[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 553-556]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, President Obama has said that every morning 
when he gets up, he thinks about what he can do to create jobs. Yet 
just in the last couple weeks, he turned thumbs down on a project that 
would create 20,000 shovel-ready jobs, the Keystone XL Pipeline, which 
is a project that is teed up and ready to go. It would invest $7 
billion initially and create 20,000 jobs immediately. It will address a 
very important issue for this country--energy.
  We talk about getting away from the dependence on foreign sources of 
energy and becoming more energy independent, and we have an opportunity 
to do that and, at the same time, create economic opportunity in this 
country and get people back to work. It is a mystery as to why the 
administration and the President would not find this particular project 
to be in America's national interest.
  It comes down to whether we are going to continue to import the oil, 
the energy we need, from unfriendly nations--we get about 700,000 
barrels a day from Venezuela--or whether we will get that oil from a 
friendly neighbor such as Canada. When we look at that juxtaposition, 
that comparison, and ask should we get that 700,000 barrels of oil from 
Hugo Chavez or from Canada, most Americans would say it makes more 
sense to do business with our friendly ally to the north. Also, we 
would have that come down into this country in a 1,700-mile pipeline, 
which would transport that oil to refineries in the United States, 
where it would be refined and create jobs there as well.
  In almost all respects, as we look at the project and the attributes 
that

[[Page 554]]

come with it, they are job creation, investment, energy security, not 
to mention the State and local tax revenue, which is something that is 
important to a lot of people whom I represent in South Dakota. In fact, 
I had someone from western South Dakota in my office last week, and he 
said: We care about the energy security issue, the jobs issue, and all 
that, but we need the tax revenue for our school districts and county 
governments that would be generated.
  So we have all these positive benefits associated with this 
particular project. Yet after having studied it for 3 years, about 
1,200 days, and having done multiple environmental impact statements--
the last one concluded in August of last year--lo and behold, the 
President decides he is not going to move forward with this project.
  We think that is terribly unfortunate, not in the national interest. 
We believe it is in the national interest to move forward to address 
the important energy security needs, as well as the needs for job 
creation and economic growth.
  Two of my colleagues, former Governors, now Senators from Nebraska 
and North Dakota, are people who are well acquainted with these types 
of projects. The Governor from North Dakota was very involved when the 
first Keystone Pipeline that was built from Canada through North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and points south. That project went 
through a permitting process. It was a couple years in the making and 
it was approved. The construction process was concluded and it is now 
operational. That is an example of how this particular project can 
work.
  This pipeline would cross the State of the Senator from Nebraska. 
There were concerns about whether it had the right route in order for 
this to be done in the best environmental way. Those issues have been 
addressed. The Nebraska legislature met in special session, and they 
and the Governor came up with an alternative idea about how to do this. 
They have been supportive of moving forward with this project as well.
  The question before the House is if the President of the United 
States determines this is not in the national interest, notwithstanding 
the support of lots of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle 
and I think overwhelming support of the States through which this line 
would traverse and the labor unions which represent a lot of people who 
are involved. Many editorial pages support this, including the Chicago 
Tribune, which said:

       Obama's decision will cost the U.S. jobs. . . . He seems to 
     think those jobs will still be there when he gets around to 
     making decision on the pipeline. But they may well be gone 
     for good.

