[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 12 (Monday, January 26, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Page S448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           KEYSTONE PIPELINE

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in a short period of time, less than an 
hour, the Senate is going to vote on whether to end the debate on 
Senate bill 1.
  Senate bill 1 is the Republican's No. 1 priority this year. They are 
new to the majority in the Senate, and they got to choose the first and 
most important bill to call, and they chose this bill, Senate bill 1.
  This bill will override the President's authority when it comes to 
making a decision on building the Keystone Canadian pipeline--Canadian 
pipeline. You see, Keystone is a Canadian corporation, and the 
Republicans in the Senate decided the highest priority when it comes to 
America's economy is to help this Canadian corporation.
  There will certainly be construction jobs involved in the 
construction of this pipeline, but there will only be 35 permanent jobs 
that come out of this. The No. 1 priority for the Senate Republican 
majority is 35 permanent jobs. Most McDonald's hamburger franchises 
have more than that number of jobs.
  But, having said that, let's talk about where we are on the floor of 
the Senate at this moment. In their new role as majority party, the 
Republicans asked us to take up this legislation, and they said: We 
want to go to the point we have made over and over during the past 
several years--we should have an open amendment process.
  I am here to tell you that we have cooperated. I was quoted--I am 
honored, flattered--by the majority leader on the floor as saying I 
think it is healthy. I have said that for a long time. What changed in 
the Senate is not just the new majority but the new minority. Our 
feeling on our side is we need to be constructive, offer amendments, 
offer different points of view, offer different approaches, debate them 
on the floor, accept the will of the Senate, and move forward on 
legislation. That is what we have tried do on this Keystone XL bill, 
and we have really offered amendments on the Democratic side that we 
think get to the heart of this debate.
  My Republican friends and Senators like to characterize this as the 
Keystone jobs bill.
  We started off by saying: Here is an idea. Let's say that the 
Canadian tar sands brought in through this pipeline and refined in the 
United States--the ultimate products, the oil products that come out of 
this refinery, are going to be there for Americans first, that 
Americans can use the gasoline and diesel fuel and jet fuel. In other 
words, it is going to stay in America.
  The Republicans said no. We have to be prepared, after we go through 
all of this and build this Canadian pipeline, that ultimately none of 
the products will be used in the United States.
  Then we said: OK, if we can't use the ultimate products coming out of 
this pipeline to help the American economy, then let's at least agree 
that we will build this Canadian pipeline in the United States with 
American-made steel. Let's put our steelworkers and foundries to work 
fabricating the steel to build the pipelines so we will create good-
paying American jobs supplying the materials.
  The Republicans voted no.
  Then we said: Well, at the end of the day, these refineries, after 
they have processed Canadian tar sands, end up with a miserable 
byproduct called petcoke. It has some positive applications, but sadly, 
in many instances it is piled up stories high--even in the city of 
Chicago, within our city limits--and blows all over the neighborhood 
and into the lungs of children and elderly people. So let's at least 
have standards for the storage and handling of this byproduct that is 
going to come out of this Canadian pipeline.
  The Republicans voted no.
  Then we had a vote on whether we should be concerned with the 
environment. Using Canadian tar sands to make oil products puts more 
greenhouse gases in the air, more carbon dioxide, and should we be 
mindful of this.
  If you read the votes that took place last week, it is unclear, 
uncertain as to where the Republicans stand on this issue. In fact, one 
Senator from North Dakota offered what I thought was a good amendment 
acknowledging this issue and then at the very end voted against his own 
amendment, which is rare in the Senate annals, but it shows you how 
conflicted many Republican Members were on the basic environmental 
issues.
  Now let's get to the procedure and where we stand. Last Thursday 
night was troubling. After the constructive consideration of over a 
dozen different amendments on both sides of the aisle, the Republican 
majority leader said: Now bring out the next group of amendments. And 
we did. The Democrats cooperated. We produced six amendments we wanted 
up next, and the Republicans produced six amendments they wanted up 
next. An hour later, within an hour after producing the list, the 
Senate majority leader came to floor and said: That is it; we are not 
going to get this done as I wanted to get it done. We are going to 
start tabling the Democratic amendments, one after the other.
  So the Members who offered the amendments, who had worked on the 
amendments stood at their desks as each amendment came up and said: I 
would like 60 seconds to just explain the amendment I wrote that we are 
about to vote on. Each and every time, the Republicans objected to 60 
seconds of debate.
  This is considered the world's greatest deliberative body. Yet the 
sponsors, the authors of the amendments were denied 60 seconds to even 
explain their amendments. It didn't leave a very good taste in the 
mouths of many Democrats--not even those who were supporting this 
Keystone Canadian Pipeline. Many of them think this is unfair.
  If we are going to have a good-faith, bipartisan environment to 
consider amendments, let's go back and forth--Democrat, Republican--and 
let's consider the major issues before us. There are still major 
unresolved issues, health and safety issues, with pending amendments.
  I approached the majority leader as he was leaving the floor and I 
said: Even if we do not invoke cloture this evening, let's work 
together on a bipartisan basis. Let's come up with these lists of 
amendments. Let's do this in a conscientious, good-faith effort to 
complete this bill.
  I think we can achieve it. My hat is off to Senator Lisa Murkowski, 
Republican Senator, who has come to the floor, leading this effort on 
the floor with the debate, but I have a special place in my heart for 
the Democratic side, where two other Senators have been outstanding in 
bringing us to this point on the issue. Senator Maria Cantwell from 
Washington is leading our effort on the Democratic side in full 
partnership with Senator Barbara Boxer of California, and many others.
  As was suggested by a Senator last week, it is time for the boys to 
get off the stage and let the ladies come back in and consider these 
amendments and bring us to the right conclusion of thoughtful debate, 
important issues considered, and a vote in the U.S. Senate on this 
legislation.

                          ____________________