[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19056-19060]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY ACT

  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise this morning to discuss the North 
American Energy Security Act in a colloquy with my colleagues. Joining 
me will be our leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator Kay 
Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Senator Johnny Isakson from the great State 
of Georgia, Senator Mike Johanns from Nebraska, and Senator Jim Inhofe 
of Oklahoma. We are here to discuss a very solutions-oriented piece of 
legislation. It is about creating jobs. It is about creating energy 
security for our Nation. It is about good environmental stewardship. It 
is about all of these things and more.
  We want to take this opportunity to discuss the legislation and 
encourage--to urge--our fellow colleagues to join with us to create 
jobs and opportunity for the American people. In a nutshell, this 
legislation clears the way for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is a 
1,700-mile pipeline that will run from Alberta, Canada, all the way 
down to the gulf coast region of the country, down to the refineries in 
the United States.
  This blue line shows the route of the Keystone XL Pipeline. This red 
line shows an existing pipeline, the Keystone Pipeline, which was built 
very recently by TransCanada. It provides almost 600,000 barrels a day 
of crude to the United States. The Keystone XL Pipeline would provide 
more than 700,000 barrels a day of crude oil to our refineries. In 
addition, it will also haul domestic crude from States such as North 
Dakota and Montana.
  It will put 100,000 barrels a day of our own light, sweet, domestic 
crude into the pipeline to bring it down for our needs in the country. 
It will also bring oil from places such as Cushing, OK, where we 
currently have backlogs to the refineries, as well. So it is also about 
moving oil within our country as well as bringing Canadian crude to the 
United States and to our refineries.
  I mentioned it is a job creation bill. As our leader said just a 
minute ago, just the construction alone will put 20,000 workers on the 
job--20,000 workers on the job--just constructing the pipeline. The 
Perryman Group out of Waco, TX, has indicated more than 250,000 jobs. 
It is a huge job creator.
  I yield to our leader, Senator McConnell.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield on that point, it is my 
understanding, and is it not correct, that these are not jobs sometime 
in the future but these are, in fact, jobs that just as soon as the 
President would sign off on this, this project is ready to go. We don't 
have to borrow any--the government doesn't have to borrow any money and 
they don't have to try to stimulate anything. This is a project, as I 
understand it, I would ask my friend from North Dakota, that is 
literally shovel ready and will not cost the government a penny?
  Mr. HOEVEN. This is a project that is absolutely ready to go and will 
not cost the Federal Government one penny. It puts 20,000 workers on 
the job right away.
  The hurdle was the route through Nebraska, but we have now worked 
with the State of Nebraska. They have had a special session. They have 
set up a process to clear that part of the route. Our legislation says 
within 60 days after passage of this bill the route is deemed approved. 
That is after 3 years of process through the EPA.
  So we are ready to go. We have addressed the issues. We can put these 
people on the job now if we can get the Presidential approval.
  Mr. McCONNELL. In fact, I would say to my friend, the Senator from 
Nebraska is on the Senate floor with us right now. He could further 
underscore that the people of Nebraska, having now satisfied the 
concern they had earlier about location, seem to be ready to go.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond 
to the leader's comment and his question. The leader is absolutely 
right. The people of Nebraska, through their elected officials, have 
worked with the company building this pipeline in that they have 
resolved their differences.
  The reason I support this legislation and have decided to be a 
cosponsor of the legislation is that this legislation respects the 
Nebraska process. It says there will be a process in Nebraska where we 
will site the pipeline in the best place. This legislation says that is 
fine. But what this legislation also acknowledges is, on the entire 
rest of the pipeline outside of the State of Nebraska, this is ready to 
be built today.
  The President of the United States has had 3 years of background 
study and extensive environmental study, as the leader has pointed out, 
and nothing is going to change outside of the State of Nebraska. So 
work can begin today. There is just one person holding up that work. 
That is the President of the United States. With the stroke of a pen, 
he can turn this project loose. It will respect what is going on in 
Nebraska. Workers can be hired, the pipeline can be built, and those 
jobs can be literally provided today.
  So I support this legislation. I am proud to be here this morning to 
say that and to thank the Senator from North Dakota, the minority 
leader, and all others who have worked with us to solve this problem. 
The problem is solved. We are ready to create the jobs. It is my hope 
the President will announce that he is ready to proceed to create these 
jobs for American workers.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Could I ask one further question of either or both of 
the Senators--and Senator Isakson as well.
  I understand there is a suggestion that there may be political 
concerns on the President's part, and we all know that most 
environmental groups are very much on the Democratic side. But is it 
not the case that there are a number of unions in the country--most of 
which, certainly, do not support Republicans anywhere I know--that also 
feel passionately about this issue and would like to get to work? Is 
that not the case?
  Mr. HOEVEN. I ask Senator Johanns, would he like to respond?
  Mr. JOHANNS. I have worked on this issue for a number of months--
actually, a couple of years. Here is the situation: Unions are ready to 
go to work. I talk to the locals in Nebraska on a regular basis, and 
they talk about unemployment numbers that are staggering, in the 
double-digits, which, in our State, is remarkable because we have an 
unemployment rate of 4.2 percent.
  The unions are ready to go to work, bringing their skills and their 
talents to bear. The leader's observation is absolutely right.