  They go further and say his decision ``will deny the U.S. a reliable 
source of oil.''
  They recognize the importance of this project and doing business with 
a friendly country, the importance of energy independence, and the fact 
that if we don't benefit from this, it will go somewhere else. They 
have made it abundantly clear this is not something--if the United 
States turns it down--they will continue to wait around for until 
sometime in the future when we might consider it. They will go 
somewhere else--probably China--with it.
  For those reasons, we believe we need to do everything we can do to 
move this project forward. My colleagues came up with legislation that 
recognizes the role of the Congress under the commerce clause and our 
ability to approve this project. I hope we will get an opportunity to 
discuss and debate this issue in the Senate and get a vote and perhaps 
get a vote as well in the House of Representatives, where Congress 
could weigh in and perhaps change the President's mind about this 
important project.
  I am glad to be with my colleagues today. I will yield to the Senator 
from North Dakota and the Senator from Nebraska, two great leaders on 
this particular issue and all issues relating to energy security. They 
understand the history of this, as well as its importance to America's 
future.
  I ask the Senator from North Dakota if he would like to give us an 
insight about the first Keystone Pipeline, built through his State a 
few years ago, the history of that, and the history of how this 
particular project was put forward as well and why we think it ought to 
go forward.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for 
organizing the colloquy and I also thank the good Senator from Nebraska 
for joining us as well. I appreciate working with them on this project, 
which is not only vital to our State but to our country.
  As the Senator from South Dakota said, this project is critically 
important to our country for a number of reasons. First, it will create 
tens of thousands of jobs. There will be a $7 billion investment, not 
one penny of which will be Federal Government spending but all private 
sector investment. The Perryman Group projected, when they did a study 
on the job creation, that it would create 20,000 construction jobs 
right away; it would create upward of 100,000 spinoff jobs as they 
expand refineries and with the other economic activity that is created. 
Some might dispute those job numbers, but any way we look at it, tens 
of thousands of jobs will be created by the private sector, which is 
why it has strong union support at a time when we have 13-plus million 
people out of work and we need the jobs.
  As the Senator from South Dakota said, it will generate hundreds of 
millions in tax revenues from a growing economy, from more economic 
activity. The last I checked, it is pretty important at the local, 
State, and Federal levels to have those revenues coming in. In 
addition, it will reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. 
With what is going on in Iran--and they are threatening to blockade the 
Strait of Hormuz--and with gas prices at $3.50 a gallon, roughly, and 
going up, it is important to consumers and the businesses of this 
country that we use the oil in this country and from our closest ally, 
Canada, rather than relying on the Middle East.
  The third point is, this oil will be produced. If we don't build the 
pipeline capacity to bring it to our refineries to be refined, it goes 
to China. That is a fact. It will be produced. It will either go to 
China or it will come to us.
  I have this chart to give a history of the project because, as the 
good Senator from South Dakota said, this has been under review for 
more than 3 years. TransCanada, the company that is trying to build the 
pipeline, built this Keystone Pipeline already. That is this red line 
on the chart. That project was approved in 2 years. Again, Keystone XL 
has been under study more than 3 years. The sister pipeline has already 
been built, and that was approved in 2 years. It comes from Alberta, 
Canada, to the refineries in the Patoka, IL, area.
  The existing project, as we can see, comes through North Dakota--that 
was when I was Governor--through South Dakota, and down through 
Nebraska. The Keystone XL comes just to the west. I point that out 
because of the Bakken oil play in North Dakota and Montana, it is very 
important we have the ability to put oil into this pipeline. We are 
looking at putting 100,000 barrels a day of U.S. crude into this 
pipeline so it can get to our refineries. In other words, it is not 
just about bringing Canadian crude to our refineries; it is about 
bringing our own crude to them. It also saves wear and tear on our 
roads, and it is a safety issue because it reduces truck traffic. We 
are talking 500 truckloads a day and 17 million truck miles a year that 
we don't have to put on our roads. We don't have to have the traffic 
issues, the safety issues or the road issues in our country because we 
have the ability to move the product with this pipeline.
  Let's look at this timeline. September, 2008. I know this is hard to 
read. I will make an important point. In September 2008, TransCanada 
applied for a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. In November of 2008, 
the current administration was elected. For the entire time the current 
administration has been in office, they have held up this project. It 
has gone through the

