards 
from DOE.
  The problem we have is that DOE's standards effectively ban 
production of these grid-enabled water heaters that many of our rural 
co-ops use for electrical thermal storage or demand response programs. 
So instead of saving energy, these revised standards now threaten to 
actually work against these goals. So we have a bizarre, unintended 
consequence in this situation.
  We have been working for a couple of years now to address this and to 
fix it, and now it is urgent. Now we have to deal with it because, 
again, we are at 3 short months. The manufacturers are worried about 
what the Congress is going to do. Is it going to be resolved? Should I 
be building any of these? Thanks to the cooperation of the Senators 
from Ohio and New Hampshire, we have an opportunity to have this 
measure in front of us once again.
  There are three other provisions in this amendment that are equally 
noncontroversial. They all relate to voluntary efficiency programs. One 
focuses on the efficiency of commercial office buildings. Another 
provides greater information about energy usage in those buildings. The 
third looks at energy-efficient government technology and practices.
  This is one that I hope we will be able to advance without further 
delay. This is really a commonsense effort to fix a real problem for 
our rural co-ops.
  More importantly, let's embrace energy efficiency around here. We are 
now involved in the discussion about

[[Page S231]]

increased production, which is very real. I started off my comments by 
talking about Alaska's desired contribution to the national energy 
economy, but I view energy from a three-legged stool perspective: We 
have increased production. We have all the technologies that are going 
to allow us to achieve our potential with our clean and renewable 
resources, which is hugely important, but we also have the efficiency 
and the conservation piece. We don't talk about that enough around 
here. We need to do more. Shaheen-Portman is one way to get us there, 
albeit in a very small way.
  The last amendment we have pending is an amendment offered by my 
colleague from Minnesota on the other side of the aisle, who also 
serves on the energy committee. He has introduced an amendment that 
would require that all of the iron, the steel--that all the 
manufactured goods that are used to construct Keystone XL be produced 
right here in the United States.
  I think all of us want to do all we can, certainly, to encourage more 
jobs and job creation here in this country and to put in place policies 
that would allow us to do so. I do appreciate that the Franken 
amendment inserts language in the amendment that allows--or I guess it 
avoids a conflict with our international trade agreements because we 
know that could have really threatened the bill. It would actually have 
given the President real reason to threaten to veto this bipartisan 
bill. But they have addressed that within the amendment. I also 
appreciate that the amendment allows the President to waive the 
requirements for American materials based on findings he makes. So that 
is language which is included in it.
  But I have to tell my colleagues, we are sitting here at 2,310 days 
since the initial cross-border application was submitted for this 
project. I was reminded that when the initial application was first 
presented, the President was then Senator Obama. That much time has 
elapsed. So I see this language, and I think it is included in this 
amendment in good faith, but I just can't be convinced that the 
President would actually exercise this type of a waiver in a timely 
manner. He certainly hasn't demonstrated it at any point throughout 
this whole, long, drawn-out process we have been on with Keystone XL 
after 6 years.
  So I am going to be opposing this amendment for the same reasons I 
opposed it when we had it in front of us in 2012. It was included as 
part of a broader amendment at that time, but it did fall on a pretty 
strong bipartisan basis.
  These are important issues to be thinking about and considering, and 
I did take good time to review this. Again, I think all of us want to 
do more to encourage job production, job creation. I buy American and I 
buy local wherever and whenever I can. I strongly support the use of 
American materials in American projects, whether it is in my State or 
around the country. I know the Presiding Officer probably does as well, 
as does the Senator from Minnesota. But in considering whether we here 
in Congress should mandate specific materials for the Keystone XL 
Pipeline, I have come down on the side that we should not mandate that.
  I think we need to look at several things. First off is the 
commitment that has been made to buy American without any sort of 
mandate, without any requirement coming out of Congress. Fully 75 
percent of the pipe from this project is going to come from North 
America. That is the commitment that has been made, and I understand 
that more than half of that--about 332,000 tons--is going to come from 
Arkansas alone.
  Again, this is a commitment that has been made to ensure that America 
does derive benefit, that we do see those--direct and indirect--induced 
jobs. When you make a commitment, you say that we will pledge a full 75 
percent of the pipe for the project that is going to come from North 
America. I think that is important. It was important enough that 
TransCanada announced this 3 years ago. So this is not just something 
they have decided in order to help facilitate this--that we are going 
to say 75 percent. They made this commitment a while ago.
  Here in Congress we passed the Buy American Act, and that act 
specifically is applied to projects that are Federally funded. But keep 
in mind here that when we are talking about Keystone XL, this is a 
private project. Keystone XL gets no subsidies. It will receive no 
taxpayer dollars. It will be built to the government's specifications. 
We have seen that when you look to that final SEIS, where the 
additional mitigation measures are required once the permit is 
approved. It will be built to government specifications, but I don't 
think the government should decide what it is actually built with. We 
are going to define the parameters in terms of mitigation, but, again, 
this is a private project. This receives no Federal funds, and it would 
be somewhat precedent setting. So I asked the Congressional Research 
Service to see if they can identify for me any other projects where the 
Congress has sought to force or direct private parties or a private 
company to purchase domestic goods and materials--so all of the 
materials that go into it and not just the steel but everything else in 
there. They have been looking. They have some pretty sharp folks over 
there at CRS. So far, they have not been able to come up with an 
example in our laws. I am concerned about this, quite honestly. As much 
as I support ``Buy American'' and making sure that we receive the 
benefit of these jobs from creating these products, I am concerned 
about the Congress' setting a precedent here. I think it potentially 
puts us on a pretty slippery slope.
  If we are going to set the precedent here for Keystone XL and say, 
well, you have to do it for pipelines, why wouldn't we do it for other 
energy sources? Is that going to be a requirement we are going to place 
on wind turbines?
  I know some of my colleagues are in some States where they are 
manufacturing good made-in-America wind turbines. I am all for that, 
but is that a policy we are going to take on--where we are going to 
say, no, it is an important industry, it is an important sector, and so 
we are going to require that it all be made in America? If that is the 
case, why not on our vehicles? Why not everything?
  I worry about that. I worry about the precedent. I worry about where 
we go beyond Keystone XL if that is the requirement. I think it is also 
important to listen to the industry's perspective on this position. The 
American Iron and Steel Institute have been a huge supporter of 
Keystone XL for years now. They have 19 different member companies, 
major producers such as U.S. Steel. They have 125 associate members.
  On January 8--actually, right after we came into session--before this 
amendment was even filed, the American Iron and Steel Institute sent 
every one of us a Steelgram reiterating their support for Keystone XL, 
and their letter is pretty definite. They are not nuanced about it. 
They say:

