[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15896-15921]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  TO APPROVE THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of S. 2280, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2280) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 6\1/2\ 
hours of debate equally divided between proponents and opponents of 
this measure.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have a parliamentary inquiry. I am confused because 
Senator McConnell called the bill the Cassidy Keystone bill, and I 
thought we were debating the Hoeven-Landrieu bill. Could you tell me 
which bill it is, because that is very important.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering S. 2280.
  Mrs. BOXER. So we are considering the Hoeven-Landrieu bill. I just 
wanted that to be clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Today we vote on S. 2280, introduced by myself and 
Senator Landrieu. There are actually 54 sponsors on the legislation 
with us. So we have a total of 56 sponsors of this bipartisan bill. 
That is the same bill that has been passed in the House of 
Representatives. That was passed on Friday--the same version. The prime 
sponsor in the House was Representative Cassidy.
  The bill we vote on today, S. 2280, is approval of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline. We have actually passed legislation on the Keystone XL 
Pipeline before. This is not the first bill. In 2012, we passed 
legislation that required the President to make a decision on the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. We attached it to the payroll tax holiday. At 
that time the President turned down the pipeline project.
  So today we have submitted a number of different pieces of 
legislation, but this legislation actually has Congress approving the 
Keystone XL Pipeline.
  When the President turned down the project, what we did was we went 
back and we did the research.
  Under the commerce clause of the Constitution, Congress has the 
authority to oversee commerce with foreign powers, with other 
countries.
  So in this situation, Congress has the authority to approve the 
Keystone XL Pipeline crossing the border from Canada into the United 
States, and that is what we crafted in this legislation. So rather than 
the President making a national interest determination, which he seems 
to be unwilling to do--and I say that based on his actions--we have now 
been at this for about 4 years in this Senate trying to get approval. 
But this project has been in the application process for 6 years.
  I was Governor of North Dakota in September of 2008 when the 
TransCanada Corporation applied for a permit to get approval to build 
the Keystone XL Pipeline. They had already built the Keystone pipeline, 
so they were applying for approval to build the sister pipeline, the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. It started in September of 2008, and 2 years went 
by. We started actually working on it in about 2011 in the Senate, as I 
say, and we passed legislation, trying to get the President to approve 
it. But it has now been--and I can show a chart with the time line, but 
it is a little hard to see--6 years in the permitting process.
  The time has come to act. The time has come to act, and that is what 
this legislation is all about. It provides approval of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline so

[[Page 15897]]

they can move forward and it can be constructed.
  We have debated this issue in the Chamber for almost 4 years. So we 
have gone through all of the merits, and we will do that again today. 
We have not only come to an agreement on getting a vote, but we have 
also come to an agreement on the parameters for the debate. It is 6 
hours of debate, with 3 hours for the proponents and 3 hours for the 
opponents.
  On the Republican side of the aisle we are taking 2 hours solely on 
the proponent side because all 45 Republican Senators are in support of 
the project, will be voting for the project, and will be making the 
case for the project. On the majority side there will be 3 hours for 
opponents of the project making their case and 1 hour for the 
proponents making their case, and we will alternate throughout this 
debate.
  We will be having this debate today and we will make our case. I will 
continue with my colleagues to make the case for the pipeline. There 
will be Members of the majority party that will make that case and 
there will be some Members, obviously, in opposition.
  So I will reserve some of my time to speak later, but the point I 
want to make at the outset is this is really about the American people 
making this case. When we look at this project, it is about energy, it 
is about jobs, it is about economic growth. It creates tax revenue to 
help reduce the deficit and the debt. It doesn't cost 1 penny of 
Federal money or government money. It is privately funded, and it is 
about national security. It is about national security by helping us 
build energy security in this country with our closest friend and ally, 
Canada, working together with Canada so that we don't have to get 
energy from Venezuela or from the Middle East or from other parts of 
the world, and so we can produce at home.
  That is not only a vitally important issue in terms of our economy 
and being competitive in a global economy because energy is truly a 
foundational sector for all the other industry sectors. When we have 
low-cost dependable energy, we are more competitive as a country, but 
it really is a national security issue.
  I see the good Senator from Vermont is on the floor. He has a bill 
that deals with how we handle surveillance and covert information, 
given the terrorist threat we face. It is important that we do that 
well.
  But one of the ways to truly strengthen our country is to make sure 
we are energy secure, to make sure we don't have to get oil from the 
Middle East, to help our friends and allies in Europe so they are not 
dependent on Russia for energy when Putin engages in the kind of 
aggression he has. So when we talk about this energy issue, it is not 
just jobs, it is not just the energy we get that makes us stronger in a 
competitive global economy, it really is a national security issue, and 
it is long past time to act. It has been 6 years.
  Today we will have that debate again, and I hope at the end of the 
day we will have the 60 votes that we need. We will find out this 
evening when we vote.
  Again, it comes back to what do the American people want. We are here 
representing the American people. Overwhelmingly, in poll after poll 
when they have been asked, 60 percent, sometimes 70 percent or more 
say: Build the Keystone XL Pipeline. That is whom we work for.
  I hope today, at the end of the day, that is the work we will get 
done for the American people.
  I see my cosponsor on the floor, and I would turn to the good Senator 
from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my cosponsor and lead sponsor on the bill, a 
former Governor and good Senator from North Dakota who has been a great 
leader and partner with me on this bill.
  As the American people have absolutely figured out, Democrats cannot 
do anything alone and neither can Republicans. It has taken us a while 
to figure this out in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, 
but the American people figured this out a long time ago, just as they 
figure out practical things such as how to keep a roof over their 
heads, food on the table, and how to keep their kids moving forward 
even through difficulty.
  The American people are very smart. I trust them. I always have. I 
have been honored to represent the people of Louisiana, 4.5 million 
people, and I have done my very best to represent them in the time I am 
in the Senate, and I hope to continue for years to come.
  One of the things they know that is not clear to people here is that 
it takes both parties working together, compromising, to get the job 
done for them--not for us, for them--and I think we forget that a lot.
  I am in a lot of meetings around here where people talk about what is 
good for the Democratic caucus, what is good for the Republican caucus, 
what is good for Leader Reid, what is good for Leader McConnell. It is 
kind of interesting to me because the family I grew up in was all about 
public service--not for ourselves but for the people we represent. That 
is why I am on the floor today. That is why I have actually been on the 
floor dozens of times on this bill and on similar bills.
  This is the Keystone bill, which I have supported with Senator 
Hoeven, literally for years. In fact, I have a letter from 2011 with 
Orrin Hatch, who was the lead signer with me. Senator McConnell's 
signature wasn't on the letter. Maybe he was busy that day and couldn't 
sign it. But about 15 of us sent a letter in 2011 urging Secretary of 
State Clinton--this is how far back it goes, and people can hardly 
remember she was Secretary of State because now John Kerry is Secretary 
of State--a long time ago saying it was very important for us to get 
this pipeline built for any number of reasons. The main reason is that 
it will signal a great sign that America understands that energy 
independence for our Nation is possible for the first time ever.
  When I mean energy independence, I mean energy independence for the 
North American continent. We might be able to do it in just the lower 
48. We might. Hawaii can contribute some. Alaska, clearly, can 
contribute a lot. So we might be able to do it in the 50 States.
  But I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that with our partners in 
Canada and Mexico, this can be done and North America can be the super 
energy powerhouse of the planet.
  Why is that important? There are so many reasons. I will name two, 
and then I am going to sit down and reengage in this debate because 
Barbara Boxer, who is the lead opponent, wants and has indicated her 
time on the floor, and I have more time later today.
  But one of the reasons this is so important is because what people in 
Louisiana want, what people in Texas want, what people in Mississippi 
want, what people in New Jersey want, what people in South Dakota, 
Illinois, Kansas, and Vermont want are good-paying jobs.
  When a country or a continent, as blessed as we are, uses its 
resources wisely to create wealth not only for those at the top, which 
is what is happening now--just at the top--and the people at the top 
are doing great. In the fancy restaurants I walk by I see--and 
sometimes I am actually in them myself--people are drinking champagne. 
They are buying new cars. I see Mercedes, and other people see that. 
But the people in the middle class in this country are really 
struggling, and our job as leaders is to have our eyes on them, 
providing for them.
  These energy jobs are not minimum wage jobs. They are not even $15-
an-hour jobs. They are not even $30-an-hour jobs. They are $45-an-hour 
jobs. Our laborers--men and women who represent the middle class--some 
are unionized, some are not, but all are hard working. I am going to 
say that again. Some are unionized and some are not, but all are hard 
working.
  How would I know? Because I have stood in line with them at 4 or 5 in 
the morning during a shift change. I do that a lot during my elections. 
I do it regularly, but I do it a lot during election time. I have felt 
their hands. I

[[Page 15898]]

know how cold they are in the morning and how rough they are because 
they work all day. Those people would expect us to work longer than we 
do here. We have very short weeks--Tuesday through Thursday. We take 
long lunch hours, long weekends. Most Americans think we have 
completely lost it because they work hard, from morning until night. 
Their hands are tough, and so they expect us to stand up for them. That 
is why I am standing here.
  I have been fighting for this because of energy independence for 
America. I would know something about that because Texas and Louisiana 
and Oklahoma--our area of the country--we are proud producers of 
energy. We produce mostly oil, mostly gas, and a little bit of coal. We 
generate a lot.
  Just an FYI to everybody who thinks this pipeline is the end of the 
world, we already have 2.6 million miles of pipe in America--2.6 
million miles of pipe. We are only completing basically 1,000 miles. 
What is everybody upset about? We have been building pipelines in this 
country for a long time, and we need to build this one. This is about 
energy independence, it is about jobs, and that is why I am here. This 
is what the people want.
  I am going to close with this. For the 25th time at least I am going 
to say this because I want the record of the Congress to reflect the 
truth, whether people acknowledge it or not. The record of this 
Congress will reflect this to be the truth. Some of us, not just me, 
have worked to get this bill to the floor for years, and it was blocked 
by both majority leader Harry Reid and minority leader Mitch McConnell 
for their own political reasons. Those reasons cleared up after the 
election. They just cleared up.
  Mitch McConnell couldn't bring this bill to the floor without 
allowing a vote on the EPA coal regulation. Barbara Boxer knows this--
this is the truth--and she wouldn't allow the vote because she is 
adamantly opposed to having a vote on EPA. I respect that. I respect 
her. Everyone here knows that is the truth.
  Harry Reid didn't want this vote to come up because there were one or 
two Members of our caucus who had a serious issue with this being voted 
on. I knew that. As part of a team--and I try to be part of a team, but 
I am independent--I knew the results of the election, with Senator 
McConnell winning and some of our Senators, unfortunately, my dearest 
friends, losing, that we had an opportunity, and so I took that 
opportunity and I called for this vote--not Harry Reid, not Mitch 
McConnell, I called for it, and I think it is worth fighting for.
  The last thing I want to say is that Thanksgiving is coming up and 
Christmas is coming up, and it is a shame this Congress has not 
delivered more in the last 5 or 6 years for the middle class. We say we 
try. I am not sure we are trying hard enough. So I am going to lead by 
example. It is the way I was raised. We are going to truly try today.
  This is one of the first debates I have been in, in 8 years at least, 
where the outcome is uncertain. All the rest of the stuff we do here is 
preset, preordained. It is similar to theater for the American people. 
We usually know the outcome of the vote before we take it because the 
deals are all cut.
  So I brought this bill to the floor, knowing in my heart we have 60 
votes. I sure hope we have the courage that supports that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will be controlling the time in 
opposition, very strong opposition, to this legislation. Before I yield 
to the first debater on our side, who will be Chairman Leahy--and I am 
very honored that he will be--let me just say before Senator Landrieu 
leaves the floor that Senator Landrieu is the only reason we are 
debating this today. So anyone who wants to play games about this and 
name this bill the Cassidy bill, that kind of is a joke because I 
believe I am correct that he introduced it November 12 of this year and 
the Hoeven-Landrieu bill was introduced in May. But setting politics 
aside, let the Record be clear forever that this debate would not be 
before this body were it not for Senator Landrieu's insistence. I want 
that to be clear.
  Secondly, we will hear today, I think, a terrific debate because the 
people who support this think not only that this is a good thing for 
the country--to build the Keystone XL Pipeline--they think it is a 
great thing for this country. I have great respect for them. On the 
other side, we have those of us who think it is not a good thing for 
this country, it is not a good thing for jobs, it is not a good thing 
for energy independence because it will be exported, all that oil, and 
it is actually dangerous.
  In my case, I was thinking, what does ``XL'' stand for? They named it 
the Keystone XL. It has no meaning, but to me it is extra lethal. My 
debate will show why, as we analyze the tar sands oil that will be 
coming into this Nation, 45 percent more than we have now, the risky 
business that it has proven to be and what the health costs are for our 
people. That is not me speaking, those are nurses and doctors saying 
so. I haven't even gotten into climate and all the other issues.
  At this point I yield 5 minutes to my friend Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from 
Louisiana has the majority of votes in this body for the Keystone 
Pipeline, and that is a compliment to her hard work in getting from a 
minority of votes to a majority of votes.
  I will not be one of them, as she knows, because I represent what is 
the view of my fellow constituents in Vermont. I strongly oppose the 
fast-tracking of this process.
  This pipeline poses considerable safety and environmental risks here 
in the United States, and it threatens the natural landscapes that are 
in the heartland of America. We feel this pipeline is one of the most 
striking examples of the unquenchable thirst for oil that is destroying 
our environment. We feel that destruction is going to move forward 
unless and until we get a comprehensive national energy plan. This 
pipeline will not lead us towards that. It leads us to an energy policy 
of the past instead of a sustainable energy future, while 
simultaneously accelerating our impact on the climate. These tar sands 
require an energy-intensive process, complete with pollutants and 
harmful emissions to get them out of the ground, to extract them, and 
to refine them.
  We should not rubberstamp a project like this that poses such serious 
risks to the Nation's and the world's environment, and to our 
communities' safety. I was astounded by the fact that in its first year 
of operation the existing Keystone Pipeline--billed as you recall as 
the safest pipeline in history when it was built just a few years ago 
in 2010--spilled 12 times in its first year of operation. That is more 
than any other pipeline in U.S. history.
  The worrisome part about these spills is that tar sands oil is harder 
to clean up. Ask the communities along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. 
It has cost more than $1 billion so far--$1 billion so far--to clean up 
a tar sands spill in 2010. Now, more than 4 years later, it is still a 
mess, and landowners continue to wait for help in restoring their 
property and to rebuild the ravaged pipeline.
  We do not need more empty assurances from the oil industry. Before 
the Valdez spill in Alaska, Exxon executives told us their oil tankers 
were safe. We heard similar promises from BP, which insisted that it 
could handle an oil spill in a deep-water drilling operation. The 
images from both of those spills are still fresh in our memories.
  I realize that proponents argue that this pipeline will create jobs 
and will help our energy security here in the United States. But this 
pipeline will bypass refineries in the Midwest instead of heading to 
American gas stations to help lower the price of gas here at home. It 
will head straight for the coast so the oil can be used in export 
markets, pumped onto ships headed for China. That may be good news for 
the Chinese, but it is not good news for the American people who are 
stuck with the safety risks, the health challenges,

[[Page 15899]]

future environmental disasters, and the rapid acceleration of our 
contribution to climate change.
  These facts are clear: The Keystone pipeline significantly worsens 
the problem of carbon pollution, and it is not in our national 
interest. The Presidential Permit should be denied, not fast-tracked by 
Congress here today.
  So I will not be among the majority who will vote for it today.