[[Page 555]]

full NEPA process. It had the full environmental impact studies done. 
Even the State Department said there would be a decision before the end 
of last year. For the entire time this administration has been in 
office, TransCanada was working to go through the process with EPA and 
the Department of State, and the Department of State said they would 
have a decision before the end of last year, but we still don't have a 
decision. We have to ask why. Why don't we have a decision? That is 
what we are talking about. It is long past time to act.
  Let's look at this chart. What are we talking about? What we are 
talking about is this--another pipeline. We are talking about another 
pipeline just like the one that has already been built. How about the 
hundreds or maybe I should say thousands of pipelines we already have, 
and somehow we cannot build this pipeline? That doesn't make any sense. 
Somebody needs to explain this to us.
  We have legislation, with 45 Senators, 45 sponsors, who are saying: 
Hey, it is time to move forward and build the project. As a matter of 
fact, we are doing everything we can to address any and all problems or 
concerns the administration has raised.
  That is why I am going to turn it over now to my good colleague from 
Nebraska, because when the administration says there is an issue or a 
State or the EPA says there is an issue, we stepped up in our 
legislation and solved it. We say: Great, let's address it, but let's 
move forward for the good of our economy and the good of our country.
  I defer now to the good Senator from Nebraska.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska is 
recognized.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments that have been 
offered by my colleagues from South Dakota and North Dakota. They 
absolutely have it right in terms of the importance of constructing 
this pipeline. There is no question that we are in a dire situation in 
this Nation. We need the jobs, we need the oil, and this pipeline can 
take a significant step forward in both regards.
  I think the pipeline will be a huge help in those areas. But let me 
start by noting that I was a cosponsor of the first Keystone bill. I am 
also a cosponsor of the bill that Senators Hoeven, Lugar, and Vitter 
introduced just this past Monday, the bill we are talking about today.
  Here is a very important point for my State. In both cases, and 
specifically in reference to this bill, the effort was specifically 
crafted to safeguard the route selection process that is occurring in 
Nebraska. I thank my colleagues for recognizing that work and 
recognizing that Nebraska has a process that will near completion this 
August or September. They have worked very hard to take into account 
our issues, and their bill recognizes that the Nebraska effort will 
continue.
  They decided in our State--the Governor, the legislature, and 
TransCanada--to work on an alternative to the proposed route. 
Recognition occurred that the route through Nebraska involved some very 
sensitive land--the Sand Hills--and a very sensitive water supply--the 
Ogallala aquifer. The Governor called a special session, and, as we do 
in Nebraska, everybody sat down and said: How do we solve this problem?
  So they came to an agreement that the best way to solve the problem 
was to do an environmental impact statement, which will be no cost to 
the Federal Government. It will be paid for by Nebraskans. That was 
part of the provision of this agreement. And TransCanada agreed they 
would work to reroute the pipeline through our State. Everybody shook 
hands. We are now in agreement. Our problem is solved in Nebraska.
  For months and months, the Federal Government has been saying to the 
State of Nebraska: You have the power to route this pipeline through 
your State. And that is exactly what we are doing. So this legislation 
recognizes that agreement and says: Great, we are going to allow 
Nebraska to move forward. But very wisely this legislation also 
recognizes there is no need whatsoever for any delay on the remainder 
of this pipeline. This was the only segment--and it is a handful of 
miles in our State--that anybody was contesting. So why not issue the 
permit? Why not get the project going?
  My colleagues worked very hard on coming up with a solution, and 
their solution works. It says: Construction can begin immediately. Why? 
Because, as my colleague from North Dakota has explained well, Congress 
has the constitutional authority to regulate foreign commerce. This 
bill exercises that power in a thoughtful, deliberate, and careful way. 
It says: Look, this project has gone through 3 years of study and 
analysis. It specifically notes in this legislation the part regarding 
Nebraska will be solved, as the Federal Government has been saying for 
months, by Nebraska officials, but that we can go forward and start 
construction elsewhere.
  So what is holding up the creation of these jobs? What is holding up 
our ability to get more oil from places such as North Dakota and a 
friendly ally such as Canada, versus a very unfriendly ally in Hugo 
Chavez in Venezuela? What is holding that up? What could possibly be 
holding that up? Well, the simple answer to that question is, the 
President of the United States is holding it up.
  The President is in a bind. The environmentalists have declared war 
on the oil sands in Canada. They do not want the pipeline because they 
do not want the oil sands. On the other hand, unions want to build the 
pipeline. They want the jobs, and thoughtfully so. So this is a time 
where Congress does need to step in and exercise our constitutional 
powers. This is nothing unusual. In fact, there was a recent opinion by 
the Congressional Research Service which noted the Congress has the 
power to do exactly what this legislation is doing.
  I will wrap up my comments today and yield back the time to the 
Senators from South Dakota and North Dakota and say this: This is a 
win-win situation for everybody. It is a win because we create jobs. It 
is a win for our country because we are trying in every way possible to 
get the Federal Government to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. 
Maybe the only person who it is not a win for is President Obama in his 
reelection. But this is a case where we need to put national interest 
ahead of November.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that was 
thoughtfully crafted. It is the right approach. I thank them for their 
sensitivity to the process going on in the State of Nebraska.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work of the Senator 
from Nebraska on this subject, as well as the Senator from North 
Dakota, and he has fashioned a solution which I think does give us an 
opportunity as a Congress to assert our role under the Constitution, 
under the commerce clause of the Constitution, to move this project 
forward, notwithstanding the opposition, really of one person--the 
President of the United States, who is the person right now who is 
standing in the way of this.
  I would again say to my colleague from North Dakota, as we wrap up 
here, I hear people say this needs to be studied further; that we need 
to do more analysis. It is sort of mind-boggling to think after more 
than 1,200 days of study, analysis, review, and scrutiny that people 
would come to that conclusion. The Keystone XL Pipeline I, which the 
Senator from North Dakota is well acquainted with because it goes 
through his State and he was involved in negotiating that project, took 
693 days in the process of getting approved. What is interesting to me 
about this particular project is that after 1,200 days--longer than any 
of the pipelines of this magnitude--the extended review and more than 
10,000 pages of environmental analysis concluded--concluded--the 
pipeline will not adversely impact the environment. When the 
announcement was made to deny the construction of the pipeline, the 
State Department still had 5 weeks to review it if they had chosen to 
use it. Clearly, the announcement wasn't based on policy but on 
political expediency, which is what the Senator from Nebraska pointed 
out.