       It is essential that Congress act to ensure the approval of 
     the Keystone XL Pipeline without further delay.

  I think we should listen to those words. Those words aren't coming 
from a TransCanada. They are not coming from an oil company. They are 
coming from associations and workers around the country who believe 
earnestly and honestly that construction of this pipeline will be good 
for this country and it will be good for these families. So let's 
listen to them. Let's agree that 2,310 days and counting is more than 
enough time to make a decision.
  We saw the Nebraska Supreme Court come out with their determination 
that the decision that came out of Nebraska was not unconstitutional. 
So it clears away that excuse, if you will, or that reason to say we 
can't move forward.
  There is really nothing holding up a decision at this point in time 
other than the President's unwillingness to move on this issue. I think 
if we want to move forward and provide good jobs--and we have had the 
debate about how many jobs are really created. Is it the 42,100 that 
the final SEIS states in terms of direct and indirect jobs?

  If you want just to focus on the permanent jobs, that is definitely a 
much lower number--35 to 50 permanent jobs. But you know what. When you 
build something, there is the opportunity for good, honest work for 
well-paying jobs for welders, for truck drivers, for operators. People 
are looking for an opportunity such as this. They want to be

[[Page S232]]

part of building something. I can tell you that in Alaska, when we are 
debating how we are going to move our natural gas to market and how we 
are going to build this natural gas pipeline that will move this, 
nobody is saying that we can't build this because it is only going to 
provide temporary construction jobs. That is not what we are talking 
about. They know that there is benefit there. They are hoping they are 
going to be part of that benefit.
  When we talk about where we are with some of these amendments coming 
forward, I think it is good to have this debate. I think it is good to 
have this discussion, whether it is talking about exports, because that 
is a legitimate part of the discussion, talking about requirements that 
may be placed on construction. But I think we have to remember we are 
not the zoning board here in the Senate or in the Congress. This bill 
doesn't have anything to do with siting. We are not determining the 
route. That is what the States do and rightly so. What this 2-page, 
400-word bill does is approve the issuance of that permit to allow for 
construction, but we are not the ones determining that this is the way 
the line goes.
  I would urge colleagues to look critically at the language and see 
exactly what it does. Understand that when we are talking about the 
benefits and burdens of a pipeline, it is true that pipelines are not 
100 percent fail-safe. Not much that we build is 100 percent fail-safe, 
but what we try to do at every turn and at every opportunity is to make 
it as close as possible. But when you look from a safety perspective, 
from an environmental perspective, the safest and most environmentally 
sound way to move this oil is in a pipeline. It is not putting it in 
rail to other parts of the country. It is not putting it on the roads 
as we are seeing. Those are the options right now. Whether people in 
this body or across the Chamber here object, Canada is accessing their 
resource. They are accessing their resource, and they will move their 
resource. Right now the way they are moving it is in a way, quite 
honestly, that adds to emissions, has greater potential for a spill and 
for an environmental incident. So I am looking at it from the 
perspective that Canada is going to move that. They have made that very 
clear.
  In fact, there was an article just a couple of days now, in the Wall 
Street Journal--and it is talking about the impact of lower oil prices 
and the impact on what is happening in Canada as an oil producer. Are 
they slowing down their production in response to lower oil prices? 
Absolutely not. What we are seeing is almost--I don't want to describe 
it as a doubling down because that is an inaccurate phrase--but what we 
are seeing is continued effort within Canada to access their oil 
resources. Some of the statements that are made by some of the Canadian 
oil companies are really quite telling. They say that Canadian Natural 
is a company that will ``ensure the oil sands will continue adding to 
the global oil glut for a long time to come, regardless of the price of 
crude.'' They go on to say: ``It's not well understood just how robust 
the oil sands are. If you stopped expansion of the oil sands tomorrow, 
you would have no decline in the production base for decades . . . But 
few of the largest producers in Canada envision scaling back production 
at their oil sands operations.''
  So what we are seeing is there was big investment up front with the 
oil sands in Canada and accessing a resource that is plentiful, but if 