                            USA Freedom Act

  On another matter, while I have the floor, the distinguished 
Republican leader spoke against the USA FREEDOM Act earlier this 
morning. Unfortunately, he was too busy to respond to a couple of 
simple questions, even though he was asked to. But I would note that 
last year, Americans learned that section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act 
had been secretly interpreted for years to allow the bulk collection of 
telephone records. Unlike the comments made earlier that there were no 
hearings on this, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 came about after numerous 
congressional hearings, including six--six--public hearings in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
  At least two panels of independent experts have concluded that the 
bulk collection program has not been essential or even a key part of 
keeping our country safe. We now have wide bipartisan agreement in the 
Senate and the House that the bulk phone records collection program is 
not essential, it violates Americans' privacy, and it has to end. So 
the question before Congress is not whether to end the program, but 
when and how.
  The USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 ends the NSA's bulk collection program, 
but does so responsibly. The bill contains key reforms to safeguard 
Americans' privacy by prohibiting the indiscriminate collection of 
their data. It also provides for greater accountability and 
transparency of the government's surveillance programs, and it improves 
the FISA Court. The bill also ensures that the intelligence community 
has the tools it needs to keep our country safe.
  This legislation is the result of several months of intense 
discussions and deliberations with the intelligence community and 
stakeholders across the political and economic spectrum. It has the 
unprecedented support of the Director of National Intelligence, the 
Attorney General, American technology companies, and privacy and civil 
liberty groups ranging from the ACLU and EEF to the NRA and 
TechFreedom, as well as the Director of NSA and lawmakers from all 
parts of the political spectrum who support it.
  We cannot afford to delay action on these reforms any longer, as the 
American people continue to demand stronger protections for their 
privacy. Unfortunately, some would rather use scare tactics than 
legislate. Some would have us wait while American businesses continue 
to lose tens of billions of dollars in the international marketplace. 
Or we could even wait until we are facing down the expiration of 
Section 215 in a matter of months, thereby creating dangerous 
uncertainty and risk for the intelligence community.
  The American people have had enough delay; they want action and real 
reform. It is time to get back to work, to show leadership, and to 
govern this country responsibly. The USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 is an 
opportunity to do just that.
  Let us get it done now, when it can be done.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
several letters and editorials in support of the USA FREEDOM Act of 
2014.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 
           Department of Justice,
                                Washington, DC, September 2, 2014.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: Thank you for your letter of August 
     19, 2014, asking for the views of the Department of Justice 
     and the Intelligence Community on S. 2685, the USA FREEDOM 
     Act. We appreciate your extensive efforts to develop a bill 
     in coordination with the Administration, privacy and civil 
     liberties advocates, and representatives from the 
     communications providers that builds upon the good work done 
     by the House in its bill passed on May 22, 2014. As discussed 
     below, the Intelligence Community believes that your bill 
     preserves essential Intelligence Community capabilities; and 
     the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of 
     National Intelligence support your bill and believe that it 
     is a reasonable compromise that enhances privacy and civil 
     liberties and increases transparency.
       The USA FREEDOM Act bans bulk collection under a variety of 
     authorities. In particular, the bill permits collection under 
     Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act using a specific selection 
     term that narrowly limits the scope of the tangible things 
     sought to the greatest extent reasonably practicable, 
     consistent with the purposes for seeking the tangible things. 
     Recognizing that the terms enumerated in the statute may not 
     always meet operational needs, the bill permits the use of 
     other terms, provided there are court-approved minimization 
     procedures that prohibit the dissemination and require the 
     destruction within a reasonable period of time of any 
     information that has not been determined to satisfy certain 
     specific requirements. We believe that this approach will 
     accommodate operational needs while providing appropriate 
     privacy protections.
       The bill also provides a mechanism to obtain telephone 
     metadata records in order to identify potential contacts of 
     suspected terrorists inside the United States. The 
     Intelligence Community believes that, based on communications 
     providers' existing practices in retaining metadata, the bill 
     will retain the essential operational capabilities of the 
     existing bulk telephone metadata program while eliminating 
     bulk collection.
       The bill also increases transparency by expanding the 
     amount of information communications providers can disclose 
     and increasing public reporting by the government. Although 
     balancing national security and the public's legitimate 
     interest in additional transparency can be difficult, we are 
     comfortable with the transparency provisions in this bill 
     because, among other things, they recognize the technical 
     limitations on our ability to report certain types of 
     information.
       We note that, consistent with the President's request, the 
     bill establishes a process for the appointment of an amicus 
     curiae to assist the FISA Court and FISA Court of Review in 
     matters that present a novel or significant interpretation of 
     the law. We believe that the appointment of an amicus in 
     selected cases, as appropriate, need not interfere with 
     important aspects of the FISA process, including the process 
     of ex parte consultation between the Court and the 
     government. We are also aware of the concerns that the 
     Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts expressed in a 
     recent letter, and we look forward to working with you and 
     your colleagues to address those concerns.
       The USA FREEDOM Act represents the result of extensive 
     discussions and deliberations and has the support of a wide 
     range of interests. Admittedly, it is possible that there are 
     additional impacts that we will be able to identify only 
     after we start to implement the new law. You have our 
     commitment to notify Congress if we determine that the new 
     law is impeding the Intelligence Community's ability to 
     protect national security. Overall, the bill's significant 
     reforms should provide the public greater confidence in our 
     programs and the checks and balances in the system.
           Sincerely,
     Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
       Attorney General.
     James R. Clapper,
       Director of National Intelligence.
                                  ____


                     Reform Government Surveillance

       Open Letter to the Senate: The Senate has an opportunity 
     this week to vote on the bipartisan USA Freedom Act. We urge 
     you to pass the bill, which both protects national security 
     and reaffirms America's commitment to the freedoms we all 
     cherish.
       The legislation prevents the bulk collection of Internet 
     metadata under various authorities. The bill also allows for 
     transparency about government demands for user information 
     from technology companies, and assures that the appropriate 
     oversight and accountability mechanisms are in place.
       Since forming the Reform Government Surveillance coalition 
     last year, our companies have continued to invest in 
     strengthening the security of our services and increasing 
     transparency. Now, the Senate has the opportunity to send a 
     strong message of change to the world and encourage other 
     countries to adopt similar protections.
       Passing the USA Freedom Act, however, does not mean our 
     work is finished. We will continue to work with Congress, the 
     Administration, civil liberties groups and governments around 
     the world to advance essential reforms that we set forth in a 
     set of principles last year. Such reforms include: preventing 
     government access to data without proper legal process; 
     assuring that providers are not required to locate 
     infrastructure within a country's border; promoting the free 
     flow of data across borders; and avoiding conflicts among 
     nations through robust,

[[Page 15900]]

     principled, and transparent frameworks that govern lawful 
     requests for data across jurisdictions.
       Now is the time to move forward on meaningful change to our 
     surveillance programs. We encourage you to support the USA 
     Freedom Act.
         AOL, Apple, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Google, 
           LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo.
                                  ____

                                                November 14, 2014.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Grassley: The USA Freedom Act, now 
     under consideration in the Senate, is broadly consistent with 
     the recommendations we made last year in our report on how to 
     safeguard both liberty and security in a rapidly changing 
     world.
       Specifically, we note the close similarity of the bill with 
     our first recommendation, that orders under Section 215 
     should be issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Court about particular individuals and only where there are 
     reasonable grounds to believe that the particular information 
     sought is relevant to an authorized investigation.
           Sincerely,
     Richard Clarke,
     Michael Morell,
     Cass Sunstein,
     Geoffrey Stone,
     Peter Swire.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, Nov. 14, 2014]

             Bipartisanship in Defense of the Constitution


     Reining in the NSA is something that all Americans can embrace

                    (By Chris Cox and Laura Murphy)

       Washington politicians are squaring off for another round 
     of confrontation following an election in which millions of 
     American voters demanded an end to the squabbling and a 
     commitment to actually solving the many problems facing the 
     country. There are, of course, issues on which agreement 
     shouldn't be expected, but there are others on which there 
     should be broad agreement, regardless of party and ideology.
       As representatives of two organizations, the National Rifle 
     Association (NRA) and the American Civil Liberties Union 
     (ACLU), with very different perspectives on some issues, we 
     are joining together today because of our belief in the 
     constitutional guarantees of free speech and privacy and our 
     concern that both could be lost unless we rein in 
     governmental surveillance and monitoring that characterizes 
     life in this country.
       The NRA last year joined the ACLU in court proceedings 
     aimed at limiting the surveillance of private citizens in the 
     name of national security. While we agree that government 
     should have the power it needs to protect the American people 
     from terrorist threats, those charged with doing so must be 
     accountable and play by the rules set down by the Founders in 
     the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
       Our lawsuit involved the National Security Agency's program 
     to collect what the government likes to call ``metadata,'' 
     including records of phone calls made by every single 
     American. That data can paint an intimate portrait of 
     someone's life--who they talk to, the organizations they 
     support and who their friends are. However, that same 
     information can be used to target innocent Americans involved 
     in perfectly legal activities that our government doesn't 
     happen to like.
       For example, by using metadata, the government can identify 
     and track most gun owners by tracing contacts with gun 
     ranges, firearms retailers and the like, facilitating the 
     establishment of the national firearms registry that gun 
     owners fear and federal law prohibits. It can also be used by 
     government officials to get information on journalists or any 
     activists that are critical of government policies.
       In our view, current surveillance practices violate the 
     First and Fourth Amendments and threaten other rights, such 
     as those guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and they are not 
     making us any safer. President Obama's own review panel and 
     the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board have found 
     that these call-records programs have not provided any 
     crucial information in even one terrorism case. Even James R. 
     Clapper, the nation's director of national intelligence, 
     supports legislation known as the USA Freedom Act, a modest 
     reform proposal that brings current practices more in line 
     with what the Constitution requires.
       While there is much the Senate shouldn't or needn't do 
     during the ``lame-duck'' session, the USA Freedom Act is 
     badly needed legislation that has bipartisan support and will 
     protect the rights of all Americans. The NRA and the ACLU, 
     along with many members of Congress from both parties, 
     support these reforms and they should be enacted, without 
     weakening amendments, by the Senate and sent to the White 
     House as soon as possible.
       Public frustration with Congress is heightened when 
     essential and widely supported legislation such as the USA 
     Freedom Act languishes and dies for reasons that defy common 
     sense. It's happened before. After all the rhetoric and after 
     the case is made, nothing happens. If the Senate can't pass 
     and the president can't sign a widely supported package of 
     reforms to protect the basic constitutional rights of the 
     American people, is it any wonder that Americans of both 
     parties conclude that Washington is simply dysfunctional?
       Every day that the Senate fails to vote on these reforms is 
     a day in which law-abiding citizens have reason to fear that 
     the constitutional protections so dear to the Founders and so 
     crucial to the functioning of a free society no longer apply. 
     That is a fear the Senate can begin to correct by passing the 
     USA Freedom Act before the end of this year.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 17, 2014]

   The Senate Should Approve a Bipartisan Proposal to Reform the NSA

                              (Editorial)

       The Senate is set to vote Tuesday on the USA Freedom Act, 
     the most promising National Security Agency reform proposal 
     before Congress. Neither national security hawks nor civil 
     libertarians get everything they want from the legislation, 
     which means it could fail to get the 60 votes it needs to 
     advance, or it could get pulled too far in one direction or 
     another during an open amendment process after that. Either 
     road to demise would be unfortunate: The bill deserves to be 
     approved, reconciled with a House-approved version and sent 
     to President Obama.
       The headline of the Senate's bill, sponsored by a varied 
     group of Democrats and Republicans with Sen. Patrick Leahy 
     (D-Vt.) in the lead, is that it would end the government's 
     bulk collection of so-called metadata--phone calling records, 
     for example. In its place, the bill would give the government 
     authority to demand calling records from phone companies in 
     specific cases, if the collection is ``narrowly'' limited. 
     Even then, the government would have to discard information 
     lacking bona-fide intelligence value, and its metadata 
     collection operations would be subject to more oversight.
       That's fine, but bulk metadata collection is not the most 
     important issue the bill addresses. The act would bring 
     change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which 
     helps oversee the NSA's activities. The court, which 
     generally hears only the government's side of any issue, 
     would get balance from a panel of advocates tasked with 
     arguing for civil liberties when the judges are considering 
     important questions of law. The proposal also foresees 
     appeals courts reconsidering more FISA cases, and the bill 
     would press for major court decisions to be released.
       The bill would enable a more orderly and informed debate on 
     NSA activities as well. It would require the government to 
     release much more information on how much it is using various 
     authorities and, crucially, on how many people's information 
     it has swept up in the process. It also harmonizes the 
     expiration of many surveillance authorities. Americans, then, 
     would have more information to assess surveillance activities 
     and a single date on which surveillance policy will be up for 
     debate.
       Technology companies have come out strongly in favor of the 
     plan, as have many--though not all--civil liberties 
     advocates. So, too, has the Obama administration. Though the 
     intelligence community would have to change its behavior--
     significantly in certain programs--it would get clear legal 
     authorities that it wants and an extended expiration timeline 
     for some of them. It would also maintain its core, foreign-
     focused surveillance authorities without much change. Therein 
     lies the bill's careful balance. As the Senate works on the 
     proposal over the coming days, it should preserve that 
     delicate and authentic compromise.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Nov. 17, 2014]

                A Crucial Vote on the Surveillance Bill

                              (Editorial)

       The Republican Party is so badly fractured that it is 
     impossible to tell what steps it will take on domestic 
     surveillance once it assumes control of Congress in January. 
     Its rising libertarian wing wants to crack down on abuses of 
     Americans' privacy, but many of its leaders express full 
     support for any action the intelligence agencies want to 
     take.
       That's why it's important that the Senate break a 
     filibuster on the USA Freedom Act, which would reduce or end 
     the bulk collection of telephone records, in a vote scheduled 
     for Tuesday afternoon. If the bill doesn't pass in the 
     current lame-duck session of the Senate, still controlled by 
     Democrats, it may never get past the 60-vote hurdle in the 
     next session of Congress.
       The bill, sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of 
     Vermont, would require the National Security Agency to ask 
     phone companies for the records of a specific person or 
     address when it is searching for terrorists, instead of 
     scooping up all the records in an area code or city. It would 
     force the agency to show why it needs those records, and to 
     disclose how much data is being collecting.
       The bill would also create a panel of advocates to support 
     privacy rights and civil liberties in arguments before the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; currently, there

[[Page 15901]]

     is no one to offer opposition to government requests before 
     the court. The government would have to issue clear summaries 
     of the court's most significant rulings.
       Not every potential surveillance abuse is addressed in the 
     measure. For example, it leaves open the possibility of 
     ``backdoor'' searches of American data that investigators 
     come across when searching for the communications of 
     foreigners. It exempts the F.B.I. from transparency on 
     searches. And it is not clear whether the government believes 
     there is some other hidden legal authority for bulk 
     collection other than the one addressed in the USA Freedom 
     Act.
       Nonetheless, the bill is a good way to begin restoring 
     individual privacy that has been systematically violated by 
     government spying, revealed through the leaks provided by 
     Edward Snowden. It has been supported by the American Civil 
     Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and 
     other privacy watchdogs. On Sunday, a group of the biggest 
     technology companies--including Google, Microsoft, Facebook 
     and Twitter--endorsed the bill because it allows more 
     disclosure of the demands for information made of them by the 
     government.
       In addition to Senate Democrats, the bill is supported by 
     some hard-right Republicans, including Ted Cruz of Texas and 
     Mike Lee of Utah. But Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who will 
     soon be the Senate majority leader, has supported the 
     N.S.A.'s spying on Americans. That's a good a reason to pass 
     it before a new Senate can water it down.

