[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12730-12732]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 21--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT 
  CONSTRUCTION OF THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE AND THE FEDERAL APPROVALS 
 REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ARE IN THE 
                 NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES

  Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. 
Begich, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Thune, Mr. Risch, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Johanns, 
and Mr. Barrasso) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

                            S. Con. Res. 21

       Whereas safe and responsible production, transportation, 
     and use of oil and petroleum products provide the foundation 
     of the energy economy of the United States, helping to secure 
     and advance the economic prosperity, national security, and 
     overall quality of life in the United States;
       Whereas the Keystone XL pipeline would provide short- and 
     long-term employment opportunities and related labor income 
     benefits, such as government revenues associated with taxes;
       Whereas the State of Nebraska has thoroughly reviewed and 
     approved the proposed Keystone XL pipeline reroute, 
     concluding that the concerns of Nebraskans have had a major 
     influence on the pipeline reroute and that the reroute will 
     have minimal environmental impacts;
       Whereas the Department of State and other Federal agencies 
     have conducted extensive studies and analysis over a long 
     period of time on the technical, environmental, social, and 
     economic impact of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline;
       Whereas assessments by the Department of State found that 
     the Keystone XL pipeline is ``not likely to impact the amount 
     of crude oil produced from the oil sands'' and that 
     ``approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to 
     have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the 
     oil sands'';
       Whereas the Department of State found that the incremental 
     life cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the 
     Keystone XL project are estimated in the range of 0.07 to 
     0.83 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, with 
     the upper end of this range representing 12/1,000 of 1 
     percent of the 6,702,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide 
     emitted in the United States in 2011;
       Whereas after extensive evaluation of potential impact to 
     land and water resources along the 875-mile proposed route of 
     the Keystone XL pipeline, the Department of State found, 
     ``The analyses of potential impacts associated with 
     construction and normal operation of the proposed Project 
     suggest that there would be no significant impacts to most 
     resources along the proposed Project route (assuming Keystone 
     complies with all laws and required conditions and 
     measures).'';
       Whereas the Department of State found that ``[s]pills 
     associated with the proposed Project that enter the 
     environment are expected to be rare and relatively small'' 
     and that ``there is no evidence of increased corrosion or 
     other pipeline threat due to viscosity'' of diluted bitumen 
     oil that will be transported by the Keystone XL pipeline;
       Whereas, the National Research Council convened a special 
     expert panel to review the risk of transporting diluted 
     bitumen by pipeline and issued a report in June 2013 to the 
     Department of Transportation in which the National Research 
     Council found that existing literature indicates that 
     transportation of diluted bitumen poses no increased risk of 
     pipeline failure;
       Whereas plans to incorporate 57 project-specific special 
     conditions relating to the design, construction, and 
     operations of the Keystone XL pipeline led the Department of 
     State to find that the pipeline will have ``a degree of 
     safety over any other typically constructed domestic oil 
     pipeline''; and
       Whereas, the Department of State found that oil destined to 
     be shipped through the pipeline from the oil sands region of 
     Canada and oil shale deposits in the United States would 
     otherwise move by other modes of transportation if the 
     Keystone XL pipeline is not built; Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will promote 
     sound investment in the infrastructure of the United States;
       (2) construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will promote 
     energy security in North America and will generate an 
     increase in private sector jobs that will benefit both the 
     region surrounding the Keystone XL pipeline and the United 
     States as a whole; and
       (3) completion of the Keystone XL pipeline is in the 
     national interest of the United States.