you are to believe some of the statements from these Canadian 
companies, they are going to continue to produce their resource, even 
in the face of what we are seeing--declining world oil prices.
  If Canada is going to continue to produce, how is that product going 
to be moved? I would rather it be moved safely through a pipeline, with 
fewer emissions through a pipeline, and to a part of the country where 
we are set up to accommodate that resource in our refineries so that we 
can refine that product to our benefit.
  To me, that makes sense. So we will have good and--excuse the pun--
energetic debate about amendments in these coming days. I think you can 
see from my comments we are going to have some amendments that I like 
and some that I am not supporting. But what I am looking forward to is 
the fact that we are at a point that we are describing as regular 
orders. We are going to be voting on amendments, perhaps quite a few, 
as we move toward the final passage of this bipartisan bill. I look 
forward to the exchange that we will have.
  I thank you for your attention, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I am very pleased to join my colleague this morning, the 
chairman of our energy committee. The Senator from Alaska is doing a 
fantastic job leading our energy committee. I so appreciate her 
leadership on the committee, her knowledge of energy. Her words this 
morning--very well spoken--I think really go to the heart of what we 
are trying to do with this legislation: not only pass important energy 
legislation for the country but have this open process, open dialogue, 
have a real energy debate, and not just a debate but give people the 
opportunity to vote.
  Republican and Democrat alike, we are saying, come on down here, 
bring your amendments, and let's have a serious discussion about energy 
and about building the energy future of this country. Offer your 
amendments, make your case, and then let's vote. If you can get 60 
people to support your amendment, if you can get 60 votes, that gets 
attached to the legislation. That is the way it is supposed to work 
around here.
  So we are encouraging our colleagues to join with us and get the work 
done that the American people want done. So I thank our energy chairman 
for setting that in motion. That is the right way to do business. That 
is what we are elected to do. We are going to get something done for 
the American people, who sent us here for that very reason.
  When you look at what is going on in energy today, you have to feel 
pretty good about it. If not, drive over to the gas station to fill 
your car. Gas prices at the pump are about a dollar lower than they 
were this time a year ago. If you equated that savings our consumers 
are receiving at the pump to a tax cut, it would be more than a $100 
billion tax cut for hard-working Americans. That is pretty exciting. 
That did not just happen. It certainly did not happen because OPEC or 
anyone else--Venezuela or Russia or anybody--decided they wanted to cut 
us a break, cut hard-working Americans, hard-working taxpayers, 
consumers, small businesses across this country a break. It happened 
because we are producing more energy in this country and we are working 
with our closest friend and ally in the world--Canada--to produce more 
energy.
  On a daily basis we consume about 18 million barrels of oil a day--
oil and oil equivalents--and produce about 11 million of those barrels 
here domestically. We are up to about 3 million, so of the 7 million we 
import, about 3 million comes from Canada. So we are down to only 
importing about 4 million barrels a day from other sources. If we stay 
on this track, if we build the necessary energy infrastructure--such as 
the Keystone XL Pipeline--and we continue to build good business 
climates and get our companies to invest, to create jobs, and produce 
more energy, we can get to a point where we truly have North American 
energy security, meaning we produce more energy here at home and with 
Canada than we consume. Boy, then we will be in the driver's seat--not 
OPEC; America will be in the driver's seat. If we don't do it, if we 
block projects like we are debating right now, then we will put OPEC 
back in the driver's seat. So when they hear our President say he is 
going to continue to block this project, to veto this legislation if we 
are able to pass it with a strong bipartisan majority, that is music to 
OPEC's ears because that puts them right back in the saddle. That is 
what they want.
  But we work for America. That is why we need to continue to move 
forward and build this exciting energy future for our country that we 
are building. It is energy. It is jobs. It is economic growth. This 
project will create hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue--State, 
local, and Federal revenue to help reduce the debt and deficit. That is 
a huge and important impact of the project. Of course it is about 
national security with energy security. So I want to emphasize that