  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor, and I thank the distinguished Senator 
from California for giving me this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee for his remarks. They mean a lot.
  I want to put this vote into perspective. This is a major decision. 
People sometimes say: Oh, what is the big deal. It is a little 
pipeline. We build pipelines all the time. Well, it is a major 
decision, and I know each of us, regardless of our party, before we 
cast a major vote, thinks about whether our vote is going to make life 
better for our people we represent, the people who send us here and who 
count on us every day. I am going to do everything in my power to make 
the case that building the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is going to 
make life worse for the people we represent and those generations to 
follow because I think I will prove today that misery follows the tar 
sands.
  I said before it is called Keystone XL--extra lethal--not extra large 
but extra lethal. Senators should ask themselves three questions before 
they cast their vote on the Hoeven-Landrieu bill. First, why does it 
make any sense for the Senate to force the approval of a project that 
will bring millions of barrels of the dirtiest pollution you could 
think of into America? Why do we want to bring barrels of filthy, 
dirty, dangerous pollution into America? This isn't an ordinary 
pipeline. This pipeline is carrying tar sands oil, which is, in fact, 
the most polluting kind of oil and I am going to tell you why. This 
isn't hyperbole.
  Tar sands oil contains levels of toxic pollutants and metals that are 
much higher than conventional crude oil. I want to make this case. 
President Obama said when he became President that he would do 
everything in his power to make us energy efficient and to make us 
energy independent, and he has worked on both fronts. We have seen a 
tremendous rise in domestic oil production. It is not tar sands oil. It 
is not filthy oil. Conventional crude oil is different than the tar 
sands. The tar sands have 11 times more sulfur and nickel, 6 times more 
nitrogen, and 5 times more lead. Let me say that again.
  Before we invite a 45-percent increase in this filthy, dirty oil, 
let's take a look at what this tar sands is. It has got more sulfur and 
nickel and nitrogen and more lead.
  I know my colleague who is sitting in the chair cares deeply about 
environmental justice, and in the course of my presentation I am going 
to show what happens in places such as Port Arthur, TX, in minority 
communities when this oil is refined. We can show that photograph now.
  What I am trying to impress on the body today is I am proving the 
point that I am making. The facts are the facts are the facts. This is 
what it looks like in Port Arthur, TX. This is what the kids have to 
put up with. Here is a playground in a low-income community, and I had 
the activists from Port Arthur, TX, here saying, please, please, 
please, protect us from this oil.
  Now these dangerous pollutants I cited and these metals can be very 
harmful to human health. Sulfur dioxide penetrates deeply into 
sensitive parts of the lungs and it causes respiratory diseases such as 
emphysema and bronchitis. You will not hear a word about that from the 
proponents, but this needs to be looked at. This is why I stood with 
the nurses, that is why I stood with the public health doctors, to say 
time out for a minute here.
  What are we doing to our people that we are saying we are helping 
with the tar sands?
  It aggravates heart disease, leading to increased toxic emissions and 
premature death. Nitrogen dioxide increases symptoms in people with 
asthma. When I go to the various schools in my State, I ask the kids: 
How many of you have asthma or how many of you know someone who has 
asthma? Almost half the class raises their hands, if not more.
  Tar sands will exacerbate that problem. We know how dangerous lead 
is, how long it took us to get lead out of paint. It adversely affects 
the nervous system, the kidney function, the immune system, the 
cardiovascular system. Misery follows the tar sands. The Keystone XL--
extra lethal--pipeline.
  We are talking about huge quantities coming through this pipeline--
830,000 barrels of filthy tar sands oil coming across the Canadian 
border heading down to our gulf coast region every single day--again, a 
45-percent increase in the tar sands oil, a 45-percent increase in 
those heavy metals and those dangerous pollutants. This project could 
be just the beginning.
  We already know again, misery follows the tar sands from the 
extraction to the transportation to the refining to the waste disposal.
  Let me show you a picture of petcoke, petroleum coke.
  Again, it is an environmental justice question, because what we have 
is what is left after the refining, and it gets sent all across the 
country. This is a picture of petcoke piles in Chicago. Senator Durbin 
is going to talk more about this. This is a serious environmental 
hazard. The poison that is in this residue in a windstorm just blows 
around and we have stories in the press in Chicago of a Little League 
game being interrupted because the petcoke was blowing all over the 
field, and the kids were getting pitch black with the petcoke.
  So, yes, I have stood with doctors and nurses and people in these 
communities who have faced harm along each step of the tar sands oil 
process. These are cancer-causing pollutants. So when somebody tells 
you: Oh, this is nothing. This is a pipeline. We have a lot of 
pipelines. This is nothing. No big deal. Why are you fighting? Why are 
you standing up here? Why did I demand 3 hours of time in opposition? 
Because this is a dangerous project.
  Why should we vote to force the approval of a project that would 
bring this dirty, polluted tar sands into the United States when we 
know it is the most difficult type of oil to clean up in case of a 
spill?
  According to the EPA, tar sands oil creates especially difficult 
challenges to clean up when the pipelines rupture because it is so 
heavy it sinks to the bottom of the water. You only have to look at the 
spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010 which they still haven't 
cleaned up.
  In Mayflower, AK, in 2013, we will show you a picture from there. 
This is what happened when there was a spill. These spills are not 
cleaned up. This came right into residential communities. So again, 
dirty, filthy oil and the toughest to clean up in case of a spill. We 
know as sure as I am standing here if this is built there will be a 
spill, because that happens; and it has already happened in 2010 and in 
2013.
  Of the projected 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil, most of it isn't 
going to our domestic use. And that is the other question. Why would 
you want to bring this dirty, polluted tar sands oil that you cannot 
clean up into our country if practically all of it is going to be 
exported? And we will have to bear the

[[Page 15902]]

burdens of the refining, the filth in the air, the petcoke in our 
cities, as we see the products being exported to other countries.
  Now I could stop here--I am sure the proponents wish I would, but I 
am not, because if you are not convinced this is an enormous mistake, I 
have got five reasons--a deeper look at the health of our people. I 
have already said tar sands is the filthiest oil on the planet. And I 
have already told you that I have stood with nurses and doctors to make 
this point. Downwind from the tar sands extraction site and the 
refineries in Canada there are significantly higher levels of dangerous 
pollutants and carcinogens have been documented.
  People living in the nearby communities are suffering. I have met 
them. I have talked to them on the phone. They flew down here to stand 
by my side to call attention to the health impacts. People living in 
nearby communities are suffering higher rates of cancers linked to 
toxic chemicals including leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. That is a 
fact. The big oil companies won't talk about it. The Koch brothers 
won't talk about it. My Republican friends won't talk about it. But I 
am going to talk about it and I am going to enter into the Record a 
University of California-Irvine, University of Michigan peer-reviewed 
study documenting elevated cancer rates near tar sands processing 
zones. This was a peer-reviewed article dated September 2013.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Atmospheric Environment--Air Quality in the Industrial Heartland of 
         Alberta, Canada and Potential Impacts on Human Health

  (By Isobel J. Simpson, Josette E. Marrero, Stuart Batterman, Simone 
              Meinardi, Barbara Barletta, Donald R. Blake)


                               HIGHLIGHTS

       Alberta's Industrial Heartland is Canada's largest 
     hydrocarbon processing center.
       We characterize 77 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 
     emitted in this region.
       Dozens of VOCs, including carcinogens, were enhanced in the 
     industrial plumes.
       Sources include propene fractionation, diluent separation 
     and bitumen processing.
       Male hematopoietic cancer rates are higher in this region 
     than elsewhere in Alberta.


                                abstract

       The ``Industrial Heartland'' of Alberta is Canada's largest 
     hydrocarbon processing center, with more than 40 major 
     chemical, petrochemical, and oil and gas facilities. 
     Emissions from these industries affect local air quality and 
     human health. This paper characterizes ambient levels of 77 
     volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the region using high-
     precision measurements collected in summer 2010. Remarkably 
     strong enhancements of 43 VOCs were detected, and 
     concentrations in the industrial plumes were often similar to 
     or even higher than levels measured in some of the world's 
     largest cities and industrial regions. For example maximum 
     levels of propene and i-pentane exceeded 100 ppbv, and 1,3-
     butadiene, a known carcinogen, reached 27 ppbv. Major VOC 
     sources included propene fractionation, diluent separation 
     and bitumen processing. Emissions of the measured VOCs 
     increased the hydroxyl radical reactivity (kOH), a 
     measure of the potential to form downwind ozone, from 3.4 
     s-1 in background air to 62 s-1 in the 
     most concentrated plumes. The plume value was comparable to 
     polluted megacity values, and acetaldehyde, propene and 1,3-
     butadiene contributed over half of the plume kOH. 
     Based on a 13-year record (1994-2006) at the county level, 
     the incidence of male hematopoietic cancers (leukemia and 
     non-Hodgkin lymphoma) was higher in communities closest to 
     the Industrial Heartland compared to neighboring counties. 
     While a causal association between these cancers and exposure 
     to industrial emissions cannot be confirmed, this pattern and 
     the elevated VOC levels warrant actions to reduce emissions 
     of known carcinogens, including benzene and 1,3-butadiene.


                            1. Introduction

       Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted from natural 
     biogenic sources such as vegetation and biomass burning, and 
     from anthropogenic sources such as the production, 
     distribution and consumption of fossil fuels, including 
     vehicular emissions (Guenther et al., 2000; Buzcu and Fraser, 
     2006). VOCs play key roles in the radiative forcing and 
     chemistry and of the atmosphere, for example producing 
     tropospheric ozone (O3) and secondary organic 
     aerosol (SOA) (Sillman, 1999; Robinson et al., 2007). VOCs 
     also control concentrations of the hydroxyl radical (OH) 
     (Guenther et al., 1995), the principal oxidizing agent in the 
     troposphere. Several halogenated VOCs are potent greenhouse 
     gases and cause stratospheric ozone depletion, and are 
     regulated under the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments 
     (MPA) (UNEP, 2012).
       In addition to their influence on air quality and climate, 
     VOCs are of concern because of their potential health 
     effects. As examples. benzene and 1,3-butadiene are known 
     carcinogens (IARC, 2010). Biological evidence supports the 
     causal linkage between certain pollutants and certain 
     cancers, for example, between leukemia incidence/mortality 
     and exposure to benzene (Snyder, 2002; Forrest et al., 2005) 
     and 1,3-butadiene (Cheng et al., 2007; Kirman et al., 2010). 
     Increased rates of leukemia, melanoma and genotoxic risk have 
     been shown in petroleum workers and populations living 
     downwind of petrochemical facilities such as oil refineries 
     (Wong and Raabe, 2000; Whitworth et al., 2008; Barregard et 
     al., 2009; Basso et al., 2011), although elevated rates and 
     cancer mortality are not consistently observed (Tsai et al., 
     2004; Axelsson et al., 2010).
       Established in the 1950s, the Industrial Heartland of 
     Alberta is currently a large (582 km\2\) industrial area with 
     more than 40 companies, including chemical, petrochemical, 
     and oil and gas facilities (http://
www.industrialheartland.com). It is situated about 30 km 
     northeast of Edmonton (53 deg.32'N, 113 deg.30'W; population 
     812,000) and a few km northeast of Fort Saskatchewan 
     (53 deg.43'N, 113 deg.13'W; population 19,000) in an 
     otherwise rural farming area Alberta (Fig. 1 and Fig. S1). 
     The Industrial Heartland is the largest hydrocarbon 
     processing region in Canada, and major land holding include 
     Shell Canada, Dow Chemical Canada, and Provident Energy & 
     Williams Energy Canada (now Pembina Pipeline & Williams 
     Energy Canada) (http://www.industrialheartland.com). Their 
     products include ethane, propane, propene, butane, styrene, 
     hexane, benzene, heavy aromatics, synthetic crude oil and 
     condensate (AIHA, 2012). For example, Shell Scotford is the 
     largest land holding in the Heartland and includes a chemical 
     plant, a refinery, and an upgrader that separates diluent and 
     processes bitumen from oil sands mined approximately 450 km 
     to the north, with a current processing capacity of 255,000 
     barrels/day (AIHA, 2012).
       Industrial emissions in the Heartland affect the local air 
     quality, for example causing intermittent odor episodes in 
     the nearby community of Fort Saskatchewan. However, there 
     have been very few independent, peer-reviewed analyses of air 
     quality in the region. Thirty VOCs were measured in the 
     Heartland from 2004 to 2006, and elevated VOC levels were 
     attributed primarily to industry followed by vehicles (Mintz 
     and McWhinney, 2008). Air quality is monitored locally by the 
     Fort Air Partnership (FAP), a multi-stakeholder group with 
     members from industry, government and the public (http://
www.fortair.org). Though the FAP data have not been published 
     in the peer-reviewed literature, they show several 
     exceedances of Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO) 
     in 2010 for PM2.5, SO2, NH3 
     and NO2 (FAP, 2010). There were no reported 
     O3 exceedances in 2010 both for AAAQO standards 
     (82 ppb in 1 h) and for Canada-Wide Standards (65 ppb in 8 
     h). The annual O3 average for 2010 was 22 ppb, and 
     a maximum 1-h O3 value of 72 ppb was recorded in 
     June (FAP, 2010).
       Here we present concentrations of VOCs and carbon monoxide 
     (CO) measured in the Industrial Heartland in August 2010, and 
     we discuss potential impacts of industrial VOC emissions on 
     air quality and on human health in the local population.


                               2. Methods

     2.1. Ground-based air sampling
       Previously our group identified VOC emission hot-spots 
     within a 12  x  12 km region of the Industrial Heartland, 
     during a grid study on April 10, 2008 (n = 58) as part of an 
     Environmental Impact Assessment in the Heartland (unpublished 
     data). For example, maximum levels of benzene, ethylbenzene 
     and styrene downwind of the Shell Scotford complex were 1.6, 
     2.0 and 4.0 parts per billion by volume (ppbv, 
     10-9), respectively, or 19, 435 and 6070 times 
     higher than local background concentrations measured on the 
     same day. During the 2010 study the sampling strategy focused 
     on these emission hotspots. Speciated VOC measurements were 
     obtained by collecting whole air samples (WAS) into evacuated 
     2 L stainless steel canisters, followed by analysis at our 
     University of California, Irvine (UC Irvine) laboratory using 
     multi-column gas chromatography (see Supplementary material). 
     Individual air samples were collected concurrently at an 
     upwind farm and downwind of several Heartland industries 
     throughout the day and evening of August 12 and 13, 2010 (n = 
     80; Fig. 1). In many but not all cases, strong odors were 
     associated with samples collected downwind of industrial 
     activity. Because the sampling campaign occurred over a 
     limited 2-day time frame, the results are not intended to 
     represent an assessment of conditions over longer time 
     scales.
       Based on climate data from 1990 to 2002, the predominant 
     wind direction in the Fort Saskatchewan area (Strathcona 
     County) is from the southwest (SW) quadrant in fall and 
     winter, the northwest (NW) and southeast quadrants in spring, 
     and NW in summer

[[Page 15903]]

     (McCallum et al., 2003). During this study most of the 
     sampled air masses arrived from the NW--i.e., not from 
     Edmonton to the SW--at a median wind speed of 15 km 
     h-1 or a moderate breeze (Fig. S2). Therefore we 
     do not expect emissions from Edmonton to be a confounding 
     factor in this study. The temperature ranged from 14 to 21 
     deg.C (http://www.casadata.org/Reports/SelectCategory.asp) 
     and conditions were overcast with occasional drizzle and 
     rain--in other words not ideal for active in situ 
     photochemistry.
     2.2. Laboratory analysis
       Each air sample was returned to UC Irvine and analyzed 
     within 10 days for CO and 77 VOCs, including C1-
     C10 hydrocarbons, C1-C2 
     halocarbons, C1-C5 alkyl nitrates and 
     C1-C2 sulfur compounds. Our analytical 
     procedures and calibration protocols are described in the 
     Supplementary material. The detection limit of our 
     measurements varies by compound and ranges from 0.005 to 100 
     pptv (Tables S1-S3). The measurement precision and accuracy 
     also vary by compound and are 3% and 5%, respectively, for 
     alkanes, alkenes and aromatics. Rigorous sensitivity tests 
     have shown that most measured VOCs are stable within our 
     canisters, though oxygenated hydrocarbon levels can increase 
     or decrease at a rate of a few percent per day, which is 
     reflected by their more poorly constrained precision and 
     accuracy (Tables S1-S3).
     2.3. VOC data analysis
       Trace gas concentrations typically vary with factors 
     including season and latitude. During this study the 
     background VOC concentrations showed little diurnal 
     variability for most compounds (Fig. S3), and the upwind farm 
     samples were used to calculate the average local background 
     concentrations for this latitude and time of year (n = 8). 
     Because the plume samples were collected outside the 
     perimeter of the industrial facilities, perhaps 500 m or more 
     downwind of the emission source, the extent to which the 
     plumes had become mixed and diluted with background air 
     before being sampled is unclear. As a result the industrial 
     plume averages were calculated as the average of the top 10th 
     percentile concentrations for each species (n = 8). We note 
     that these industrial plume values will be less concentrated 
     than stack samples.
     2.4. Human health data analysis
       To investigate potential impacts of exposure to industrial 
     pollutants on human health, in particular cancer incidences, 
     two memos, tables and figures were obtained from the Alberta 
     Cancer Board (Chen, 2006, 2008) under the Canadian Freedom of 
     Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act. These 
     documents provide limited analyses of cancer incidences in 
     the region, specifically comparing the three-county area of 
     Fort Saskatchewan, Strathcona County and Sturgeon County 
     (Fig. 1) to the rest of the Edmonton-area health region, and 
     also to the rest of Alberta. Currently Fort Saskatchewan 
     houses 18 major industries, Strathcona County has 16 
     industries, and Sturgeon County has 9 industries (AIHA, 
     2012).
       Based on surveillance data from 1994 through 2006 
     (inclusive), Chen (2008) remarks that the age-standardized 
     incidence rates for male hematopoietic cancer and male non-
     Hodgkin lymphoma in the three-county area are elevated with 
     respect to the two comparison areas. We extended this 
     analysis by computing the mean (Standard error) 
     standardized incidence rate for male hematopoietic cancers in 
     the three-county region using two five-year periods (1997-
     2001 and 2002-2006) that help to reduce the year-to-year 
     fluctuations in cancer cases (since the population is 
     relatively small).