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the Keystone XL Pipeline. I am going to submit a concurrent resolution 
that I am sponsoring with Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, but before I do 
that, I want to talk specifically in terms of the Keystone XL Pipeline 
and correcting the record. I am correcting the record relative to 
statements the administration has made recently about the project.
  As we all know, the Obama administration has been reviewing this 
project for 5 years. The initial application was submitted by 
TransCanada, the parent company, in September of 2008, and we are now 
almost in August of 2013. So in addition to delaying the project, they 
are also putting out false information. President Obama and Treasury 
Secretary Lew presented information this week on the Keystone Pipeline 
that is wrong, and today I want to correct the record.
  I want to quote directly from an interview President Obama conducted 
and reported in the New York Times on Saturday. I am going to read from 
that transcript because it goes to a number of issues in terms of jobs 
and energy development as well as the requirements the administration 
says need to be addressed for the Keystone Pipeline. However, I think 
the company has addressed those issues in great detail.
  Again, this is the transcript from the New York Times. Also, the 
interview was conducted last week when the President was on his jobs 
tour.
  The interviewer said:

       A couple of other quick subjects that are economic-related. 
     Keystone pipeline--Republicans especially talked about that 
     as a big job creator. You've said that you would approve it 
     only if you could be assured it would not significantly 
     exacerbate carbon in the atmosphere. Is there anything that 
     Canada could do or the oil companies could do to offset that 
     as a way of helping you reaching that decision?

  That was the question asked of the President. The President 
responded:

       Well, first of all, Michael, [the interviewer] Republicans 
     have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is 
     no evidence that that's true. And my hope would be that any 
     reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to 
     confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might 
     create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the 
     pipeline--

  That is the Keystone Pipeline.

     which might take a year or two--and then after that we're 
     talking somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in an 
     economy of 150 million working people.

  The interviewer goes on:


[[Page 12731]]

       Yet there are a number of unions who want you to approve 
     this.

  Mr. Obama:

       Well, look, they might like to see 2,000 jobs initially. 
     But that is a blip relative to the need.
       So what we also know is, is that that oil is going to be 
     piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, 
     so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United 
     States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in 
     the Midwest to go up where currently they can't ship some of 
     that oil to world markets.
       Now, having said that, there is a potential benefit for us 
     integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our 
     energy supplies.
       But I meant what I said; I will evaluate this based on 
     whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to 
     carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada 
     at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing 
     more to mitigate carbon releases.

  The interviewer asked:

       And if they did, could that offset concerns about the 
     pipeline itself?

  To which the President responded:

       We haven't seen specific ideas or plans. But all of that 
     will go into the mix in terms of John Kerry's decision or 
     recommendation on this issue.

  That was the key part of the interview I want to address in my 
comments.
  There are three points I would like to make. The first one is jobs. 
President Obama says the project will create 2,000 jobs during 
construction. Then he says maybe 50 or so after that, and he kind of 
chuckles as he says that.
  The first question is: Where does that number come from? Where is he 
getting his number? His own State Department has a very different 
number. They say it is going to create more than 42,000 jobs during 
construction. They didn't say 2,000 jobs during construction, but more 
than 42,000 jobs during construction.
  I will read from the State Department report. It is a draft from the 
environmental impact statement which came out on March 1, 2013. The 
State Department report says:

       Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, the 
     proposed Project would potentially support approximately 
     42,100 average annual jobs across the United States over a 1-
     to 2-year construction period.

  That is right out of the report. The State Department goes on to talk 
about some of the other employment benefits created by the Keystone 
project.

       This employment would potentially translate into 
     approximately $2.05 billion in earnings. Direct expenditures 
     such as construction and material costs . . . would total 
     approximately $3.3 billion. Short-term revenues from sources 
     such as sales and use taxes would total approximately $65 
     million in states that levy such a tax.

  So you are getting tax revenues and $65 million as well.

       Yields from fuel and other taxes could not be calculated, 
     but would provide some additional economic benefit to host 
     countries and states.