[[Page S233]]

again because that is doing the work the American people sent us here 
to do.
  For the opponents--there are a couple of things that I heard this 
morning and that I hear on an ongoing basis. One is that, oh, gee, we 
should be doing renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.
  Why not do all of it? Why are they mutually exclusive? How does doing 
this project in any way prevent us from doing any renewable project we 
ought to do? Let's do those renewable projects.
  In my home State we use steam from coal plants to produce biofuels, 
power biofuels plants. We use the wastewater from some of our 
communities in those biofuels plants. We have wind energy. We have 
geothermal, ethanol, biodiesel. We are now the second largest oil-
producing State in the country. We produce 1.2 million barrels a day--
second only to Texas.
  They are not mutually exclusive. Let's do it all. How does holding up 
one enable us to do the other? It does not. So when I hear the argument 
that ``Well, we ought to do all of those other things,'' good--let's do 
them. But doing this project helps us. It provides more energy. Heck, 
let's do the others too. So arguing that we should do renewables is not 
an argument against this project. Fine. Let's do it. Let's do them 
both.
  The other argument that I heard this morning and that I hear, of 
course, a lot from the critics is the environmental argument. Again, I 
say look at the facts. Go back to the science. The report itself says 
``no significant environmental impact.'' That is the report done by the 
Obama administration, the environmental impact statement that was 
designed to look specifically at the environmental impacts. That has 
been done over the course of 6 years; not one, not two, not three, but 
five reports--three draft reports, two final reports. The results are 
right in the report: The Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant 
environmental impact.
  In fact, we will have higher greenhouse emissions without the 
pipeline than we will with it because it would take 1,400 railcars a 
day to move all of that crude into our country, which is what will 
happen. If somehow the critics manage to block that, then it would go 
to China. We would have pipelines built to the west coast of Canada. 
The oil would go to China in tanker ships and be refined in refineries 
that have higher emissions. So however you slice it, without the 
pipeline, we would have higher greenhouse gas emissions.