                       3. Results and discussion

     3.1. VOC concentrations
       Complete results for the 2010 sampling campaign are 
     summarized in Tables S1-S3. With the exception of methane 
     (CH4), which is long-lived and relatively abundant 
     in the atmosphere, background VOC levels ranged from sub- or 
     low- parts per trillion by volume (pptv, 10-12) up 
     to low ppbv levels. By comparison, concentrations of many 
     VOCs were clearly elevated in the industrial plumes compared 
     to background values (Tables S1 and S2). Of the 77 measured 
     VOCs, 43 were very strongly enhanced in the plumes, with 
     concentrations spanning roughly 1 to 4 orders of magnitude 
     (Fig. 2a-f and Fig. S4a-c). These compounds include all 14 
     aromatics that were measured, 12 alkanes, 6 alkenes, 5 
     oxygenated compounds, 5 halocarbons and ethyne (Table S1). 
     After CH4, the most abundant VOCs in the 
     industrial plumes were, in descending order, propene (maximum 
     of 107 ppbv), i-pentane (103 ppbv), n-pentane (97 ppbv), 
     acetaldehyde (74 ppbv) and 2-methylpentane (62 ppbv). By 
     comparison, their average background levels ( 1s) 
     ranged from 0.031  0.013 ppbv to 1.4  
     0.8 ppbv, or factors of 55-1980 lower. The most strongly 
     enhanced compounds were methyl tert-butyl ether (enhanced by 
     up to a factor of 6194), ethylbenzene (6179 x ), 3-
     methylpentane (4414 x ), trans-2-butene (3609 x ) and 2,3-
     dimethylbutane (3048 x ).
       An additional 15 compounds showed small-to-moderate, 
     statistically significant enhancements (up to 1.06-2.8-fold) 
     in the industrial plumes compared to background values (Table 
     S2). These include CH4, two sulfur compounds (DMS, 
     OCS), three methyl halides (CH3I, 
     CH3Br, CH3Cl), three brominated 
     compounds (CH3Br, CH2Br2, 
     CHBr3), four long-lived halocarbons (9-26 years; 
     HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, HCFC-22, CCl4), and three 
     short-lived solvents (1-5 months; acetone, methyl acetate, 
     CHCl3) (Fig. S2d-f). With the exception of 
     CH4, their plume averages remained below 1 ppbv 
     (Table S2). Although carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) 
     is restricted under the MPA, the precision of these 
     measurements is 1% (about 0.8 pptv at the measured mixing 
     ratios), and CCl4 shows clear and measurable 
     enhancements in industrial plumes downwind of Dow and Shell 
     compared to the background of 89.4  0.4 pptv 
     (Fig. S2f).
       We speculate that these elevated plume concentrations are 
     due to emissions from pre-existing reservoirs.
       Carbon monoxide and the remaining 19 of 77 measured VOCs 
     showed similar concentration ranges in both background air 
     and plumes, and were not appreciably impacted by industrial 
     emissions (Fig. S3a-d). This group comprises a number of 
     halocarbons (CFCs, halons, CH3CCl3, 
     HFC-134a, 1,2-dichloroethene), biogenic compounds (isoprene, 
     a-pinene and b-pinene) and alkyl nitrates (Table S3). Several 
     of the halocarbons are restricted under the MPA, and their 
     lack of industrial emission is not surprising (Fig. S3a). 
     Although the pinenes have previously shown an unexpected 
     association with industrial emissions from oil sands 
     operations near Fort McMurray (Simpson et al., 2010), an 
     industrial signature was not evident here (Fig. S3b). Carbon 
     monoxide was not enhanced in the industrial plumes (Fig. 
     S3c), showing that combustive sources (including vehicular 
     emissions) did not significantly impact the measured plumes. 
     Alkyl nitrate levels remained in the low pptv range (Fig. 
     S3d), indicating little evidence of secondary photochemistry. 
     This is most likely explained by a combination of unfavorable 
     conditions for in situ photochemistry (Section 2.1) and the 
     short travel time from plume emission to sample collection. 
     For example, an emitted plume could reach the sampling sites 
     in as little as a few minutes based on a wind speed of 10-20 
     km h-1 (Section 2.1) and a downwind sampling 
     distance of 500 m.
     3.2. Emission signatures
       Based on linear correlations among the measured VOCs using 
     least squares linear fits (Simpson et al., 2010), the emitted 
     VOCs fell into at least five distinct correlating groups. 
     First, the C3-C4 alkenes were strongly 
     correlated (0.99  r2  1.00), driven by high 
     concentrations measured downwind of the Provident/Williams 
     facility (Fig. 2a), which includes a natural gas liquids and 
     propene fractionation project and produces C2-
     C4 alkanes and C3-C4 butenes 
     (AIHA, 2012). Remarkably, the maximum propene level (107 
     ppbv) was almost double that measured in the Houston-
     Galveston Bay area (56 ppbv), even though Houston is both a 
     much larger metropolitan area than Fort Saskatchewan and the 
     largest petrochemical manufacturing center in the United 
     States (Ryerson et al., 2003; Gilman et al., 2009).
       Second, the C5-C7 alkanes and 
     methacrolein were highly correlated (0.81  r2  
     1.00), with largest concentrations downwind of Shell 
     Scotford, which separates diluent and processes bitumen 
     (Section 1), and Access Pipeline, which produces diluent and 
     blended bitumen (Fig. 2 band Fig. S4a). The maximum n-hexane 
     level (52 ppbv) was 2.5-17 times higher than maximum values 
     measured in some of the world's megacities (Beijing, Mexico 
     City, and Tokyo) (Parrish et al., 2009), although lower than 
     the maximum levels measured during a ship-based study in 
     Houston/Galveston Bay (81 ppbv) (Gilman et al., 2009). 
     Simpson et al. (2010) associated elevated levels of 
     C4-C9 alkanes with emissions from oil 
     sands and its products and/or diluent, and this second group 
     of VOCs is consistent with a diluent/bitumen signature. Even 
     though methacrolein and methyl vinyl ketone are both major 
     isoprene oxidation products (Montzka et al., 1993) they were 
     uncorrelated during this study (r2 < 0.01). 
     Because the maximum methacrolein level (20 ppbv) far exceeds 
     the amount that isoprene oxidation chemistry can explain, its 
     excess concentrations are attributed to industrial emissions.
       Third, acetaldehyde (Fig. S4b), i-butane (Fig. 2c) and n-
     butane were correlated strongly with one another (0.88  
     r2  0.98) and somewhat with the C3-
     C4 alkenes (0.58  r2  0.68). Maximum 
     levels of all three compounds (26-74 ppbv) were measured 
     downwind of Provident/Williams, which produces C2-
     C4 alkanes (AIHA, 2012); Shell Scotford, which 
     lists C3-C4 mix as a product; and 
     Access Pipeline. Surprisingly, the maximum butane levels were 
     comparable to those in central Mexico City during the mid-
     1990s when liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) was a major source 
     of butanes and contributed to poor air quality (Blake and 
     Rowland, 1995). The characteristic emission ratio of i-
     butane/n-butane is 0.2-0.3 for vehicular exhaust, 0.46 for 
     LPG, and 0.6-1.0 for natural gas (Russo et al., 2010 and 
     references therein). Here the average (1s) ratio 
     in the top 10% of plumes (based on the highest i-butane and 
     n-butane concentrations) was 0.47  0.18, similar 
     to that for LPG and to that measured downwind of the oil 
     sands industry (0.42  0.03)

[[Page 15904]]

     (Simpson et al., 2010), suggesting that the i-butane/n-butane 
     ratio for various petrochemical processes resembles that for 
     LPG. The main global source of acetaldehyde is photochemical 
     hydrocarbon oxidation, with a relatively small industrial 
     source (Singh et al., 2004; Millet et al., 2010). Here, 
     however, the very high acetaldehyde levels cannot be 
     explained by secondary photochemical production (Section 3.1) 
     and they are attributed to direct industrial emission from 
     various facilities. For example, the Shell Scotford chemical 
     plant reportedly released 3.9 tonnes of acetaldehyde in 2010 
     (NPRI, 2012).
       Fourth, toluene and the xylenes correlated strongly with 
     one another (0.79  r2  0.98) and with the second 
     group of compounds (0.60  r2  0.89). The highest 
     levels of toluene and the xylenes (2.7 ppbv and 0.65-3.4 
     ppbv, respectively) were measured downwind of the Shell 
     Scotford complex (Fig. S4c), which lists heavy aromatics 
     among its products. The maximum toluene level was 69 times 
     higher than background (Table S1), but lower than maximum 
     values in megacities such as Mexico City, Tokyo and Beijin 
     (10 ppbv) and near major petrochemical complexes in Texas 
     and Spain (16-77 ppbv) (Gilman et al., 2009; Ras et al., 
     2009).
       Fifth, n-octane and the C9 aromatics 
     (ethylbenzene, trimethylbenzenes, n-propylbenzene) correlated 
     strongly (0.74  r2  1.00), and with highest 
     concentrations downwind of the Shell Scotford complex. The 
     maximum ethylbenzene mixing ratio (23 ppbv; Fig. 2d) was much 
     larger than for other compounds in this group (0.22-0.83 
     ppbv), indicating clear emissions of this possible 
     carcinogen. The Shell Scotford refinery manufactures a range 
     of products including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and 
     reportedly released 0.562 tonnes of ethylbenzene in 2010 
     (NPRI, 2012).
       Other chemicals were clearly emitted but did not 
     necessarily correlate strongly with other VOCs. Ethane and 
     propane were moderately correlated (r2 = 0.62), 
     with highest levels measured downwind of Keyera and 
     Provident/Williams (ethane and propane) and Dow Chemical 
     (ethane only). The maximum propane mixing ratio (45 ppbv) was 
     lower than in Houston/Galveston Bay) (347 ppbv) (Gilman et 
     al., 2009). Benzene showed some correlation with ethylbenzene 
     (r2 = 0.58) and the highest benzene level (6.6 
     ppbv; Fig. 2e) was measured downwind of Shell Scotford, which 
     produces benzene and reportedly released 2.5 tonnes of 
     benzene from its refinery in 2010 (NPRI, 2012). The highest 
     1,3-butadiene level was also measured downwind of the Shell 
     facility (27 ppbv; Fig. 2f), though 1,3-butadiene is not 
     listed in the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) for 
     Shell. The combustion tracers ethene and ethyne were only 
     weakly correlated (r2 = 0.52) and their highest 
     concentrations were measured downwind of Dow, which produces 
     ethene. Ethene/ethyne ratios of 1-3 and 10-30 are 
     characteristic of tailpipe emissions and petrochemical 
     facilities, respectively (Ryerson et al., 2003). Here the 
     ethene/ethyne ratio was 9.7  1.0, which confirms 
     the industrial rather than vehicular nature of the observed 
     plumes.
     3.3 Air quality impacts
       The contribution of individual VOCs to O3 
     formation is a function of their concentration and their 
     reactivity towards OH, and can be expressed as the total OH 
     reactivity (kOH) (Kovacs et al., 2003; Mao et al., 
     2010; Kim et al., 2011):

     kOH =  
         (kOH+VOCi[VOCi] + 
         kOH+CO[CO] + kOH+NO[NO] + 
         kOH+NO2[NO2] + ...)    (1)