[[Page 556]]

  There is a tremendous amount of resource in my colleague's State--the 
State of North Dakota--that could benefit as well. I think the State of 
North Dakota has the potential to generate somewhere on the order of 
500,000 barrels of oil, about 100,000 of which, I am told, could be 
moved through this pipeline if it is approved. It seems to me at least, 
again, that here is a resource, an energy reserve in our country, in my 
colleague's State, that could benefit people in this country.
  By the way, in 2011, Americans spent more on gasoline than any other 
year since 1981. And reports indicate that 2012 could be even worse. So 
when we look at the economic impact on Americans, from our not having 
our oil and energy being produced in this country, it is a very real 
impact. In fact, since the President has taken office, gas prices have 
gone from $1.84 a gallon to over $3.30 a gallon, and this pipeline 
could be part of that solution.
  I want to end with a quote made by the State Department in their 
review of the pipeline. The Department of Energy, I should say, but it 
was part of the State Department's review. The Department of Energy 
noted:

       Gasoline prices in all markets served by East Coast and 
     Gulf Coast refineries would decrease, including the Midwest.

  That is coming from the State Department's review, the Department of 
Energy, that gasoline prices in all markets served by east coast and 
gulf coast refineries would decrease. That is a pretty remarkable 
economic impact, not to mention all the jobs that would be associated 
with the construction, and once it is operational the jobs that would 
be created in refining this oil.
  So again it is a win-win, as we heard from the Senator from Nebraska, 
who said that initially their State had some concerns about the route, 
but that has been all resolved so this project can move forward.
  The legislation of the Senator from North Dakota, which I am proud to 
support and cosponsor, I hope gets a vote in the Senate, and I know the 
Senator is going to do everything he can to advance it--I hope he 
does--and I look forward to working with him.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota 
again for organizing this colloquy this morning. I thank him and the 
esteemed Senator from Nebraska for their support of this legislation.
  Again, we have taken a problem-solving approach to this legislation, 
and we are continuing to do that. We will continue to work with other 
Members of the Senate and our colleagues in the House, but we need the 
administration to engage with us on this important issue for the good 
of the American people.
  Again, I thank my colleague from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, with that, I yield back the remainder of my 
time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Whitehouse pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2059 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________