[[Page 19057]]

  For the environmentalists, on the other hand, it is not the pipeline, 
it is not the location, it is that they do not want the tar sands 
development to occur. So the President is on the horns of a dilemma. 
Part of his base, the unions, are saying: Create the jobs. There is 
already a pipeline. Let's go out there and do this in the most 
environmentally sensitive way we possibly can.
  On the other hand, the environmentalists are saying: No, Mr. 
President. They have circled the White House. They have done all of 
these things. Well, the President solved this dilemma he finds himself 
in, in my judgment, by announcing he would just delay this until after 
the election.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Could I ask the Senator from Nebraska a further 
question?
  It strikes me--correct me if I am wrong--that America not going 
forward does not prevent this from happening, just in another country. 
And a good option for the Canadians might well be to just ship this 
product to China. Is that not correct?
  Mr. JOHANNS. Well, in response to the leader's question, the Canadian 
Government has already indicated that if the United States is not a 
reliable purchaser and transporter of this commodity, they will have to 
look to other parts of the world, for example, China, to sell this 
product.
  This will not stop the development in that area. In fact, it will 
push the development to a part of the world where the refinery process 
might take place with fewer environmental standards and, therefore, 
cause more environmental problems than if we build this pipeline and 
solve it. That is why from the very beginning I have said: Look, I am 
not opposed to the tar sands development. I am not even opposed to the 
pipeline in our State, now that we have solved the problem.
  As I said, there is one person who can create these jobs today. That 
is the President of the United States. With the Prime Minister with the 
President, it would be a perfect opportunity to say: We do not have to 
wait until after the election. Let's create these jobs today. Let's put 
Americans to work.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Just one final observation, and then I am going to 
leave the colloquy to all the rest of my colleagues. But it strikes 
me--and I wonder if my colleagues agree--this is about as close to a 
no-brainer as we will ever run into in America. There is no government 
money.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I would ask Senator Isakson to join us at this point. He 
is here specifically to talk a little bit about the issue with oil 
sands development and China. So Senator Isakson, and then certainly 
Senator Hutchison as well.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank Senator Hoeven for the recognition, and I thank 
the leader for his remarks.
  I just want to confirm what the leader just said by quoting from two 
recent articles. The first is from an article about Minister Oliver, 
who is Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, on his trip to Shanghai. 
Here is his quote:

       My mission to China is clear. I have come to raise 
     awareness of the strength of Canada's natural resource 
     sectors--as both an outstanding source of quality products 
     and an attractive destination for investment.