       Here kOH is used to evaluate the relative 
     contributions of CO and the measured VOCs to downwind 
     photochemistry. Because we did not measure nitrogen oxides 
     (NOX), which can contribute 15-50% to 
     kOH in cities such as Houston, Mexico City and New 
     York (Mao et al., 2010), the reactivity reported here is 
     likely underestimated and is understood to be only for the 
     measured species, rather than total OH reactivity.
       The OH reactivity in background air was 3.4 s-1, 
     similar to clean air values of 1-3 s-1 (Kim et 
     al., 2011; Lou et al., 2010). Not surprisingly, isoprene was 
     the primary contributor to kOH in background air, 
     followed by CO, acetaldehyde and CH4 (Fig. 3a). By 
     contrast, kOH in the top 10th percentile of data 
     with highest VOC loadings was 62 s-1, or 18 times 
     larger than background. Even though we have missing 
     reactivity, this plume kOH value is already 
     comparable to levels in polluted megacities such as Mexico 
     City, Tokyo and Hong Kong/Guangzhou, which typically range 
     from 10 to 100 s-1 (Lou et al., 2010 and 
     references therein). Because of their abundance and 
     reactivity, propene, acetaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene were 
     responsible for more than 50% of kOH in the 
     plumes, while alkanes contributed another 23% (Fig. 3b). 
     These results show some similarity to airborne studies in the 
     greater Houston area, where propene and ethene were 
     identified as the two VOCs primarily responsible for rapid 
     O3 formation (Ryerson et al., 2003; deGouw et al., 
     2009) and alkene emissions from petrochemical facilities are 
     the primary source of formaldehyde, also an O3 
     precursor (Parrish et al., 2012).
       Despite the abundance of VOC precursors and strong OH 
     reactivity in the industrial plumes, no O3 
     exceedances were measured in the Fort Saskatchewan region in 
     2010 (Section 1). In general, the highest monthly 
     O3 averages occur during spring, and the highest 
     1-h O3 averages occur during hot summer afternoons 
     when wind speeds are low (FAP, 2010). Ozone levels are lower 
     within the center of the Heartland airshed, likely due to the 
     presence of NOX which lower O3 concentrations 
     through titration (FAP, 2010). Simpson et al. (2010) also 
     found relatively low levels of O3 downwind of the 
     Alberta oil sands because titration with NO exceeded 
     O3 production on the short time-scale since 
     precursor emission. Overall, it appears that industrial VOC 
     sources in the Fort Saskatchewan area are emitted into a 
     relatively clean background for O3, and local 
     O3 exceedances are not common.
     3.4. Gaps in VOC emission reporting
       Although 43 of 77 measured VOCs were strongly elevated in 
     the industrial plumes compared to local background 
     concentrations, only 16 were quantified in the 2010 NPRI for 
     the industries discussed in this paper (ethene, propene, 1,3-
     butadiene, 1,2-dichloroethane, n-hexane, benzene, toluene, 
     ethylbenzene, total xylenes, styrene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 
     acetaldehyde, carbonyl sulfide, chloroform, trichloroethene, 
     HCFC-22; NPRI, 2012), with individual companies reporting 0-
     10 VOCs. As a first example, while strongly elevated levels 
     of at least a dozen C2-C8 alkanes were 
     detected downwind of several Industrial Heartland facilities 
     (Table S1, Fig. 2b-c and Fig. S4a), only n-hexane is included 
     in the NPRI. The VOCs reported in the NPRI include light 
     alkenes and are weighted towards aromatic species, yet our 
     study shows that alkanes are a leading contributor to 
     kOH in the Heartland (Fig. 3b). Second, while 1,3-
     butadiene is a known carcinogen, emissions of this VOC are 
     reported by only one of the companies considered here.
       Even when emission rates are reported, they require 
     verification to ensure that the reporting is accurate. For 
     example, recent NPRI listings of VOC emission rates 
     (including benzene) from an unnamed Canadian refinery were 
     found to be underestimated by 15-18-fold (Chambers et al., 
     2008). In addition to improved reporting of speciated VOCs in 
     the NPRI or other publically available inventories, 
     especially 1,3-butadiene and light alkanes, we recommend 
     independent air quality monitoring and VOC emission estimates 
     in the Heartland region so that emitted compounds can be 
     externally identified, quantified and reported in the peer-
     reviewed literature.
     3.5. Human health impacts
       Of the 77 VOCs measured here, at least 10 are either known 
     human carcinogens (Group 1: benzene, 1,3-butadiene), probable 
     carcinogens (Group 2A: trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene), 
     or possible carcinogens (Group 2B: carbon tetrachloride, 
     chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, dichloromethane, 
     ethylbenzene, isoprene, styrene) (IARC, 2010). Of these, 1,3-
     butadiene and ethylbenzene were the most abundant in the 
     industrial plumes, with maximum levels of 23-27 ppbv, or 3-4 
     orders of magnitude larger than their background values 
     (Table S1).
       An analysis of cancer incidences in the Industrial 
     Heartland shows elevated incidence rates of male 
     hematopoietic cancers in the three-county area where the 
     industries are located (Fort Saskatchewan, Strathcona County 
     and Sturgeon County) compared to neighboring regions for both 
     1997-2001 and 2002-2006, although the error bars are large 
     due to small sample sizes (Fig. 4). Several steps would help 
     to confirm such trends and possibly provide a more direct 
     link between these cancers and emissions of toxic VOCs in the 
     Heartland: improved estimates of VOC emissions and exposure 
     estimates that included more detail and historical data; 
     better cancer surveillance that included regular evaluations, 
     breakdown by cancer type (e.g., myelogenous, monocytic and 
     lymphocytic leukemias) and geocoding of cases; collection of 
     potential covariates and confounders (e.g., residence and 
     work history); and use of statistical and epidemiological 
     techniques to investigate spatial, temporal and exposure-
     related patterns of disease in the community.
       Elevated risk of hematopoietic cancers has also been found 
     in other populations living downwind of industrial 
     facilities, even at relatively low VOC exposures. For 
     example, leukemia incidence an exposed population living near 
     a large Swedish oil refinery known to emit benzene and other 
     VOCs was significantly elevated (33 cases vs. 22 expected 
     cases) compared to local controls (50 cases vs. 56 expected), 
     despite an estimated refinery contribution to annual average 
     VOC concentrations of only 0.63 ppb for benzene and 0.23 ppb 
     for 1,3-butadiene (Barregard et al., 2009). The authors note 
     that risk estimates extrapolated from high-level exposure 
     would not predict an increase of leukemia at low VOC 
     exposures, and they suggest that risk estimates using 
     standard carcinogenic unit risk or slope factors do not 
     adequately represent true risks from much lower exposures. As 
     a second example of a population-based study, higher exposure 
     to benzene and 1,3-butadiene in 886 census tracts surrounding 
     Houston, Texas, was associated with increased incidence of 
     childhood lympho-
     hematopoietic cancers (Whitworth et al., 2008). Some of the 
     highest exposures occurred in the Houston Ship Channel area, 
     which contains a large number of petroleum and chemical 
     industries.

[[Page 15905]]

       Recommended exposure limits and risk-based criteria evolve 
     as our understanding of the chemical toxicity of carcinogens 
     improves. Using benzene as an example, the recommended 
     exposure limit relevant for occupational settings has 
     decreased from 100 ppm in 1947 to 1 ppm (Wong et al., 1999; 
     McHale et al., 2010; Smith, 2010); the 1-h average ambient 
     air quality guideline in Alberta is 9 ppb (Chambers et al., 
     2008). However, adverse health outcomes, including 
     hematological changes and gene perturbations, have been 
     reported at exposure levels below 1 ppm (McHale et al., 2010; 
     Qu et al., 2002; Lan et al., 2004; Xing et al., 2010). 
     Indeed, recent literature suggests that there is probably no 
     safe exposure level to benzene because it does not appear to 
     have a functional low-dose threshold, and because the effects 
     of exposure appear to be additive in a linear or supralinear 
     fashion (Smith, 2010). Further, in environmental settings (as 
     compared to workplace), exposure to compound mixtures rather 
     than a single compound at a time is common, and simultaneous 
     exposure to complex mixtures, including multiple carcinogens, 
     may involve interactions and possibly synergistic effects on 
     target organs or systems at low exposure (Basso et al., 
     2011). Although VOC levels were significantly elevated above 
     concurrent local background values in the Heartland, 
     concentrations remained below existing guidelines for short-
     term exposure. Guidelines for long-term exposures generally 
     use a risk-based approach, and there is considerable 
     uncertainty regarding the unit risk factors that describe the 
     toxicity of a chemical (or mixture) for the public and 
     susceptible individuals, as well as debate over what is 
     acceptable or protective. (A number of U.S. state and federal 
     rules use individual lifetime cancer risks in the range of 1 
     in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000.)
       The elevated incidence of cancers within the Industrial 
     Heartland that are known to be linked to VOCs released in the 
     region raises questions regarding whether ambient levels, 
     emission controls, and risk calculations are adequately 
     protective of public health. In addition, on-site workers may 
     be at increased risk because of their closer proximity to 
     emission sources. While several factors might well explain an 
     observation of increased cancer rates, e.g., variability of a 
     population's genetic makeup, differences in dietary or 
     lifestyle factors, and statistical variability, it is also 
     important and responsible to improve health surveillance and 
     VOC exposure measurements, to utilize epidemiological studies 
     that can better link environmental factors to disease, and to 
     reduce exposures to pollutants that might plausibly be 
     related to adverse health impacts.


                             4. Conclusions

       Ambient monitoring in the Industrial Heartland of Alberta, 
     the largest hydrocarbon processing region in Canada, showed 
     remarkable enhancements in VOC concentrations. Even though 
     the Heartland is situated within a generally rural area, many 
     maximum concentrations were comparable to those measured in 
     the world's largest cities. Thirty VOCs were present at 
     levels above 1 ppbv, and maximum propene and i-pentane levels 
     exceeded 100 ppbv. Some of the largest VOC excesses were 
     measured in samples designated as ``no smell'', showing that 
     absence of odor does not necessarily indicate good air 
     quality. The industrial plumes showed distinct chemical 
     signatures that varied not only between facilities but also 
     within individual facilities. An analysis of OH reactivity in 
     the plumes suggests that propene, acetaldehyde and 1,3-
     butadiene have the greatest potential to form downwind 
     O3.
       Excess numbers of hematopoietic cancers were observed in 
     the same region that emits substantial quantities of complex 
     mixtures of industrial pollutants, including several VOCs 
     that are known to cause these cancers. While there are many 
     factors that preclude a causal linkage, including a lack of 
     exposure history for the local population and uncertainties 
     associated with the health impacts of low exposures to 
     multiple compounds, we suggest that immediate reductions in 
     emissions of known carcinogens such as benzene and 1,3-
     butadiene are warranted and prudent.


                            Acknowledgments

       Laboratory analysis was performed by Brent Love and Gloria 
     Liu Weitz. Barbara Chisholm provided logistical support. The 
     authors thank Jo-Yu Chin for her comments, and Verona Goodwin 
     and two local residents for their assistance during sampling. 
     Field work and laboratory analysis was funded by the Tides 
     Foundation.


                     Appendix A. Supplementary data

       Supplementary data related to this article can be found at 
     http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.09.017.

  Mrs. BOXER. Once it leaves Canada and is transported to refineries in 
the United States, the tar sands would increase the pollution in 
already plagued communities such as Port Arthur, which I showed you and 
I will show you again.
  Port Arthur is already refining tar sands oil. This is going to 
greatly increase the amount of tar sands oil they are going to be 
refining. They are on the EPA's list of cities with dangerous ozone 
levels, people suffering from asthma, respiratory ailments, skin 
irritations, and cancer.
  The oil companies aren't going to tell you about this and the Koch 
brothers aren't going to tell you about this and my Republican friends 
aren't going to tell you about this, but I am going to tell you about 
this. Tar sands will add another threat to Port Arthur and other 
communities that are already in distress.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article 
describing health problems experienced by families living near Port 
Arthur refineries, and it is entitled ``Everyone Deserves Clean Air and 
Equal Protection From Pollution,'' dated August 12, 2014.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Chron, August 12, 2014]

    Everyone Deserves Clean Air and Equal Protection From Pollution


    EVERY ONE SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT TO BREATHE CLEAN, SAFE AIR

                   (By Hilton Kelley and Anne Rolfes)

       Would you want your child to live next door to an oil 
     refinery and face an increased risk for cancer, heart or 
     breathing problems?
       Millions of Americans live very close to some 150 oil 
     refineries in 32 states, including our home states of Texas 
     and Louisiana, and have an increased cancer risk because of 
     the air pollution coming from refineries. Those most 
     vulnerable to this pollution are disproportionately black, 
     Latino, children and lower income.
       Port Arthur, for instance, is home to eight major oil and 
     chemical industrial sites, including oil refineries.
       And cancer deaths in Jefferson County, where Port Arthur is 
     located, are 40 percent higher among African Americans than 
     they are for the average Texan, according to the Texas Cancer 
     Registry.
       Children in the predominantly Latino Manchester 
     neighborhood of Houston--home to a Valero Refinery--have a 56 
     percent greater chance of getting leukemia than children who 
     live elsewhere, according to researchers from the University 
     of Texas School of Public Health.
       By conservative estimates, oil refineries emit more than 
     20,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants each year, including 
     cancer-causing benzene, lead and hydrogen cyanide.
       This public health and environmental problem must be 
     addressed. Everyone should have an equal right to breathe 
     clean, safe air, including the people who live nearest the 
     country's oil refineries. Now, there's a possibility of 
     meaningful change nationwide. For the first time in nearly 
     two decades, the EPA has proposed updated standards to reduce 
     oil refineries' toxic air emissions. The current federal 
     standards do not require the most recent and up-to-date 
     technology that would limit hazardous air pollution and fail 
     to protect public health. For example, the existing rules do 
     not require refineries to monitor the hazardous pollutants 
     they emit at the edge of the property where refineries are 
     situated--called the fenceline--which would provide a more 
     accurate measure of the pollutants that are really going into 
     these communities.
       In recent years, some refineries have adopted new 
     technologies that reduce toxic air emissions and prevent 
     pollution spikes and accidents. These pollution control 
     methods are available and affordable, but they have not been 
     adopted throughout the industry.
       Under the EPA's proposed standards, oil refineries would be 
     required to measure benzene, a carcinogen, at the fenceline 
     as it drifts into the local community and then make that data 
     publicly available. This is a significant proposal on a 
     problem that communities living near refineries have been 
     raising for years.
       The proposed standards would require tighter controls on 
     emissions from storage tanks and other parts of refineries 
     that are major contributors to toxic air pollution.
       The oil industry has objected to the new rules, claiming 
     that they are unnecessary and burdensome. In reality, the 
     EPA's analysis shows that the new rules will reduce toxic air 
     pollution by 5,600 tons each year and that the cancer risk 
     will be significantly reduced for 1 million people.
       The costs to the industry will be negligible, according to 
     the EPA, but even if the costs were significant, it would be 
     worth it to save lives. It is not fair for children living 
     near refineries to bear the hidden costs of oil production--
     in the form of cancer, asthma, birth defects and other 
     serious illnesses--when the industry could fix a lot of 
     problems and reduce the toxic pollution it creates.
       The EPA's proposed rules on air pollution from oil 
     refineries are a welcome step forward. The agency should, in 
     fact, make the rule even stronger by doing more to protect 
     people from the real-world health consequences of living next 
     door to an oil refinery, by incorporating a fenceline 
     monitoring requirement that would employ the best current 
     technology to give neighborhoods a real-time, continuous 
     measure of pollution,

[[Page 15906]]

     not just a snapshot, and ensure refineries quickly fix 
     pollution problems.
                                  ____


                    [From USA Today, Oct. 20, 2007]

         Texas Toxic Town Lures Industry While Residents Wheeze

                            (By Monica Rhor)

