[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20129-20131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

  Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to begin by thanking my esteemed colleague from 
the great State of North Dakota. I appreciate very much his support for 
this important project as he has again expressed. This is something we 
worked on for a great length of time. It is something we have quite a 
bit of background and experience with, energy production and the 
infrastructure needs that go with it. Again, I express my appreciation 
to Senator Conrad for his support of the project, and also for 
expressing, and I think doing so in very eloquent terms and in terms 
that are very much appreciated, that he feels this is something that 
needs to advance; that he feels as we work forward in terms of 
determining how to handle the payroll tax cut holiday issue, this is 
something that can be helpful and constructive.
  I am here to speak in support of the Keystone project. You might say, 
Why? Why is it important that we move forward with this project? Well, 
first and foremost, because it is a tremendous job creator, but also 
because it reduces our dependence on foreign sources of oil as well as 
improving environmental stewardship. I want to take a minute to talk 
about all three aspects of the legislation.
  Together with my colleagues, I put forward the North American Energy 
Security Act of 2011. Essentially, that legislation clears the path to 
move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
  For those who may not be familiar with the Keystone XL Pipeline, I 
brought this chart that actually shows the route it travels. It is a 
1,700-mile-long pipeline which runs from Alberta, Canada, down to our 
refineries in the gulf coast region. As you can see, it is this blue 
line laid out on the chart. Right next to it we have this red line. 
This is the Keystone Pipeline. I will take a minute to talk about that, 
because I think it is important in the context of what we are trying to 
do with Keystone XL.
  Prior to being elected to the Senate, I served the State of North 
Dakota for 10 years as Governor. During that time, we worked with many 
companies to develop pipeline infrastructure in North Dakota as we 
produced more and more oil for this Nation, but we also worked with our 
neighbors from the North who provide oil to our country as well, in 
fact 2.2 million barrels a day, to move that product safely into our 
country.
  The Keystone Pipeline, built by TransCanada, as you can see, tracks 
from Alberta, Canada, all the way down to Patoka, IL. So it is similar 
in that it brings Canadian crude into our refineries here in the United 
States, which is refined and reduces our dependence on other sources of 
oil. About 590,000 barrels a day flow through the Keystone Pipeline 
right now. So when we talk about the Keystone XL project, we are not 
talking about something which hasn't been done before. In fact, we just 
got done permitting this pipeline, which is almost identical, bringing 
oil from roughly the same place in Canada down to refineries into the 
United States. That has already been approved by EPA and the Department 
of State. It went through the requisite NEPA and study processes, it 
went through the proper processes with the Department of State, and it 
has been approved, 590,000 barrels a day coming into our country to 
reduce our dependence on oil from places such as the Middle East and 
Venezuela right now. So when we talk about Keystone XL, we are not 
talking about doing anything we haven't already done.
  This pipeline--which would run a little bit to the west--again 
roughly starts up about the same place, Alberta, Canada, comes down 
further than the existing Keystone Pipeline down to our refineries. It 
is important to know that this isn't just about moving crude oil from 
Canada to the United States. This is also about moving oil within the 
United States.
  In this part of our country, in North Dakota and in Montana, we are 
producing a tremendous amount of oil. My home State of North Dakota 
today is closing in on oil production of 500,000 barrels of oil a day. 
We will put 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil, such as sweet crude, 
into this pipeline as well. So it

[[Page 20130]]