  Let me read one other quote that occurred shortly after that speech 
was made by the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources:

       A unit of China Petrochemical Corp., [known as] Sinopec, 
     agreed to buy Daylight Energy Ltd., a Canadian oil and 
     natural-gas producer, for 2.2 billion Canadian dollars . . 
     .--China's second [purchase and second] foray into Canada's 
     oil patch in [the last year].

  So to confirm what the leader has said, and to confirm what Senator 
Hoeven has acknowledged, this is not something we might fear happening 
later on. This is something happening now. If we default on the 
Keystone XL Pipeline now, we are giving a wide open year for the 
Chinese to come back to Canada, make those investments, tie down that 
oil, and encourage that pipeline to go--not to Houston, TX--but to 
Vancouver, Canada, and then on ships to China.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of both of these articles 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [Natural Resources Canada, Nov. 9, 2011]

           Minister Oliver Promotes Canadian Energy in China

       ``My mission to China is clear. I have come to raise 
     awareness of the strength of Canada's natural resource 
     sectors--as both an outstanding source of quality products 
     and an attractive destination for investment,'' said the 
     Honourable Joe Oliver, Canada's Minister of Natural 
     Resources, while speaking today at the Canadian Chamber of 
     Commerce in Shanghai.
       The Minister has been in Beijing and Shanghai this week 
     meeting with senior government officials and leaders of 
     Chinese companies.
       Minister Oliver met with Vice Premier Li Keqiang and 
     discussed the role of investment and trade in energy and 
     mineral resources in contributing to Canada's long-term 
     strategic partnership with China. He also signed an agreement 
     with the President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 
     Professor Bai Chunli, to expand cooperation on science and 
     technology in earth sciences and natural resources.
       Over the last few days, Minister Oliver has held meetings 
     with major Chinese energy companies including Sinopec, China 
     National Offshore Oil Corporation and Petrochina to discuss 
     Canada's enormous energy resources and attractive investment 
     climate.
       ``As reaffirmed today in the International Energy Agency's 
     2011 World Outlook, global energy demand is expected to 
     increase by one third from 2010 to 2035,'' said Minister 
     Oliver. ``Given that Canada is also projected to be an ever-
     increasing contributor to global energy supply, our Chinese 
     investors recognize the importance of getting into the 
     Canadian energy market right now.''
       The Minister discussed the Government of Canada's key 
     strategic policy of diversifying Canadian energy markets and 
     participated in a joint Canada-B.C. event with Canadian and 
     Chinese industry officials to promote exports to China.
       Minister Oliver met with Vice Chair Zhang Xiaoqiang of the 
     National Development and Reform Commission on strengthening 
     Canada's long-term strategic partnership with China through 
     two-way trade and investment in energy and natural resources.
       While in Shanghai, the Minister also toured the Jinqiao 
     Wood Townhouse Demonstration Project, where he underlined the 
     many benefits of Canadian wood-frame construction expertise 
     for China.
       This demonstration project is one of several in China 
     funded by the Government of Canada to showcase the low-
     carbon, environmentally friendly and energy-efficient 
     properties of wood-frame construction, and to assist China in 
     meeting its national goals of reducing carbon emissions in 
     new housing projects.
       Minister Oliver continued to highlight the phenomenal 
     growth in exports of wood products when he met with Vice 
     Minister Qiu Baoxing, Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural 
     Development, as well as with British Columbia Premier Christy 
     Clark and Pat Bell, BC Minister of Jobs, Tourism and 
     Innovation, to discuss trilateral cooperation on wood-frame 
     housing in China.
       Minister Oliver will now continue on to Tokyo and Sendai, 
     Japan.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 10, 2011]

          Sinopec Deepens China's Push Into Canadian Oil Patch

                           (By Edward Welsch)