       Port Arthur, TX.--There is a quiet battle for the future of 
     this industrial town, one of America's most polluted places.
       On one side is ex-mayor Oscar Ortiz, who in the waning days 
     of his administration worried about one thing. But it wasn't 
     the toxic chemicals that spew from petrochemical plants, the 
     town's richest landowners, through the windows of its poorest 
     residents.
       What rattled the white-maned, barrel-chested Ortiz, who ran 
     Port Arthur for nine years, was that someday the 
     petrochemical plants would go away.
       ``The only money here in the city of Port Arthur that 
     amounts to anything comes from industry, from petrochemical 
     companies,'' said Oritz, leaning back in his chair in an 
     office decorated with framed photographs of refineries. ``If 
     industry goes away, people might as well go away too because 
     there'll be no money. That's the continued salvation of this 
     city.''
       Hilton Kelley, like Ortiz born and raised in Port Arthur, 
     is the opposition.
       Kelley does worry about the toxic chemicals, the foul-
     smelling air and the west side residents who suffer from 
     asthma, respiratory ailments, skin irritations and cancer. As 
     the city's most visible environmental activist, Kelley has 
     long campaigned for more restrictions on industrial 
     construction and stricter monitoring of plant emissions.
       ``I grew up smelling the SO2 (sulfur dioxide) smell, the 
     chemicals. I remember seeing little kids with sores on their 
     legs, with mucus running in August. It's ridiculous what 
     we've had to deal with,'' says Kelley, a former actor with 
     the sonorous voice of a radio announcer. ``We're not trying 
     to shut doors of industry. We're just trying to push these 
     guys to do what's right.''
       Ortiz calls Kelley an alarmist who likes to ``stir things 
     up'' in the minority community Kelley accuses Ortiz of 
     sacrificing the community's welfare in exchange for slim tax 
     revenue from the plants.
       One man represents Port Arthur the way it has always been; 
     the other symbolizes a growing call for change.
       But change, especially in a place like Port Arthur, never 
     comes easily.
       ``This city is not going to change. It is a refinery town--
     tomorrow, next year, 100 years from now. It will always be a 
     petro-chemical area,'' says Ortiz.
       And if its residents are getting sick from the pollution?
       Well, says Ortiz: ``We've all got to die of something.''
       Port Arthur, located next to the Louisiana line, sits in a 
     corridor routinely ranked as one of the country's most 
     polluted regions. Texas and Louisiana are home to five oil 
     refineries considered among the nation's 10 worst offenders 
     in releasing toxic air pollutants, emitting 8.5 million 
     pounds of toxins together in 2002.
       Yet even here, Port Arthur stands out.
       Its skyline is framed by the smokestacks and knotted steel 
     pipes of the refineries and chemical plants clustered along 
     the edges of the town. Flares from the plants glow red 
     against the night sky, as incinerated chemicals filter into 
     the air.
       The smell of rotten eggs and sulphur hangs stubbornly over 
     the apartments and shotgun houses on the west side. Port 
     Arthur, population 57,000, is on the EPA's list of cities 
     with dangerous ozone levels, and the state has flagged its 
     excessive levels of benzene.
       Many cities along the Texas Gulf Coast are dotted with 
     refineries. But the companies' high tax bills are used to 
     improve schools, create green space and bulk up city coffers. 
     Port Arthur waives most property taxes to lure industry.
       Eric Shaeffer, a former EPA official who runs the 
     Environmental Integrity Project in Washington, D.C., a 
     nonprofit advocacy group, has written two studies on 
     pollution in Port Arthur. ``It's one of the worst I've 
     seen,'' he said.
       The Veolia Environmental Services plant in Port Arthur 
     recently alerted incinerating nearly 2 million gallons of VX 
     hydrolysate, the wastewater byproduct of a deadly nerve gas 
     agent.
       Besides the pollution the state and EPA allow as part of 
     the cost of doing business, the plants spew more toxins 
     during ``upset events''--unpermitted releases caused by 
     lightning strikes, human error, start-ups and shutdowns.
       Plant officials cite statistics showing steady progress in 
     reducing some emissions, but Shaeffer cites a continuing 
     hazard.
       Around 2 a.m. Thursday, a pipeline explosion sent ethylene-
     fueled flames shooting 100 feet into the air. The Union 
     Carbide-Dow Chemical pipeline lies about a quarter-mile from 
     the nearest home, Kelley said. No injuries were reported, but 
     officials warned people to stay indoors.
       ``When you get releases, it really hits people tight in the 
     chest,'' said Shaeffer. ``It's one thing to be driving past 
     the plants on the highway. It's another thing for kids to be 
     out on the swing sets when there's a release.''
       Jordan, 5, and Justin, 7, play on the swings at Carver 
     Terrace, the public housing project they live in next door to 
     refineries run by Motiva and Valero that produce half a 
     million barrels of oil a day and belch thousands of pounds of 
     pollutants into the air.
       Jordan's lungs are so weakened from a lifelong battle with 
     asthma and bronchitis that he can't shout or call for help 
     like other children, says their mother, LaShauna Green.
       He must inhale medicine every four hours through a plastic 
     mask that swamps his chubby face. Every two hours, he must 
     take one of seven prescription drugs that keep his air 
     passages from tightening.
       Justin struggles to breathe after climbing just one flight 
     of stairs.
       Those troubles vanished when the Green family left the area 
     for a year following 2005's Hurricane Rita. But two days 
     after their return to Carver Terrace, Justin was rushed to a 
     hospital twice in one day with respiratory attacks.
       ``When you start getting this kind of toxic chemical soup, 
     we don't really know what the combination of all these things 
     are doing,'' said Debra Morris, an assistant professor at the 
     University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston who studied 
     Port Arthur-area pollution.
       Texas oil was first discovered near Port Arthur. For 
     decades, the region nurtured industrial build-up with 
     generous tax abatements. In return, the companies would 
     promise to pay later and to create local jobs.
       Oritz defends the incentives as the only way to keep his 
     city alive.
       ``The one main substance that keeps the city floating is 
     the refineries,'' he said.
       Refineries and chemical plants contribute about 67% of the 
     city's budget through some taxes, Ortiz said, Still, without 
     the abatements the city would have collected tens of millions 
     of dollars more.
       The city of Port Arthur has at least 28 tax-abatement deals 
     with refineries and chemical plants. Surrounding Jefferson 
     County has at least six, including with Motiva, Total, and 
     Valero, which will pay no property taxes for the first two 
     years of a nine-year contract and then pay 10% of the taxes 
     it would owe for the next seven.
       Motiva will pay no taxes on a $3.5 billion expansion 
     project for the next three years. Total taxes rise to $4.16 
     million by 2012.
       Jeff Branick, assistant to Jefferson County executive Ron 
     Walker, says the Motiva expansion is expected to create 
     thousands of temporary construction jobs and 300 permanent 
     jobs; Valero's project is expected to create 40 to 65 jobs, 
     he said.
       ``It's going to be pumping a whole lot of money into the 
     local economy,'' Branick said. ``It creates hotel-motel tax 
     revenue and will be attracting people from the outside who 
     will be coming here to work and renting houses.''
       Ortiz also points to a new development on Pleasure Island, 
     a resort with golf courses, new hotels and bustling shopping 
     centers springing up on the city's south side. All, says 
     Ortiz, spurred by the growth of the industrial complexes.
       However, that prosperity bypassed Port Arthur's 
     predominantly black west side and central city neighborhoods 
     where singer Janis Joplin and sports legend Babe Zaharias 
     were raised.
       ``This town is like a forgotten grandmother. It helped 
     nourish the growth of the area, now all the wealth is moving 
     (out),'' said Kelley. ``It's not fair to leave this entire 
     community unnourished.''
       Despite the development Port Arthur is not as prosperous as 
     other refinery towns. Its median household income is two-
     thirds the Texas average; its homes are valued at less than 
     half the state average. Port Arthur public high school 
     students pass the test required for graduation at about half 
     the state rate.
       By comparison, the Houston suburb of Deer Park--home to its 
     own refinery row--collects more taxes from its petrochemical 
     complex. Before the state equalized school funding, its 
     school district was nearly the richest in the state. The 
     median home price is 25% higher than the state average and 
     its median household income is 30% above the state average.
       Both cities have roughly the same percentage of residents 
     in chemical or construction fields.
       Kelley is not the only one raising questions about how 
     things are done in Port Arthur.
       Some city officials have also started to question the 
     benefits of the tax abatement deals.
       In most, companies promise to ``give Port Arthur residents 
     a fair opportunity to apply for employment'' but don't 
     require jobs go to city residents. One company's pledge to 
     use local labor and contractors defined ``local'' as covering 
     a nine-county region.
       Councilman Michael Sinegal says he frequently hears from 
     residents who say they have been rejected for jobs at the 
     plants. Overall unemployment here is about 6%, while among 
     blacks it's 14%, he said; the state rate is 4%.
       ``The bottom line is that the people of Port Arthur are 
     getting the negative byproduct from the plants, but should be 
     getting an abundance of positive byproduct,'' Sinegal said.

[[Page 15907]]

       Valero said the refinery has hired 161 people since Jan. 1, 
     2005. About 20% live in Port Arthur.
       The city council recently ordered a study on contractors' 
     hiring practices so it can devise a monitoring plan.
       ``We've let the community down.'' Sinegal said.
       In late August a group of 28 state lawmakers joined Kelley 
     and others in urging Texas Gov. Rick Perry to block further 
     shipments of VX hydrolysate to Port Arthur. Perry declined to 
     intervene.
       The latest assessment by state environmental regulators of 
     Port Arthur showed that benzene had dropped to acceptable 
     levels for the first time since 2000. Valero officials said 
     they reduced emissions by more than 82% between 1996 and 
     2005, and had reduced ``upset'' emissions by 98%. Residents, 
     however, still suffer higher rates of progressive pulmonary 
     diseases than people elsewhere in the state.
       Last year, Motiva agreed to give $3.5 million to help fund 
     medical care, air monitors and a revitalization program for 
     Port Arthur's west side community. The agreement was part of 
     a settlement with Kelley's Community In-Power Development 
     Association, after it challenged the plant's expansion.
       And, 50 years after Carver Terrace was built, the Port 
     Arthur Housing Authority plans to demolish the units and move 
     residents to new homes throughout the city.
       Was Carver Terrace's proximity to the refinery the 
     authority's prime motivation? No, said authority chief Cele 
     Quesada. ``Of course, in the back of everyone's mind, there 
     is awareness that we are on the fenceline. We would rather 
     see a green area here than 180 families.''
       The likely buyer? Motiva Enterprises.
       Kelley, who was born in Apartment 1202-E in Carver Terrace, 
     commented: ``When you appeal to the conscience of man, how 
     these things are impacting our children. you can get them to 
     see our point. But a lot of the times, the bottom line still 
     wins.''

  Mrs. BOXER. To get to the gulf coast, tar sands will be transported 
by pipeline through communities in environmentally sensitive areas in 
six States. We know from experience how harmful this could be, again, 
because of how hard it is to clean up after a spill, and we know about 
the petcoke. I have shown you the petcoke, which is black dust 
containing some heavy metals.
  Open piles of this waste began to appear at unprecedented levels in 
midwestern communities and it sparked health and environmental concerns 
in many neighborhoods in Detroit and Chicago.
  Let's take this back and show the Chicago picture again.
  In this Chicago neighborhood, billowing black clouds of petcoke 
forced Little League players off the baseball field. The children were 
forced to seek cover from the clouds of black dust that pelted homes 
and cars. According to one newspaper, ``Kids that were playing ball 
were sent scurrying away because the stuff was getting into their eyes, 
on to their faces and into their mouths and everything. They just had 
to get the heck out of there.''
  I would like to enter into the Record at this time an article that 
says, ``In Chicago, piles of petroleum coke suggest the future of 
Canadian tar sands oil,'' dated November 17, 2014.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record as 
well.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Marketplace, Nov. 18, 2013]

In Chicago, Piles of Petroleum Coke Suggest the Future of Canadian Tar 
                               Sands Oil

                           (By Dan Weissmann)

       This summer, residents of Chicago's far southeast side 
     noticed mountains of black dust growing in one corner of the 
     neighborhood. It's petroleum coke--pet coke for short. That's 
     what gasoline refineries produce as a byproduct of refining 
     gasoline. It's full of carbon, sulphur and heavy metals.
       On August 30, a big wind brought the coke piles to the 
     whole neighborhood's attention. At a baseball field a block 
     or two away, a little league game ended in a hurry.
       ``Kids that were playing ball were sent scurrying away 
     because the stuff was getting into their eyes and their face 
     and their mouths and everything,'' says Tom Shepherd, a 
     volunteer with the Southeast Environmental Task Force. ``They 
     had to just get the heck out of here.''
       He calls the 30th ``a day that will live in infamy.'' He 
     says, ``People were calling 911 and saying, `There's a fire! 
     We don't know where the fire is, but the neighborhood's full 
     of smoke.'''
       But it wasn't smoke. It was dust from the piles that had 
     been growing throughout the summer.
       They're a sneak preview of what's ahead. At least some of 
     the dust came from a local BP refinery. It's across the state 
     line in Indiana, but it can be seen from the neighborhood. 
     And that refinery is about to triple the amount of pet-coke 
     it turns out. BP is finishing a huge upgrade this fall, to 
     process oil from Canada's tar sands.
       That oil is ``heavier'' with elements that get refined out 
     and turned into pet-coke. Post-upgrade, the Indiana refinery 
     will turn out 6,000 tons a day. Eventually, it gets sold as 
     fuel, much of it to countries like Mexico and China. But 
     meanwhile, it piles up.
       ``It's the most visual part of the success of North 
     American energy independence,'' says Phil Verleger, an 
     economist who studies energy markets.
       That success has both an upside and a downside: Nearby 
     sources of oil should mean lower fuel prices in the Midwest, 
     which has high gas prices. And more piles of pet coke.
       ``So the question is,'' Verleger says, ``How do we deal 
     with this pile of black stuff that's bringing us this supply 
     of fuel?''
       So far, nobody's got an answer.
       In early November, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan 
     filed a complaint in state court. Her office said the dust 
     from the piles violated environmental regulations. Madigan 
     says she doesn't know exactly what it would take to make pet-
     coke a good neighbor. ``Well, you know, if it's not safe 
     where it is, it may have to go somewhere else,'' she says.
       That would be a popular answer on the Southeast Side. Last 
     week, neighbors packed a local church when Illinois EPA 
     officials came to gather input. Again and again, the meeting 
     got stopped by a chant: ``Move the piles! Move the piles!''
       So far, neighbors have blamed BP and Koch Industries, which 
     owns the yard with Chicago's pet-coke piles. BP and Koch say 
     there's been a misunderstanding so far. BP says that it 
     wasn't actually sending more pet coke than usual to the 
     Chicago yard this summer.
       Koch has its own explanation for the taller piles: It was 
     moving petroleum coke around in the yards to make room for 
     new safety equipment. It installed big water cannons, which 
     are supposed to keep the piles wet so the dust doesn't blow 
     around. Making room meant more activity, and some piles got 
     taller for a while.

  Mrs. BOXER. Now when this petcoke started to blow all across the 
communities, residents felt they could not safely open the windows 
during the summer for fear the black clouds would trigger their 
children's asthma, and with good reason. We know this type of toxic air 
pollution can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause 
or aggravate bronchitis, or contribute to other diseases.
  Asthma. The Federal Government has said that asthma has become a 
national epidemic. This is a picture of a little girl who is having a 
hard time breathing.
  I say to my friend from Kansas, I have another 15 minutes, just for 
his information.
  This is a photo of a little girl who is having difficulty breathing 
because she has asthma. The Federal Government has said asthma has 
become ``a national epidemic''--which is that 1 out of every 12 people, 
or 26 million Americans, and 7 million of these are children. We don't 
need more asthma. American communities don't need more petcoke. My 
Republican friends are not going to talk to you about asthma. They are 
not going to quote the oil companies saying what a great job they are 
doing preventing it. Ultimately, the Keystone tar sands pipeline 
decision should be based on whether the project is in the national 
interest.
  Today I ask rhetorically of my colleagues: How are more Americans 
with asthma in the national interest? How are more Americans with 
cancer in the national interest? How is it in the national interest 
when kids playing baseball have to duck and cover from dangerous 
pollution?
  The health of our children and our families is at stake, and we have 
a right to know how tar sands oil will affect our health. 
Unfortunately, we don't have all the information we need to have.
  Senator Whitehouse and I wrote to Secretary John Kerry and asked for 
a comprehensive health impact study on the tar sands oil and how the 
Keystone Pipeline will impact the health of communities across the 
Nation. We don't have the studies. Again, Senator Whitehouse and I are 
not physicians. That is why we stood with the nurses and the doctors.
  A Gallup poll has found 12 years in a row that nursing is the most 
trusted profession. So National Nurses United,

[[Page 15908]]

which is the Nation's largest professional association of registered 
nurses--185,000 strong--has joined our call for a comprehensive health 
study.
  I ask unanimous consent to have their letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       National Nurses United,

                                                   March 13, 2014.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Kerry, On behalf of the 185,000 registered 
     nurses of National Nurses United, we are writing to endorse 
     the request by Senators Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse 
     for an immediate, comprehensive State Department study on the 
     human health impacts of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline 
     project.
       As the State Department must make a national interest 
     determination on whether to approve the pipeline, NNU 
     believes that a project that places the health and safety of 
     Americans at substantial risk cannot possibly be in our 
     national interest
       Therefore, we call on the State Department to issue an 
     affirmative finding, prior to any final decision on the 
     project, that the Keystone XL pipeline will have no adverse 
     health Impact on the U.S.
       National Nurses United is the largest US. organization with 
     185,000 members in all 50 states, including those along the 
     proposed path of the pipeline. NNU nurses now care daily for 
     patients with health problems, including asthma, other 
     respiratory disorders, cancer, skin diseases, and other 
     ailments associated with environmental pollution.
       Our organization has expressed our opposition to the 
     pipeline, in particular to the health hazards already 
     identified with tar sands oil, including tar sands extraction 
     in Alberta, Canada, tar sands pipeline spills, and the 
     effects of tar sands refining.