is not just about moving Canadian oil in America, it is about moving 
oil within our country, production from the Bakken region in the 
Williston Basin, down to our refineries.
  Also, you will notice that the pipeline comes down to Cushing, OK. 
Right now we have a backlog of oil in Cushing, OK, and this pipeline 
will move oil from Cushing down to the refineries in Texas and 
Louisiana. So it helps solve bottleneck issues, moving oil in our 
country, which will help reduce prices to consumers as you eliminate 
some of these bottlenecks and price disparities.
  Again I go back to the point of my being here today, talking about 
this legislation, which is solutions-oriented legislation, problem-
solving legislation. What it does is it creates jobs, it reduces our 
dependence on Middle East oil, and again it provides better 
environmental stewardship. So when I say it is solutions oriented, what 
do I mean by that? The issue, as I think most people who follow this 
issue will recall, the concern or the problem was in the Sandhills 
region of western Nebraska. Concern had been expressed about going 
through the Sandhills of Nebraska. That is an area where we have the 
Ogallala aquifer, and there was concern there that there might be an 
issue should there be any kind of breach in the pipeline. So that was 
the issue.
  However, the State of Nebraska recently had a special session. In 
that special session, they said, Hey, we will work to reroute the 
project to eastern Nebraska, similar to the pipeline that already 
exists. That eliminates the problem. Now we don't have an issue anymore 
in the Sandhills area of Nebraska.
  The legislation we have written and that has now been incorporated 
into the House bill takes that very solution and incorporates it into 
the legislation. It says the Nebraska Department of Environmental 
Quality can work with EPA and the State Department to reroute the 
project in Nebraska so there is no longer an issue. We solve the 
problem. It is problem-solving legislation.
  We say as to the entire project that the administration, with State, 
the EPA, and so forth, has to make a decision on whether to approve the 
project within 60 days. Is it in our national interest? They have to 
make that decision within 60 days so the project can get started and we 
can start creating those construction jobs. But as to Nebraska, they 
are not bound by the 60 days. They have the time they need to 
incorporate the solution from the State's special session.
  All we are saying is this project has been studied for 3 years. It 
has been studied for 3 years already. It has gone through the NEPA 
process. It has gone through the full EIS. State was ready to make a 
decision. It got held up because of Nebraska, and we specifically 
addressed that problem. Now it is time to go forward. That is why this 
is problem-solving legislation.
  Again, this is about creating jobs. This is about reducing our 
dependence on Middle East oil. We absolutely address the issue of 
Nebraska. We do not set a 60-day time limit on it. As to the rest of 
the project, we can get started.
  Let's talk about who supports the project. The Prime Minister of 
Canada, Stephen Harper, has talked to our President and said, look, our 
greatest ally is Canada. Canada says, this is a very important project 
for Canada. This is about producing our energy resources in Canada. 
This is about jobs and economic opportunity in Canada.
  Let's join with our best ally and together create jobs and produce 
energy we can count on.
  The issue has been brought up about environmental stewardship. For 
those who say we have some concerns about producing oil in the oil 
sands region of Canada, I submit Canada is doing what we are doing. 
North Dakota all the time is improving their technology in order to 
improve their environmental stewardship. For example, going to in situ 
mining rather than for excavation for things such as producing the oil 
sands.
  The point we have to understand that is very important is, if the 
pipeline doesn't go this way, if the pipeline doesn't go south, it is 
going to go west. If this product does not come to the United States, 
this 700,000 barrels, it is going to the west coast of Canada, where it 
will be loaded on ships and it will go to China.
  We have a choice to make. Do we want to reduce our dependence on oil 
from the Middle East and from Venezuela and other parts of the world 
where we have real security issues? Do we want to increase the 
relationship and the economic ties with our best ally in the world or 
do we want 700,000 barrels a day of Canadian oil going to China 
instead?
  By the way, let's talk about the environmental stewardship. That 
means we have to haul it over there on oil tankers. We have to continue 
to bring our product in on oil tankers, so we have higher emissions 
instead of lower emissions. Instead of that oil being refined in the 
cleanest refineries in the world, which we have, it is going to be 
refined in refineries in China, which have much higher emissions.
  Again, the whole focus of the legislation--I authored the bill. The 
whole focus in writing this bill was to say: How do we solve the 
problem? How do we deal with the concerns? How do we make sure we are 
being fair to people but that we move forward with real job creation, 
with producing more energy to increase our energy independence with our 
good friend and neighbor, our strongest ally--Canada? How do we 
continue to do more in terms of private investment, deploying 
technologies, creating better environmental stewardship? It is about 
problem-solving legislation.
  We can see we have not only the U.S. Chamber of Commerce now 
supporting this legislation, because they want to see job creation, but 
we have all the large building and trade unions supporting it as well--
AFL-CIO, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International 
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Labors International Union of North 
America, United Association, International Union of Operating 
Engineers.
  It is America's workers who are clamoring for the expedited approval 
of this important project. We can't wait.
  Mark Ayers, president, Building & Construction Trades Department, 
AFL-CIO:

       The Keystone Pipeline project will offer working men and 
     women a real chance to earn a good wage and support their 
     families in this difficult economic climate.

  James P. Hoffa, International Brotherhood of Teamsters:

       At a time when jobs are the top global priority, the 
     Keystone Project will put thousands back to work and have 
     ripple benefits throughout the North American economy. Our 
     members look forward to being part of this historic project 
     and pledge to deliver the highest quality work to make it a 
     success.

  President Edwin D. Hill, International Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers. The list goes on.
  As I said, this project has been studied for 3 years. We have already 
built the sister project. We have gone through that whole process. This 
has been studied for 3 years already.
  How much will this project cost the American taxpayer? This is a $7 
billion investment, but it is private investment. It is private 
investment that stimulates job creation. Not only will it not cost the 
American taxpayer one dime, The Perryman Group from Waco, TX, estimates 
it will create hundreds of millions of dollars in local and State 
revenues.
  Our country faces some real challenges. One of those challenges is we 
have to get people back to work. We have 8.6 percent unemployment. We 
have 13.3 million people looking for work. We need to get them back to 
work. So government needs to create the legal, tax, and regulatory 
environment that stimulates private investment and gets people back to 
work. This legislation, this project, helps do that.
  We have a deficit and a debt--a deficit of about $1.3 trillion, a 
debt that is now $15 trillion. When our President took office, our debt 
was $10 trillion. The national debt was $10 trillion. Today it is $15 
trillion.
  We have to get a grip on our spending. We have to start finding 
savings, but at the same time we have to grow

[[Page 20131]]

this economy. We have to get private investment going and grow this 
economy. That growth in revenues and controlling our spending is what 
will reduce the deficit and the debt.
  You know what, we have to do more to reduce our energy dependence on 
places such as the Middle East and Venezuela, where we have real 
challenges. This is the kind of project that can do it. I submit we 
need to move forward. This body has the opportunity to truly empower 
the kind of investment we need to move our economy forward, to create 
greater energy independence, and to help Americans get back to work. 
That is exactly what they want. I encourage my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________