       A unit of China Petrochemical Corp., or Sinopec, agreed to 
     buy Daylight Energy Ltd., a Canadian oil and natural-gas 
     producer, for 2.2 billion) Canadian dollars (US$2.12 
     billion)--China's second big foray into Canada's oil patch in 
     recent months.
       In July, Cnooc Ltd. agreed to pay just over $2 billion for 
     bankrupt OPTI Canada Inc., in a rare move by a Chinese 
     company to swoop in and swallow an entire company instead of 
     tiptoeing in with a minority stake.
       In the North American energy sector, in particular, Chinese 
     companies have been wary of political fallout if they are 
     seen as acting too aggressively in a sector that many 
     consider to be strategic.
       But the two recent moves suggest sensitivities in Beijing 
     may be easing somewhat--at least regarding business in 
     Canada. The federal government in Ottawa and its 
     semiautonomous provincial counterparts have long welcomed 
     foreign investment in the Canadian oil patch, which includes 
     vast conventional oil and natural-gas reserves, but also the 
     much more capital-intensive, oil-sands developments of 
     northern Alberta.
       Canadian companies, with relatively small domestic capital 
     markets to fall back on, have relied on foreign investment--
     including from China--though more often that has come in the 
     form of minority stakes in companies, or joint ventures in 
     certain capital-intensive projects.
       Last year, for instance, Sinopec bought ConocoPhillips' 9 
     percent stake in its large Syncrude oil-sands project in 
     northeastern Alberta for $4.65 billion.
       Recently, some Canadian politicians and businessmen have 
     expressed new wariness over big foreign deals.

[[Page 19058]]

       Ottawa rejected Australia-based BHP Billiton Ltd.'s $39 
     billion attempt to buy Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. last 
     year. The Canadian government said the deal wouldn't bring 
     enough economic benefit. However, a campaign against the 
     takeover launched by the local government of Saskatchewan 
     generated significant support from regional politicians and 
     the public.
       The Sinopec-Daylight deal will face the same sort of 
     government review that other significant foreign deals 
     undergo, including a federal sign-off. But it isn't expected 
     to garner the same sort of scrutiny as the BHP-Potash bid.
       Potash holds a significant chunk of the world's reserves of 
     potash, a critical raw material in fertilizer. Critics used 
     that market dominance to argue that Potash was a strategic 
     asset that should remain in Canadian hands.
       Daylight, meanwhile, is a relatively small energy 
     competitor--one of scores of Canadian companies that hold 
     just a thin slice of the country's overall petroleum 
     reserves.
       Daylight produces light oil and natural gas from properties 
     in northeast British Columbia and northwestern Alberta. The 
     company produced just 37,000 barrels of oil equivalents in 
     the second quarter. But Daylight has accumulated a 
     significant undeveloped land position in the emerging 
     liquids-rich Duvernay shale-gas play in Alberta.
       Sinopec is laying down a sizable premium for the deal. In a 
     statement Sunday, Daylight, based in Calgary, said that 
     Sinopec had agreed to buy the company for C$10.08 a share, 
     representing a premium of 43.6 percent over the 60-day 
     weighted average price of the stock ending Oct 7.
       ``We believe this transaction with [Sinopec] recognizes the 
     highly attractive asset portfolio and exceptional team that 
     we have assembled,'' said Anthony Lambert, the president and 
     chief executive of Daylight, in the statement
       Barclays Capital advised Sinopec on the transaction. 
     Canaccord Genuity Corp. advised Daylight.