  But here is what I want to touch on for just a few minutes today. I 
will talk about it more next week. Canada is working aggressively to 
get investment in the oil sands to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. 
Exxon has a major project up there. Shell has a major project up there. 
The Exxon project is the Kearl project. The Shell project is the Quest 
project. In both cases they are bringing down the greenhouse gas 
emissions of the oil sands buy investing in new technologies, in 
cogeneration, and in carbon capture and storage. Hundreds of millions--
billions of dollars are being invested along with the Canadian 
Government in carbon reduction technologies. Not only does that reduce 
the carbon footprint of the oil sands, but think about it--as that 
technology is developed, what happens? It is adopted in other places. 
It is adopted here in this country. It might be adopted in China and 
other places around the world. So the advances they make in technology 
in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in reducing the footprint of this 
oil production and finding better ways, more cost-effective, more 
efficient ways, more environmentally friendly ways to produce that 
energy, that technology then is adopted around the world.
  In other words, they are finding solutions to some of the concerns 
that are being raised on the environmental front by the very critics of 
this project. So instead of stopping that investment and that 
advancement, why don't we find ways to continue to develop that, which 
is not only a benefit in the oil sands in Alberta, but it is a benefit 
that we can utilize to produce energy in this country and other places 
around the world. That is true for oil. That is true for gas. That is 
true for all fossil fuel energy.
  See, that is how America has always worked. We create that business 
climate. We encourage the investment. We get American ingenuity. We get 
American companies to use their entrepreneurial genius to make those 
investments to not only create good jobs but to produce more energy, 
giving us energy security, and deploy the very technologies that give 
us the better environmental stewardship that we want. But when we block 
these projects, when we prevent the investment, when we will not let 
them build the infrastructure, we bring all of that to a grinding stop. 
Why would we do that? It does not make sense.
  There is not one penny of U.S. taxpayer money going into this $8 
billion project. It is private investment. Why would we not want the 
private investment that helps build the infrastructure and develop and 
deploy the technology that gives us better environmental stewardship? 
Isn't that what it is all about? Isn't that why our powerplants and our 
energy production in this country are light-years ahead of what they 
are doing in countries around the world, where in many cases they are 
still using third world-type energy approaches? Let's lead the way 
forward in technology. Let's empower that to happen.
  Because I note that the time is wrapping up here, I will come back to 
the floor next week. But I am going to talk about the hundreds of 
millions that are being invested in the Kearl project--Exxon is doing 
that project--and also in the Quest project, and Shell is doing that 
project. They are working with the provincial government in Alberta to 
develop carbon capture and storage. That is something we talk all the 
time about wanting to do. Here we have private companies working to put 
hundreds of millions into developing that very technology.
  Since 1990 the greenhouse gas emissions for the production of oil in 
the oil sands has come down 28 percent--been reduced almost by one-
third. They are continuing to find ways to improve the environmental 
stewardship and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. Isn't that what we 
want versus continuing, for example, to import oil from Venezuela that 
has as high or a higher footprint, and you do not have that kind of 
investment in new technologies, that kind of investment in better 
environmental stewardship.
  So as we talk about this issue, let's talk about it in a way where we 
advance the ball and we do it the right way; where we get the energy, 
the jobs, the economic growth; where we build our relationship with 
Canada rather than saying: No, we are not going to work with you guys. 
At the same time, we will get better environmental stewardship. We can 
do it. Let's do it.
  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.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cyber Security

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the critical need for 
cyber security legislation.
  Computers control nearly everything we use in our daily lives. They 
control our cars, our phones, our water supply, our power grid, our 
financial services, our retail networks, our food production and in 
many respects our military capabilities.
  Fortunately, our adversaries have not yet succeeded in inflicting 
major physical damage on our Nation's interdependent critical 
infrastructure.
  That is not to say however they are not vulnerable to persistent 
threats in cyber space. Look no further than in the ``2014 U.S. State 
of Cybercrime Survey.'' That is a study prepared by 
PricewaterhouseCoopers, the U.S. Secret Service, Carnegie Mellon 
University, and CSO magazine.
  Of the more than 500 U.S. executives and security experts surveyed, 
77 percent of businesses detected an attempted security breach in the 
previous 12 months, and 34 percent of these businesses said the number 
of security incidents detected increased over the previous year, with 
an average number of 135 incidents per organization.
  The report makes many key observations, but let me emphasize a key 
finding that resonated with me. One thing