  There is the environmental impact as to the employment right out of 
the State Department report. We have to ask: Why is President Obama 
talking about a number like 2,000? It appears the number he is quoting 
comes from opponents of the projects. Rather than taking his own State 
Department numbers--done after 5 years of study--he is quoting numbers 
which are wrong from opponents of the project. Again, don't take my 
word for it.
  Recently the Washington Post--in their fact-check article--stated 
that President Obama appeared to be using numbers from opponents of the 
project rather than from his own State Department.
  So why would he do that? Why would he take numbers from opponents 
rather than the State Department?
  Well, here is what Sean McGarvey, president of North America's 
Building Trades Unions, had to say about it in a statement he issued 
several days ago. According to Sean McGarvey, president of North 
America's Building Trade Unions:

       America's Building Trade Unions were disappointed to see 
     that the President chose to minimize the importance of jobs 
     for construction workers and to use employment figures 
     promulgated by special interests and activist billionaires 
     rather than his own Department of State's findings that the 
     proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would support approximately 
     42,100 average annual jobs across the United States over a 1- 
     to 2-year construction period.

  But the President goes on--it is not just the jobs number that is 
incorrect. The President also stated this in that New York Times 
interview:

       What we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped 
     down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it 
     does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In 
     fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest 
     to go up where currently they can't ship some of that oil to 
     world markets.

  So he is saying the oil won't be used in the United States and, in 
fact, it might cause gas prices to go up. But now he is contradicting a 
report from his own Department of Energy. His own Department of Energy 
addressed those very issues back in June of 2011. They issued a report, 
and that report forecasted that the oil will be used in the United 
States and, further, that it will reduce the price of fuel at the pump 
for Midwest consumers. I will quote from that report. Again, this is a 
report from the Department of Energy that was provided in June of 2011.

       Without a surplus of heavy oil in (the Gulf Coast), there 
     would be no economic incentive to ship Canadian oil sands to 
     Asia via Port Arthur (in Texas). Many of these (Gulf Coast) 
     refineries rely on declining supplies of Mexican and 
     Venezuelan heavy crudes. . . . They would be natural 
     customers for increased supplies of Canadian dilbit (oil 
     sands oil). . . . The Gulf Coast appetite for Canadian oil 
     sands . . . will be much higher than can be supplied by just 
     the Keystone XL Pipeline.

  So they are saying it will be used in the United States.
  Concerning the cost of fuel to customers, DOE said:

       With substantial additional volumes of light-sweet and 
     other crudes accessible to Gulf Coast refineries, (West Texas 
     Intermediate) prices would increase, Brent, Argus and other 
     market crude prices would decline. Crude costs to (East 
     Coast) and (Gulf Coast) refineries would be lower.

  Here is the key sentence from this section:

       Gasoline prices in all markets served by (East and Gulf 
     Coast) refineries would be lower, including the Midwest.

  So the Department of Energy in its report specifically states that 
the oil will be used in the United States--we are a net importer of 
crude oil--and that gas prices would be lower, not higher. As I said 
earlier, the State Department in the EIS said the job number will be 
42,000, not 2,000.
  The President then concludes the interview by essentially telling 
Canada what they should do in terms of their regulatory requirements. 
He says:

       And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those 
     tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon 
     release.

  The interviewer then asks:

       And if they did, could that offset the concerns about the 
     pipeline itself?

  President Obama declines to indicate any specifics, but he says 
essentially all of that will go into the mix for the decision on 
whether to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  So here we are. After 5 years--after 5 years of delay, the President 
is talking about adding new requirements to the project. He is talking 
about adding those requirements in another country--our closest friend 
and ally, Canada--or I guess he is essentially saying he would turn 
down the project--a project that actually reduces greenhouse gas 
because there is less greenhouse gas if we move that oil by pipeline 
than if it is moved by truck, by train, or by tanker.
  Furthermore, perhaps the biggest irony is that he is imposing this 
type of regulatory barrier at the same time he is on a jobs tour, which 
created some problems for his Cabinet members as well. For example, 
Jack Lew was on ``Fox News Sunday'' with Chris Wallace, and he got it 
wrong on Keystone as well last Sunday. The following is part of that 
transcript. Again, this was ``Fox News Sunday'' with Chris Wallace and 
Jack Lew. Wallace asked this question:

       Let me ask you one question. If you're so interested in 
     creating more jobs, why not approve the Keystone Pipeline 
     which would create tens of thousands of jobs, sir?