  Mr. HOEVEN. I thank Senator Isakson and ask the Senator if he has any 
more he wants to add. I know the Senator has to leave and is on a tight 
timetable.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Just to thank the Senator for his leadership; the 
Senator's leadership on this issue has been outstanding.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I thank Senator Isakson and thank him for being here.
  I will turn to Senator Hutchison from Texas.
  We have actually 40 Senators already on this legislation--40 
Senators. It is bipartisan. This is something we absolutely need to 
move on. I spoke with the Canadian Ambassador today, Ambassador Doer. 
He talked about how they are already looking at Western routes to send 
this oil to China.
  So this oil is going to be produced. It is going to be produced. The 
question is, Does it come to the United States and help us reduce our 
dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Does it come here and create 
thousands of jobs or do we send it to China where there will actually 
be more emissions because it will be refined in refineries that produce 
higher emissions?
  We will also have the emissions of shipping product all around the 
world, not only shipping this oil to China but then we are going to 
continue to have to ship oil from places such as the Middle East and 
Venezuela. So we actually increase CO2 emissions without 
this project.
  Now, in Texas, of course, we have refineries, and Senator Hutchison 
is here to talk about just how important it is we bring this product 
down to our refineries in the gulf coast region.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from North Dakota because Senator 
Hoeven has been a leader on this issue, knowing how important this find 
is, and how much more capacity we will have for affordable energy in 
our country if we can extend the pipeline.
  This is a pipeline that is not just starting from Canada into the 
United States. The Keystone Pipeline was started in 2008. The initial 
line moves 590,000 barrels of oil per day from northern Alberta to 
points in Cushing, OK, and Patoka, IL. The XL extension--which is what 
we are talking about that is being held up by the State Department--is 
currently under review. It would expand the system by 700,000 barrels 
per day--so more than double what we are getting already--and bring the 
line further south to Texas.
  Well, now, why is that important? It is because 25 percent of the 
refinery capacity in America is in Texas. It is in the gulf coast of 
Texas. That is where the refiners are. We are talking about producing 
now more affordable energy for all the consumers in our country by 
bringing it straight down and having it refined and sent back out to 
all points in America. Otherwise, what my colleagues have just been 
talking about--Senator Isakson and Senator Hoeven--is that we will see 
Canada export this to other countries, whether it be China or other 
countries, and eventually it is going to be coming back into the United 
States much more expensively to be refined in Texas and sent out.
  So specifically for Texas, it would put our State's 26 refineries 
into probably 24 hours' of business, which means lots of jobs in Texas. 
That 25 percent of U.S. production is approximately 5 percent of 
worldwide capacity. So we are talking about lowering the price of 
energy throughout our country and the world.
  It would produce an estimated $2.3 billion in new spending and 
generate more than $48 million in new tax revenue for my state alone. 
It would result in 700,000 barrels of oil a day, as I have said. We 
know the Canadian find--the sands that have been found there--is the 
third largest capacity, next to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, in 
recoverable oil in the world. So we have the third largest reserve in 
Canada and we know we have the ability to bring that oil down, have it 
refined, and go out to the United States because dependence on the 
Middle East and North Africa has certainly led to price spikes. 
Venezuela is certainly not a reliable partner right now and supply 
interruptions threaten our economy and our national security.
  So the Keystone XL Pipeline would certainly be a boom to Texas and 
Texas jobs. But more than that, it is going to benefit every consumer 
of energy in America. It will more than double what we can buy from 
Canada, and think of the reliability of our Canadian relationship. The 
reliability of our trade and our relationship with our neighbor to the 
north, Canada, is among the most solid we have in all of the globe.
  It is essential we build this pipeline. As the leader said earlier, 
this is a no-brainer--as close as you can get to a no-brainer for 
building our economy, creating jobs, and creating more tax revenue that 
will bring down the deficit we have heard so much talk about on the 
other side--but this would do it the old-fashioned way: by giving 
people the ability to provide for their families and contribute to the 
economy of our country.
  That is the way we want to see increased revenue in this country: 
with more jobs and paying taxes, not collecting benefits because they 
cannot find work. It is right here, and it does not cost the government 
a dime because it is private investment that will bring this oil to the 
refineries and put it back out to the United States.
  I urge the President of the United States to go to the State 
Department and say: Let this go. In lieu of urging the President, we 
have a bill that was started by Senator Hoeven, with 40 sponsors, that 
will tell the President: Now is the time--it is long past due time--for 
us to create the jobs in this country that are not going to be taxpayer 
funded, that are going to be privately funded. They are going to create 
cleaner, better, cheaper, more efficient energy; and they are going to 
create jobs which people want in this holiday season and on into the 
future years.
  So I thank my colleague from North Dakota for giving us this chance 
to tell the American people we have an answer to jobs and to bringing 
down the deficit and increasing revenue the way people want to: by 
providing for their families and paying taxes with the money they are 
earning. It is a win for everyone. I thank the Senator from North 
Dakota for leading this effort.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Texas. Senator Hutchison is, as 
usual, not only eloquent but has hit the nail on the head. Looking 
across our country from North Dakota to Texas to Oklahoma, across our 
country we need these jobs. This is the way to get them, and we can get 
them now. We need our President to act.
  This legislation is a solutions-oriented bill.