[[Page S234]]

is very clear: Most organizations' cyber security programs do not rival 
the persistence, tactical skills, and technological prowess of today's 
cyber adversaries.
  Cyber thieves proved their determination just last week when Russian 
hackers amassed over 1 billion Internet user names and passwords, the 
largest known collection of Internet credentials.
  In the years following the September 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. 
Director of National Intelligence consistently ranked terrorism as our 
No. 1 threat, but that started to change a few years ago. In 2012 then-
FBI Director Robert Mueller predicted that ``in the not too distant 
future, we anticipate that the cyber threat will pose the number one 
threat to our country.''
  He was right.
  In 2013 and 2014 the intelligence community's Worldwide Threat 
Assessment lists cyber as the top threat to our Nation. Terrorism, 
nuclear proliferation, and unauthorized leaks of classified information 
remain grave threats to our country, but cyber is now our No. 1 threat.
  Yet it is hard to believe no major cyber security legislation has 
been enacted since 2002, when Congress passed the Federal Information 
Security Management Act--or FISMA--and the Cybersecurity Research and 
Development Act. Of course, there have been provisions relevant to 
cyber security enacted in subsequent laws but nothing as significant or 
comprehensive as the laws passed 12 years ago.
  As we begin a new Congress, let me articulate a few guiding 
principles that should be included in any cyber security legislation.
  First, we must acknowledge the need for the government and the 
private sector to cooperate in order to fend off cyber attacks, but 
today businesses are reluctant to share critical information out of 
fear of legal repercussions. Congress must provide proper incentives, 
such as liability protection, to encourage the private sector to share 
cyber threat information with our government.
  Next, any cyber security legislation must strike the right balance 
between protecting our Nation's computer infrastructure and protecting 
individual privacy rights.
  Thus, information sharing between businesses and the government must 
be tailored to the recipient's actual security responsibilities. 
Moreover, any legislation should avoid overly broad language that could 
clash with privacy protections.
  Furthermore, a voluntary, nonregulatory approach is most likely to 
yield consensus legislation. The role of DHS and other government 
agencies should be to provide advice and resources to improve our 
Nation's cyber security posture, not to pile on additional burdensome 
regulations.
  Finally, and perhaps most important, we must build a strong cyber 
security workforce in the public and the private sectors. Enacting 
cyber security legislation will mean very little if there are no 
trained professionals prepared to tackle our Nation's cyber security 
challenges.
  In order to build the enduring capabilities capable of protecting our 
cyber infrastructure, we must encourage young people to pursue high-
tech careers and attract highly skilled workers from around the world.
  Beyond the civilian realm, the cyber threats we face present critical 
new challenges to our national security. Arguably, we have not yet 
faced a similarly novel catalyst for policy formulation and change 
since the development of our nuclear deterrence strategy more than 60 
years ago.
  As we face this new world of cyber threats, the fundamental question 
remains the same: What is the most efficient and effective means to 
defend our country, the United States, while remaining true to the 
Constitution at the same time. Answering that question should be the 
cornerstone of the President's cyber security strategy.
  I was encouraged to hear the President say during his visit to the 
National Cybersecurity Communications Integration Center earlier this 
week that ``cyber threats are an urgent and growing danger.'' I 
certainly share that assessment of the dire nature of this very real 
threat to our national security.
  While I applaud the White House for its plans to host a conference on 
cyber security and consumer protection next month, the nature of the 
cyber security threat demands a comprehensive strategy to protect our 
Nation.
  Much work remains to be done on this front, especially from the 
standpoint of the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland 
Security. The urgency of this task was amplified when the Congressional 
Research Service concluded just this month that ``the overarching 
defense strategy for securing cyberspace is vague and evolving.''
  As we face these threats, we must act decisively to ensure that 
bureaucratic barriers do not hinder the development of an effective 
strategy to counter threats from cyber space. As it stands, there is 
not a single agency primarily responsible for cyber defense.
  The Department of Homeland Security is charged with protecting 
civilian networks and working with the private sector. The FBI and 
Secret Service are responsible for investigating cyber crime, and the 
Department of Defense is responsible for defending its own systems and 
partnering to protect the defense industrial base.