  Lew responds:

       Chris, I think, as you know, the Keystone Pipeline is being 
     reviewed. It's been in the process that was slowed down 
     because--

  Wallace then says:

       Several years it's being reviewed. I think what, three, 
     four years.


[[Page 12732]]


  Lew responds:

       It was--there were some political games that were played 
     that took it off the trail, past its completion. When 
     Republicans put it out there as something that was put on a 
     timetable where it could not be resolved, it caused a delay. 
     We are getting to the end of the review and we'll have to see 
     where that review is. But I think playing political games 
     with something like this is a mistake.
  So he is saying that somehow the Republicans were playing political 
games and that slowed down the project and that is why it has been in 
review for 5 years. Five years it has been in review.
  Well, as for Secretary Lew's remarks on ``Fox News Sunday,'' we need 
only to let the facts--especially the dates--speak for themselves. 
Secretary Lew claimed that the Keystone XL project was delayed because 
Republicans politicized it. I would be happy to share with them a 
letter I received in the summer of 2011 from Secretary of State Hillary 
Clinton. In that letter the Secretary assured me that the Department 
was poised to make a permitting decision on the Keystone XL project by 
December of that year--December of 2011.
  I have the letter here. It is dated July 26, 2011. It is addressed to 
Senator Hoeven. It says: ``Thank you for your letter regarding the 
proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.'' It goes on to make various comments. 
The key line in the letter is this: ``We expect to make a decision on 
whether to grant or deny the permit before the end of the year.'' This 
is for the Keystone XL Pipeline project from, at that time, Secretary 
of State Clinton. Instead, however, during the 2012 Presidential 
election--less than a year away in November--President Obama intervened 
to postpone that decision until after the election. Then and only then 
did I press to seek legislatively for a timely decision on the Keystone 
XL Pipeline and introduced legislation, which we passed, calling for a 
decision within 60 days, which the President declined to make. So 
clearly the delay of 5 years is because the administration has refused 
to make a decision and not for any other reason.
  It is not only time to make a decision on the Keystone Pipeline, it 
is far past time. That is exactly what the American people want. As a 
matter of fact, in a recent--the most recent poll on the Keystone 
Pipeline project, Harris Interactive Poll, 82 percent of Americans 
support approving the Keystone XL Pipeline--82 percent. The President 
has continued to review it and talk about more requirements. He has 
provided incorrect information on the jobs and whether the oil will be 
used here and the impact on gas prices. But 82 percent of Americans 
want this project approved.
  It is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about economic activity. 
It is about energy security for our country. That is why, as I conclude 
here today, I wish to submit for the Senate Record today, along with 
Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a concurrent resolution expressing 
the sense of the Congress that construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline 
and the Federal approvals required for construction of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline are in the national interests of the United States. 
Essentially, with this concurrent resolution, what we are saying is 
that the Keystone XL Pipeline is in the national interests of the 
United States and that the administration needs to approve it. It is a 
bipartisan resolution, and we will seek to have it approved here in the 
Senate and approved in the House as well. This is in addition to 
bipartisan legislation I have already introduced which would approve 
the project congressionally.
  The simple point is this: We need to keep the push on to get this 
project approved, whether it is with a joint resolution of Congress in 
support of the project, getting the President to make a decision and to 
make a favorable decision and to do it now instead of continuing to 
postpone after 5 years or whether Congress steps forward and approves 
the project directly through legislation I have already submitted.
  We need to get this project done for the American people. It really 
is about jobs. It is about economic growth and activity. It is about 
energy for our country and getting this country to the point where we 
are energy independent, energy secure, where we don't need to rely on 
oil from the Middle East. That is why 82 percent of Americans in the 
most recent poll across this country are saying this is the kind of 
project we need. Mr. President, step up and get it done for the 
American people.

                          ____________________