[[Page 19059]]

  It is about job creation. It is about energy independence. It is 
about good environmental stewardship. We need to do it. I would like to 
now turn to my esteemed colleague from the State of Oklahoma, Senator 
Inhofe, who is the ranking member on Environment and Public Works. He 
has a tremendous background in energy, as does Senator Hutchison. I 
would turn to Senator Inhofe for his comments.
  Mr. INHOFE. I do appreciate that. Sometimes we stand on the floor and 
we talk about jobs. But here is the evidence, Oklahoma has a big dog in 
this fight. Not only do we have Cushing--when the Senator from North 
Dakota talked about Cushing, that is Cushing, OK, right there on his 
map. That is kind of a choke point in this pipeline. They all kind of 
converge. There is no way of getting down to Texas without getting 
through what we have in Oklahoma.
  But more so, if you do not think this is a jobs bill, you have a very 
famous Oklahoman working in your State. I would say Harold Hamm is 
probably the No. 1 producer out there today. I have talked to him. Do 
you know what his biggest problem is in North Dakota? His biggest 
problem is he cannot find anyone to work. They are full employed up 
there. What better evidence is there that this solves the problem--that 
this is a jobs bill--than the jobs in North Dakota?
  I think there is something sadly lacking in this debate, though; that 
is, that this is just an extension of what this administration has been 
trying to do. They have been trying to kill fossil fuels from the very 
beginning. Let me quote Alan Kruger, who is chair of the President's 
Council of Economic Advisers. He says: ``The administration believes 
that it is no longer sufficient to address our nation's energy needs by 
finding more fossil fuels.'' He wants to kill fossil fuels.
  Steven Chu, the Energy Secretary said: ``Somehow we are going to have 
to figure out how to increase the price of oil to be equal to that in 
Central Europe.'' That is $8 a gallon. He is trying to wean us off 
fossil fuels. We cannot run this machine called America without it.
  I only wanted to mention that, and I appreciate the Senator from 
North Dakota talking about the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
It has been an effort of this administration through the backdoor, 
through regulation, to do away with fossil fuels. The boiler MACT--
MACT, by the way, means Maximum Achievable Controlled Technology.
  By increasing the emission requirements on boilers and on utilities, 
we are talking about around $83 billion a year of cost. Compare that to 
the cap and trade. Cap and trade right now is--and we have gone through 
this on the floor with all these bills trying to have cap and trade and 
the greenhouse gases and all that. The cost of that is between $300 and 
$400 billion a year. That is more than all the other regulations 
combined.
  It is all aimed at one thing. What is that one thing? To stop fossil 
fuels. Of course, when we talk about my State of Oklahoma being kind of 
the choke point, as the Senator has pointed out in his chart over 
there, I say to my good friend from North Dakota, we have done an 
analysis of jobs just in my State of Oklahoma. By the construction of 
the Keystone XL, that would be 14,000 new jobs just in Oklahoma--just 
in my State--and an increase of personal income by $847 million.
  So this is a huge thing that we have in my State of Oklahoma. Cushing 
just happens to be the crossroads. That is where they all come 
together. They are clogged up now. As the Senator pointed out, they 
cannot do anything. Their hands are tied because they are in total 
capacity right now.
  It should be a no-brainer. But the problem is there is one man, as 
the Senator from Nebraska said, one man can make this a reality, the 
President of the United States. He has made it very clear he does not 
want to do anything to help fossil fuels in America. It is a political 
problem we have.
  Mr. HOEVEN. If I may, I would like to ask the esteemed Senator from 
Oklahoma to talk for a minute on the subject of how we create that 
environment that gets job creation going. I think this project is a 
perfect example of what we are talking about. We have to create an 
environment--a legal, tax and regulatory environment--that empowers 
private investment, not government spending but private investment, to 
get job creation going.
  Here we have a regulatory issue, where we just--TransCanada has 
worked for 3 years to meet the environmental process. Most recently, 
the problem was in Nebraska, the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, the 
Ogallala aquifer. But now we have come up with a solution to make sure 
we deal with that issue. So we have cleared that process.