                        Tar Sands Health Hazards

       In Alberta's Athabasca region, researchers have linked tar 
     sands pollutants to carcinogens, elevated rates of leukemia 
     and other cancers of the lymph and blood-forming systems. 
     Water bodies within the watershed adjacent to tar sands 
     production have been found to be contaminated with chemicals 
     linked to cancer, genetic damage, birth defects, and organ 
     damage, according to a National Academy of Sciences 2012 
     study.
       Tar sands pipeline spills are a significant concern. The 
     2010 Kalamazoo River spill in Michigan--the effects of which 
     are still being felt by that community--resulted in 
     inhalation of benzene and other chemicals and more than 150 
     cases of illness. Michigan's Department of Public Health 
     identified cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, neurological, 
     ocular, dermal and respiratory impacts. Similarly, following 
     a 2013 spill near Mayflower, AK. residents reported 
     persistent coughs, headaches, nausea, and respiratory 
     problems for months afterwards.
       Refining raw bitumen from the tar sands is also likely to 
     have a negative impact on health. Tar sands contains up to 11 
     times more sulfur than conventional crude oil with high 
     levels of sulfur compounds linked to serious ailments of the 
     nervous and respiratory systems. Residents of South East 
     Texas, particularly refinery towns like Port Arthur and 
     Houston, already live in known `cancer zones.' Refining raw 
     bitumen from the tar sands threatens to make a bad situation 
     worse.
       Further, the petroleum coke byproduct of tar sands refining 
     dumped in large ``petcoke'' piles contains high 
     concentrations of mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, vanadium, 
     and nickel. Black dust clouds from petcoke piles in Detroit 
     and Chicago have led to neighborhood evacuations amidst 
     concerns about acculumation in homes and areas where children 
     play. The EPA has said the particulate matter in the dust 
     contributes to such health effects as heart attacks, 
     decreased lung function, asthma and premature death.


                       Climate Change and Health

       NNU is also concerned about the long term contribution that 
     tar sands oil and the Keystone pipeline will make to the 
     global rise on greenhouse gas emissions and the climate 
     crisis.
       In its Fourth Assessment Review (2007) the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made a direct 
     connection between global warming and climate instability to 
     a wide range of negative health outcomes.
       Higher air temperatures can increase bacteria-related food 
     poisoning, such as salmonella, and animal-borne diseases such 
     as West Nile virus. Ground level ozone contaminants can 
     damage lung tissue, reduce lung function, and increase 
     respiratory ailments. Pediatricians have said they are 
     already witnessing a rise in vector-borne diseases including 
     diarrhea, cholera, gastroenteritis, typhoid, and hepatitis 
     due to environmental factors and the effects of climate 
     change.
       For several years NNU has been dispatching teams of RN 
     volunteers to provide disaster relief in response to weather 
     disasters, such as Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina, and most 
     recently Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, all of which many 
     experts believe are fueled by climate change. Our members 
     have provided care for thousands of patients who have 
     suffered serious injuries as well as the loss of family 
     members, their homes, and their livelihoods.


                       We need a change of course

       NNU concurs with Senators Boxer and Whitehouse that what is 
     known today about the health hazards associated with the 
     expansion of the tar sands could well be just a sampling of a 
     much larger set of significant risks to human health. NNU 
     believes that the health consequences of Keystone XL have 
     been substantially ignored in State Departments FEIS, and 
     needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
       Nurses and their families are also affected by 
     environmental pollution, and the increased harm associated 
     with Keystone XL, greater tar sands operations, and the 
     climate crisis. It is for our patients, our members, our 
     families, and our communities, that we speak out, and urge 
     you order an immediate health impact study and not authorize 
     a pipeline that will harm our planet and our health.
           Sincerely,
     Deborah Burger, RN,
     Karen Higgins, RN,
     Jean Ross, RN,
       Council of Presidents, National Nurses United.

  Mrs. BOXER. The nurses concur with Senators Boxer and Whitehouse that 
what is known today about the health hazards associated with the 
expansion of tar sands is just a sampling. They believe the 
consequences of Keystone XL have been substantially ignored in the 
State Department's final EIS, and it needs to be addressed.
  The American Public Health Association wrote a letter, and I ask 
unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record as well.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         American Public Health Association, National Association 
           of County & City Health Officials,
                                                   April 11, 2014.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Kerry: We write in support of the request of 
     Senators Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse that the U.S. 
     Department of State conduct a comprehensive study of the 
     health impacts of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, 
     including a review of the available peer-reviewed research on 
     the health impacts from the processing of tar sands.
       Our organizations support the concept of ``health in all 
     policies'' and the consideration of potential health impacts 
     in all decisionmaking. There is an increasing recognition 
     that the environments in which people live, work, learn and 
     play have a tremendous impact on their health. The 
     administration will certainly benefit by having a clear 
     understanding of how the proposed Keystone XL pipeline could 
     impact the public's health, including the health of our most 
     vulnerable citizens.
       The full spectrum of health considerations are often 
     overlooked in important decisions and their omission can lead 
     to policies and practices that are unnecessarily harmful to 
     public health. We thank you for your consideration and 
     strongly urge you to respond positively to the senators' 
     request for a comprehensive study of the health impacts of 
     this proposed project.
           Sincerely,
     Georges Benjamin, MD,
       Executive Director.
     Robert M. Pestronk,
       Executive Director.

  Mrs. BOXER. They say the same thing.
  There is an increasing recognition that the environments in which 
people live, work, and learn have a tremendous impact on their health. 
The administration will certainly benefit by having a better 
understanding of how the proposed Keystone Pipeline could impact the 
public health.
  They go on to say: The full spectrum of health considerations are 
often overlooked, and their omission can lead to policies and practices 
that are unnecessarily harmful to the public health.
  Maybe Senators feel they know more than doctors and nurses. Maybe 
they do. Good luck. They don't. We should listen to doctors and nurses 
just like we should listen to scientists when they talk to us about 
climate change.
  This whole thing of saying ``I am not a scientist,'' yes, that is 
right, you are not, Republicans. Listen to the scientists. This answer 
is perplexing to me. If you are not a scientist, then be humble and 
listen to the peer-reviewed scientists. If you are not a doctor or a 
nurse, be humble. They don't have a

[[Page 15909]]

special interest; they have an interest in giving us information on 
which we should base our decisions.
  Now I am going to talk about the environment. This pipeline is going 
to go through the Ogallala Aquifer--one of the world's largest 
underground sources of freshwater. It provides water to farms in eight 
States, accounting for a quarter of the Nation's cropland as well as 
municipal drinking wells. Remember what I said before: When this oil 
gets into water, it is the most difficult oil to clean up because it is 
so heavy. Well, there are 2,537 wells within 1 mile of the proposed 
pipeline, including 39 public water supply wells, and 20 private wells 
within 100 feet of the pipeline right-of-way. If the pipeline were to 
leak near the aquifer, the tar sands oil would quickly seep into the 
sandy soil and contaminate the water supply for millions of people. I 
have already shown you a spill in Arkansas. These spills happen. If a 
spill occurred near any of these aquifers, it would be tragic.
  Local residents know the harm the pipeline could cause. I will show 
you pictures of locals objecting to the pipeline.
  In April, a group of ranchers, farmers, and tribal leaders gathered 
in Washington, DC, for a rally. They wanted to send a strong signal to 
Congress that they want their way of life protected--their farms, their 
tribal lands, and their ranches.
  You are going to hear from proponents of the tar sands who will say 
the Keystone Pipeline will be a safe alternative to rail shipment of 
oil, but experience tells us otherwise.
  In 2010 that pipeline ruptured, spilled over 1 million gallons in 
Michigan. The local health department ordered the evacuation of 50 
households, and approximately 100 families were advised not to drink 
water. One resident living near the Kalamazoo River had to abandon her 
home because the stench from the spill made her dizzy, nauseous, and 
sick--classic signs of acute exposure to tar sands. Another resident 
who was pregnant said she could not breathe. She said:

       My eyes were burning, and my nose was burning. It smelled 
     like a diesel tanker had turned over in the front of my 
     house.

  You will not hear this from the proponents.
  The Michigan spill was the largest inland spill in history, and more 
than 4 years and $1 billion later, it is not cleaned up. This summer 
parts of the Kalamazoo River were closed as dredging efforts continued 
to remove oil from the bottom of the river.
  Earlier I spoke about Arkansas. Residents were exposed to benzene--a 
known carcinogen--and hydrogen sulfide. People suffered from dizziness, 
nausea, headaches, respiratory problems--all classic symptoms of 
exposure to the chemicals found in the tar sands.
  There is a section of tar sands that has already been built in the 
gulf region, and it is already experiencing problems that could result 
in a pipeline spill, but you will not hear that from the proponents. 
According to Bloomberg Businessweek, the Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, found a systemic problem with 
substandard wells on a portion of the pipeline. In fact, during 1 week 
when the pipeline was being monitored, regulators found that over 70 
percent of the wells were flawed and required repairs.
  Senators should pay attention to the facts. People are sick around 
the tar sands. When it spills, it threatens their way of life and 
physically harms them. All you have to look to is the evidence to see 
that ``XL'' stands for ``extra lethal'' and misery follows the tar 
sands.
  Now I am going to talk about the climate. I wish to explain that once 
we begin transporting the dirty tar sands oil through that pipeline, it 
will unleash more carbon pollution and harm our Nation's effort to 
address dangerous climate change. The State Department says a barrel of 
tar sands oil will create at least 17 percent more carbon pollution 
than domestic oil. The State Department says that compared to average 
crude oil, burning the amount of tar sands oil from the Keystone 
``extra lethal'' Pipeline could add an additional 27.4 million metric 
tons of carbon pollution each year. That is a fact. You don't hear the 
proponents talk about that.
  (Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair).
  The Senator from Hawaii has now taken over the Chair. He already 
knows what climate change is doing to Hawaii. I was in the State, and I 
took a tour. I was at a conference that he organized, and we know we 
can't afford this.
  If we allow this to happen, we would see the carbon pollution that 
would come from adding 5.8 million new cars to the road. It would wipe 
out the carbon pollution reductions we gained from the first round of 
fuel economy improvements for heavy-duty trucks--wiped out.
  I believe this is a fact: If we do this, the damage to the 
environment will be the equivalent of eight new coal-fired plants, and 
those are dirty. That is the equivalent of what we would be getting 
here in terms of the carbon pollution every year.
  In August 2014 a study in the peer-reviewed journal ``Nature Climate 
Change'' estimated that the increase in oil consumption caused by 
Keystone XL could result in up to 110 million metric tons of carbon 
pollution each year. That is four times the State Department's high-end 
estimate.
  I already talked about the eight coal-fired plants. This peer-
reviewed study says it is 29. We have two estimates. One says it is the 
equivalent of building 8 new, dirty coal-fired powerplants, and another 
peer-reviewed study said it would be equal to building 29 new coal-
fired powerplants here in the United States--29. Think about it in your 
mind's eye.
  All you need to do is look at China to see what happens when you 
throw the environment under the bus. Is this the kind of world we want 
to see for our kids? Is this the future? This isn't hyperbole; this is 
a picture of the pollution in China.
  I was in China on a fantastic trade trip for 10 days, and I never saw 
the Sun except for one day when it sort of peaked out. The guide said: 
Isn't it a beautiful day? No, it was not at all a beautiful day. There 
was a semblance of a little Sun behind the cloud.
  Why do you think people love the Environmental Protection Agency in 
our country--70 percent strong? It is because they know this could be 
America. If you throw the environment under the bus, this is what it 
will look like here.
  Some of my colleagues say they don't want to the act on climate 
change--especially my Republican colleagues. I don't know of one who is 
ready. They say: Well, China is building coal-fired plants. Well, the 
President just came back, and the President did have an agreement with 
China to move forward because the Chinese people can't live like this 
anymore. The social unrest that is the big fear of Beijing that starts 
to bubble up has a lot to do with this. We have a breakthrough 
agreement. Is this the time, in the face of this progress, to approve 
this pipeline? I say it is ridiculous timing. It is ridiculous.
  I remember a time when saving the environment was bipartisan. I 
remember leaders such as John Chafee and John Warner. Now I don't see 
one Republican ready to step forward and say: It is time to put a price 
on this pollution and stop this pollution. My State has done it. My 
State is doing just great. We have new jobs, and I will put some 
information into the Record on that.
  Canada's Natural Resources Minister said:

       In order for crude oil production to grow, the North 
     American pipeline network must be expanded. So we know this 
     is just the start.

  Now climate. Everyone can say what they will: I am not a scientist; I 
don't know. Over the past few months we have seen everything from the 
hottest August, the hottest September on record, and the hottest 
October on record. We have seen historic droughts and extreme 
wildfires. I have seen them in my State. We have seen vanishing 
wildlife habitat in Alaska, toxic algae out of control and 
contaminating drinking water supplies in Toledo, OH, because the water 
is getting hot and the algae that couldn't survive in the

[[Page 15910]]