  Critically, the Defense Department is only tasked with supporting DHS 
when the cyber attack is directed at our homeland. Yet these 
differences of responsibility can operate as artificial barriers to the 
efficient and effective cyber defense system.
  Indeed, the lack of a single organization with direct responsibility 
runs counter to the basic leadership principle of unity of command. It 
bears remembering that these boundaries only exist for our agencies, 
not the hackers which seek to exploit the limitless terrain of cyber 
space. In a world in which the lines between cyber crime and cyber 
warfare are increasingly blurred, we need to ensure that all of our 
defensive cyber capabilities are brought to bear against the wide 
variety of threats facing our infrastructure, private and public, 
civilian and military.
  Nevertheless, the need for a primary agency of responsibility does 
not necessarily mean the Department of Defense should be that agency, 
even despite its remarkable capabilities. Such a course would raise 
both legal and practical concerns.
  Beginning with the legal issue, as the Supreme Court has stated, 
there is a ``traditional and strong resistance of Americans to any 
military intrusion into civilian affairs.''
  The use of the military to enforce the law, with respect to domestic 
hackers or to virtually patrol on private networks is problematic 
because of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. section 1835.
  In addition, the Defense Department's organization to defend against 
cyber attacks might not be the most efficient. Currently, U.S. Cyber 
Command, which is responsible for the training and equipping of our 
cyber warriors, is also entrusted with the Department's operational 
activities in cyber space. Such a construct makes sense. Yet unlike a 
unified combatant command, Cyber Command is a subunified command under 
U.S. Strategic Command. Though this configuration has been considered 
and agreed to by the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am still not 
convinced of its value. Therefore, I also hope the President addresses 
how our military forces can best be aligned to facilitate the most 
efficient and effective cyber defense possible.
  But returning to the larger question, if concentrating our efforts 
entirely in the hands of the Defense Department is not advisable, what 
are we to do?
  One possible solution has been presented by Richard Clarke, the noted 
former member of the National Security Council, in his book, ``Cyber 
War.''
  To be clear, I am not endorsing Mr. Clarke's proposal. We surely do 
not need another government bureaucracy, but I do believe it is an 
important concept to be discussed during future debates on cyber 
security. Specifically, Mr. Clarke argues for a civilian cyber defense 
administration which would be responsible for protecting ``the dot-gov 
domain and critical infrastructure during an attack.'' As well as 
assigning those Federal law enforcement agencies personnel responsible 
for cyber crime to this centralized cyber defense administration, it 
would only be logical to ask if such an agency could provide other 
cyber defense functions.
  Accordingly, addressing proposals such as this as part of answering 
the

[[Page S235]]

question as to what is the most effective organization we can employ 
for cyber security should be a focal point of the President's address.
  But we should not just place these questions at the President's door. 
The Senate itself must consider modifying the way it considers cyber 
security legislation and issues.
  Currently, there are at least five separate Senate committees which 
are responsible for various aspects of cyber security. Therefore, we, 
too, have a unity-of-effort issue, and the Senate should consider means 
to concentrate this body's expertise on this critical matter.
  In conclusion, there are a myriad of questions which our government 
must address before we are able to state we have the most effective, 
efficient, and constitutional cyber security defense possible.
  I hope the President fully utilizes the opportunity presented to him 
in his State of the Union Address to answer these important questions--
and if he doesn't, we have to. So we better solve these problems. I 
presume the President will speak intelligently on these issues and 
hopefully in a way that will unify the country, unify the Congress, and 
get us all working in the same way.
  We can't afford to let this drag any longer. This is one of the most 
important sets of issues we have in our country. It may be one of the 
most important issues or sets of issues in the world at large.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.

                          ____________________