  That means this project is ready to go as we have just described. 
Leader McConnell just a minute ago talked about how the labor unions 
strongly support this project. I can go through that whole list as 
well. In addition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says: Let's go. We 
support this project. So we have 40 Senators, bipartisan, labor unions, 
Chamber of Commerce.
  Here is an another interesting statistic. This example is such a good 
example of what we are talking about. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma 
to maybe expand on the point. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last 
year released a study identifying 351 stalled energy projects 
nationwide costing the American economy $1.1 trillion in lost income 
impact, and nearly 2 million jobs annually.
  My point is this: We have to find a way to empower private investment 
to get job creation going. The esteemed Senator from Oklahoma is 
ranking member on Environment and Public Works. He sees this every day. 
But without more government spending, the secret to unlocking jobs in 
this country is to empower the investment. I would ask if the Senator 
from Oklahoma can address that for just a minute because I think this 
project is such a perfect example of what we are talking about.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is, and this is something that is understood. The term 
a ``no-brainer'' has been used several times because we do not have to 
think this through. One of the problems I have had--back when 
Republicans were a majority, I chaired the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. That has jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection 
Agency, which has been making every effort to overregulate, to the 
extent--we know everybody knows of the spending crisis we have, the 
deficit and the debt and all that. They do not understand the 
overregulation actually costs us more than all these fiscal issues 
combined.
  I mentioned just a few of those. I can recall, before the Senator 
from North Dakota was in this body, back during the Kyoto treaty--in 
the Kyoto treaty, they were trying to get this through to have a type 
of cap and trade, something that they said somehow greenhouse gases 
were going to cause catastrophic global warming and all that. That went 
down the tubes. Then they started introducing legislation to do the 
same thing. Then we had--and I appreciate the honesty of Lisa Jackson, 
who is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, when 
she came out and said: No, if we were to have this strictly in the 
United States, it is not going to reduce the emissions.
  This is kind of a long way around. The point I am trying to make is, 
it is very difficult for people to understand. Just the cap and trade 
this administration is trying to do through regulations, because they 
could not do it through legislation, is going to end up having the same 
effect: kill fossil fuels. That is what they are trying to do.
  But the point the Senator from North Dakota is making is that is kind 
of complicated. That is hard to understand. This is not. This is 
already out there. As I mentioned, just in my State of Oklahoma alone, 
14,000 new jobs. Who would be against it? The only ones against it are 
people who do not want to keep this machine running in America because 
they know they cannot do it without fossil fuels.
  Maybe someday that will be different. It is not different today. The

[[Page 19060]]

way to get it down, to bring it down, is through this pipeline. I am 
very selfish. It is not just the country; I have 20 kids and grandkids 
right there in Oklahoma who are depending on us doing what we are 
supposed to be doing.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the esteemed Senator from Oklahoma. He is so 
right. That is what it is all about. It is about putting people back to 
work. It is about American ingenuity, private investment. It is about 
getting this economy going.
  We have to find ways to save dollars, to reduce the spending that has 
gotten out of control. But a big part of getting out of the deficit and 
the debt is getting people back to work and getting this economy 
rolling. We are talking about a project that will create 20,000 
construction jobs right upfront, 250,000 permanent jobs, $600 million 
in State and local tax revenues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOEVEN. This is a project that reduces our dependence on oil from 
the Middle East. This is a project that provides better environmental 
stewardship, as we have described. This is a project where we need to 
move forward. This body needs to be about solutions. This is a 
solution. We need to act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________