colder waters survives in the warmer waters. We see these wake-up calls 
every day. But instead of confronting that crisis, we have the party of 
no saying: No, I am not a scientist and, no, I will not listen to them, 
and we do nothing. This project does the opposite. It makes matters 
worse.
  There is a lot of talk about how we need this oil to become energy 
independent. Let me tell my colleagues, we are going to see gas prices 
go up if this goes forward, and I will explain why. This is from 
economists, not from me. This is not a win for America. Big Oil will be 
the winner. We have to know that U.S. gasoline demand is on the 
decline, and economists say it will continue to be through 2040. Since 
2011, the United States has exported more gasoline, diesel, and other 
fuels than it imported. So Big Oil will be the big winner now if this 
project moves forward, not American workers or families filling up at 
the gas pump.
  The reality is Keystone ``extra lethal'' will increase the price 
Americans pay for gas at the pump. It is cheaper to buy gas in the 
Midwest today than it would be if the pipeline were built. That is 
because moving tar sand oil to the gulf coast gives it access to 
international markets, which will increase the price Canadians can 
charge for it. So right now that oil stays in America. Now it is going 
to be pumped out, they can get higher prices, and our prices are going 
to go up. The exports will reduce the supply of gasoline right here in 
America and drive up the price.
  As Bloomberg reported earlier this year, three separate studies have 
shown Keystone XL Pipeline could raise domestic prices by 20 to 40 
cents because it would divert Canadian oil away from refineries in the 
Midwest where it is easier to export. Gulf coast refiners plan to 
process the cheap Canadian tar sands crude that would be supplied by 
the pipeline into diesel and other products for export.
  During a congressional hearing at the end of 2011, my Senate 
colleague, then-Congressman Ed Markey, who is now a member of our 
environment committee--Senator Markey--asked TransCanada's pipeline 
head if the company would commit to keeping the Canadian oil and refine 
products in the United States ``so that this country realizes all of 
the energy security benefits your company had promised.'' Mr. Pourbaix 
said, No, I can't do that.
  So the head of TransCanada is not promising to keep the oil here or 
the products here. We know that. So all of this talk of energy 
independence--let me tell my colleagues how we get energy independence. 
We produce what we can here, and we have been doing that where it is 
appropriate, and we also utilize the Sun and the wind and the 
geothermal and the clean energies of the future that, believe me, when 
we embrace that clean energy agenda, we have far more jobs. We don't 
have pollution. We have safer communities.
  One refinery in Port Arthur owned by Valero is expected to be a major 
customer for crude oil. Let's show that picture of Port Arthur. Because 
that refinery is in a foreign trade zone, Valero can operate tax free. 
In the fist 9 months of this year, Valero has reported a net income of 
$2.475 billion. Today we will also hear from tar sands advocates that 
the tar sands oil will just be shipped by rail even if the tar sands 
pipeline is not built. It is very expensive to ship it by rail, and the 
truth is it is not a clear-cut case. In fact, both the rail companies 
and tar sands producers that pioneered transporting Canadian tar sands 
oil by rail are on the verge of insolvency because of the high 
transportation costs. So don't buy into the argument that if we don't 
build the pipeline, we will just ship it by rail. Then they say it is 
safer, and we know it is not safer.
  We just heard the operator of the pipeline say it is 35 permanent 
jobs. I don't belittle the 1,900 construction jobs for 2 years we would 
have. I don't belittle that. But I can truly tell my colleagues that 
coming from my State--and later I will talk about the successes--we can 
dwarf that by the hundreds of thousands if we truly embrace a clean 
energy economy.
  The materials needed for the pipeline--that is not a domestic boon. A 
2011 analysis found 50 percent or more of the steel pipe would be 
manufactured outside of the United States. We need clean energy 
policies. As we know, it is appropriate to drill for oil in our country 
where it is safe, where it is appropriate, and if we can get to clean 
coal, it is appropriate, and it is appropriate if we can get to safe 
nuclear. The fact is this pipeline is going to bring filthy, dirty oil. 
It is going to bring misery all across the country.
  Let's look at the wind industry which supports over 560 manufacturing 
facilities and supported over 50,000 full-time jobs in 2013 alone. So 
50,000 full-time jobs compared to 35 full-time jobs for the pipeline? 
Come on. The solar industry in 2013 employed 142,000 Americans, an 
increase of 24,000 additional jobs just last year. This is the future, 
not the misery that follows the tar sands, not communities that have to 
suffer with the filthiest of oils, dirtiest of oils, and not having 
this petcoke stored all over the Midwest where it blows on kids so kids 
get asthma.
  Here is the spill in Arkansas. They still can't clean it up. It 
happened in 2013. This photograph isn't what we want the future to look 
like--not this, having to wear masks. We want the air to be clean and 
the water to be clean. This is China. This is what happens when we 
ignore our people who are telling us they are having increased asthma 
attacks, increased respiratory disease. We are not going to hear a word 
about it from my colleagues. They are going to make a jobs argument 
that falls flat on its face.
  Look. We know climate change is real. Whether someone says they are 
not a scientist--we all know you are not a scientist. I am not a 
scientist. Climate change is real. Unleashing this filthy, dirty oil 
unleashes far more carbon and makes the problem worse. We are not going 
to hear any of that. We are going to hear claims that just aren't true. 
We are going to hear about all of these jobs--35 permanent jobs 
compared to tens of thousands in clean energy. We are going to hear 
about how this is the greatest project. We are going to hear, Oh, it is 
better to transport it by pipeline than by rail, when in fact that is 
not a fact in evidence that they would do that because it is so 
expensive. They are not going to talk to us about the spills, as shown 
in this photograph.
  We have a very important process to go through before this pipeline 
is approved. This legislation derails that process, and that process 
was established by an executive order and was updated by President 
George W. Bush. Before a finding is made as to whether this should go 
forward, the President must consult with experts in many Federal 
agencies to determine whether this pipeline is in the national 
interest. This includes the Department of Defense, the Department of 
Homeland Security, and other agencies before a permit is granted. This 
bill before the Senate short circuits this review. It cuts off expert 
opinions of our military leaders and others when determining whether 
the pipeline is safe. Is it in the interests of the country? Is it 
going to be another target? We need to know, and we don't have the 
answers on the full public health implications.
  What is also interesting is the tar sands supporters gloss over the 
fact that this bill tramples States rights--the rights of citizens in 
South Dakota to have a say in their State's ongoing proceedings 
concerning construction of the pipeline. How about this fact. Here we 
see it. These voices have to be heard. I will tell my colleagues, 2 
million people submitted comments on the tar sands project, and passing 
this bill now does not allow those comments to be given due 
consideration by our country.
  I am very surprised at this, given my colleagues who speak of States 
rights, public comments, local viewpoints. They want to bypass all of 
this because they have decided they know better than 2 million people, 
many of whom have to live side by side with this pipeline and many of 
whom would have to breathe the kind of air they are breathing in Port 
Arthur, TX, right now. I will guarantee my colleagues this: Not one 
Senator in this Chamber will live next to a refinery that refines this 
filthy, dirty oil--not one. If I have not

[[Page 15911]]

spoken the truth, please correct the Record. Tell me. I will apologize. 
We don't live near refineries here. I will tell my colleagues who does: 
a lot of kids who get asthma, just ask the nurses.
  If I told people that if we embrace a clean energy agenda we could 
create far more jobs, be far more healthy, and save this planet, 
wouldn't people say yes? I think people would. But, no, not in this 
Chamber. They listen to Big Oil and the Koch brothers, and these are 
the people who will profit. They are not going to live next to the Port 
Arthur refinery. Their children aren't going to live there. Their 
grandchildren aren't going to live there.
  They brush aside that this is filthy, dirty oil--the dirtiest--with 
the most dangerous pollutants, including lead, including sulfur. When 
we meet with the citizens of Port Arthur, TX, as I have done, and the 
activists there who want to protect the kids, they say: Please, we have 
enough of this stuff; we don't want any more. Misery follows the tar 
sands, and that is why I call this pipeline the Keystone XL ``extra 
lethal'' Pipeline.
  The evidence is clear. The Keystone tar sands pipeline will be 
harmful to our family's health. It will hurt the environment. It will 
worsen the impact on climate change. It will raise the price of gas. 
These statements are not made by me. I respect economists, and this is 
clearly the economists' view. It is just plain dangerous because it 
will transport the dirtiest oil on the planet.
  Forcing the approval of the Keystone when so many concerns remain 
does not allow for the kind of review our affected communities deserve.
  I hope enough of my colleagues will vote no on this. I see the 
handwriting on the wall. I do. I know what happens in this Chamber. I 
know the votes will eventually be there. This is an issue which impacts 
the health and safety of our families and our planet, so if it means I 
will have to stand up here time and time again to tell the story of the 
Keystone ``extra lethal'' Pipeline, I will do it. I will do it for as 
long as it takes. If I didn't think it was important, I wouldn't do it.
  I just hope that if this body does pass this pipeline today, the 
President will veto this dangerous legislation. I feel so strongly that 
the way to a prosperous job-producing future is the embracing of clean 
energy. Yes, we will continue with our coal and make it as clean as we 
can. We will continue with our drilling here. Yes, we will have an 
``all of the above'' where it is safe to do. We don't need a project 
that is so harmful to our families and to our communities.
  I talked to the people in Canada who live near there. You won't hear 
that from my friends. It is all in the Record. I hope they read the 
articles I placed in the Record about the kinds of cancers we are 
seeing around this stuff.
  I don't want to see a trail of misery extending from one end of the 
country that I love to another, so I hope we will vote no on this--
enough of us will. But if we can't stop it today, then I hope the 
President will veto this and tell the story of why this trail of misery 
should not be put upon the American people.
  One of the biggest shocks I think I had when meeting those Canadians 
who have been putting up with this and then meeting the Americans who 
live around these refineries and hearing from them what happened and 
hearing from my friends from Chicago who remember that story--we will 
close with this--of these kids sitting around getting ready to play 
Little League Baseball when all of this petroleum coke that is stored 
all over the Midwest just blew, and it got into the mouths of these 
kids and it got on their clothes. They ran away. How can anyone believe 
this is what the future should look like when I can show you case after 
case on the Record, substantiated by the numbers, that clean energy 
produces far more jobs--far more jobs--and will lead us in the right 
direction in terms of our health.
  People don't want to become like China. They don't want to look like 
this. They don't want to have their air look like this.
  I come from a State where before the Clean Air Act--by the way, it 
was done by a Republican President; thank you, Richard Nixon--we had 
dirty, filthy air. You couldn't see a foot in front of you. We cleaned 
it up because we stood up to the polluters and said: You know what, we 
know we want to work with you, and we want to have your product. Do it 
in a clean manner. Do it in a safe manner.
  The EPA--again, created by Republicans--came in there and cleaned up 
the air, along with the local people in our State.
  We have rebounded in California from the recession, with clean energy 
jobs leading the way. We are so proud of it. And our people can still 
see the sky.
  I will tell you, I am not going to go in this direction, if I have to 
stand on my feet until they hurt. As you know, I have to wear heels 
because I am very little, but I don't care--I am not going to let us go 
in this direction. No way.
  I hope we defeat this today. If we don't, I hope the President will 
veto it, and I hope we can move to a positive, bipartisan clean-energy 
agenda that is really the future of this Nation and this planet.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I intend to speak under the time reserved by Senator 
Hoeven. Could the Presiding Officer tell me how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 112 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Splendid. I intend to speak for about 8 minutes.
  I admire the commitment, the perseverance, and the oratory skills of 
my colleague from the State of California. I know how strongly she 
feels about this issue.
  I rise today without a portfolio. I do not have the charts my 
distinguished colleague has. Senator Hoeven has six in the Cloakroom. 
There are 12 over there. I thought at one time I would introduce 
legislation to ban charts from the floor, but that didn't go very far.
  I rise today in support of the bipartisan, bicameral legislation 
offered by Representative Cassidy from the House and Senator Landrieu 
from here in the Senate to approve the construction of the Keystone 
Pipeline.
  (Mrs. BOXER assumed the Chair.)
  Simply put, my point would be that this project is long overdue. It 
has been said time and again, but it is worth repeating: 6 years of 
delays and five separate environmental impact statements, and finally 
we are voting on this legislation--already passed by the House last 
week--to grant approval of the project.
  Let me repeat myself. Five environmental impact statements have been 
rolled out since the year 2010, all five concluding that construction 
of the pipeline would neither exasperate carbon emissions nor increase 
development of the Canadian oil sands.
  Let's briefly take a look at the conclusion reached by each of the 
five environmental impact statements to see what President Obama's own 
State Department had to say about whether construction of the Keystone 
Pipeline is in the national interest.
  In April 2010, after a 1\1/2\-year review of TransCanada's 
application to construct the pipeline, the State Department published 
the findings of its draft environmental impact statement, which 
concluded that the pipeline's construction would have limited 
environmental impact and would help reduce U.S. reliance on crude oil 
imports from other less stable regions of the world. ``Less stable'' is 
an understatement as of today. Considering what is going on right now 
in the Middle East and Russia, it cannot be understated how important 
this project is from a global security perspective and also from a 
national security perspective.
  A year later, in April 2011, the State Department issued a 
supplemental environmental impact statement to consider alternatives to 
the Keystone Pipeline and to address some of the concerns raised by 
agencies, groups, and individuals who submitted comments on the 
project's construction. Keep in mind that the State Department did this 
despite the fact that it believed the original environmental

[[Page 15912]]

impact statement sufficiently addressed all concerns.
  Four months later, in August 2011, the State Department released its 
final environmental impact statement concluding yet again that this 
project should be built. The State Department concluded that 
construction would ``result in a project that would have a degree of 
safety greater than any typically constructed domestic oil pipeline 
system under current regulations.''
  Despite this conclusion--which under law triggered a 90-day window 
for the State Department to make yet another final national interest 
determination--the State Department decided to delay the final decision 
rather conveniently until after the 2012 elections.
  After three earlier reviews, in March of 2013 the State Department 
issued its draft supplemental environmental impact statement to 
consider potential impacts of the new route which would avoid the Sand 
Hills region in Nebraska. Once again, the State Department concluded 
that this project should be built.
  Finally, on January 31, 2014--about a year ago--the State Department 
issued its fifth and final environmental impact statement. 
Nevertheless, it concluded that the Keystone Pipeline poses no serious 
environmental dangers, would create thousands of jobs, and would 
decrease our reliance on crude from despotic regimes--more of them 
today--around the world and expand trade with our closest ally, Canada.
  We have two options. The first is to finalize construction of the 
Keystone Pipeline, which will immediately result in thousands of 
construction jobs all throughout the United States. The second option 
is we can reject construction of this pipeline and instead transport 
the crude to the United States by rail or allow Canada to simply export 
the crude to other countries, such as our good friend China. China is 
so concerned with the environmental standards that it may--it may, 
according to the bargain so highly publicized by the administration--
begin reducing carbon emissions by 2030 if the leaders of China 16 
years from now feel like it or make that decision.
  What is the big deal about China's carbon-reduction commitment, by 
the way? It is meaningless.
  There is simply no option available that would somehow prevent Canada 
from developing these oil sands. Despite what any Senator says or any 
charts that may be used, it is happening and it will continue to 
happen.
  Facts are stubborn things. We either move this oil by pipeline, which 
is the safest way to transport oil, or we allow it to be exported to 
other countries that will refine it under far less stringent 
environmental regulations. If CO2 is a world problem, that 
is something you ought to really think about.
  This project would support 42,000 U.S. jobs, hundreds of those in my 
home State of Kansas; it would provide over 800,000 barrels of oil per 
day from our closest trading partner, Canada; and it would have a $3 
billion impact on the U.S. economy.
  I have long supported this legislation. Now we need to hear from 
President Obama, yes or no. No waffling around any longer. If this bill 
passes today will the President sign it into law or will the President 
simply continue to straddle the pipeline until after the runoff 
election in Louisiana? It seems to me the President owes the American 
people an answer as to whether he supports this project.
  The question is--it is pretty obvious--if the President opposed this 
project from ever being built, then why are we waiting? Why wouldn't 
you just say from the get-go that you hold the views of a few above 
those of most Americans, which includes everybody from labor unions, to 
pro-energy trade associations, to manufacturing, et cetera?
  I would ask the President: Why didn't you just come out in 2008 and 
say, no, we are never going to build this as long as I am in the White 
House. Because I think that is exactly what is happening. It is time to 
quit straddling the pipeline. Let's get on with it or get off.
  I want to make myself clear. If we pass this bill and President Obama 
vetoes it, then that is his decision, that is his prerogative, but the 
responsibility will lie squarely upon his desk. Because when we come 
back in January under a Republican majority, our task will be to not 
only pass this legislation but, with a veto-proof majority, to override 
whatever obstacles the President tries to put in its way.
  Again, this project makes sense economically, environmentally, and 
from a national security perspective. I believe we should get this 
finally moving.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I rise today to oppose S. 2280, a bill 
to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline would carry 
830,000 barrels per day of tar sands oil bound for global markets from 
Canada to refineries along the gulf coast.
  This is one of the most important points about Keystone, which is 
that it does nothing for American energy security. It takes tar sands 
oil from Canada, moves it through the United States, and makes it 
available to global markets. It does nothing for American energy 
security. But more than that, it represents a massive endorsement of a 
fossil fuel economy when we ought to be focusing on transitioning to 
clean energy.
  There are many reasons to vote against this bill, but I will focus on 
four. First, the oil from tar sands is exceptionally dirty. I think for 
the American public out there, they have a basic instinct that oil is 
not the cleanest of energy resources. But tar sands oils are really in 
a special category. We do not need this oil enough to justify its 
impacts on health and climate change.
  Mining tar sands oil is nothing like setting up a rig and drilling a 
hole in the ground. Tar sands are dirty in terms of the land destroyed, 
dirty in terms of the water wasted and contaminated, and dirty in terms 
of the energy needed to mine, transport, and process the oil. Getting 
and using oil from tar sands puts far more carbon pollution in the 
atmosphere than conventional oil.
  When tar sands are near the surface, they are dug up along with all 
of the surrounding earth, including the forests that sit on top. Tar 
sands are a mixture of sand, clay, water, and a gooey form of petroleum 
that resembles tar. Think of it as a mixture of dirt and molasses, and 
imagine trying to separate the dirt from the molasses. If you think 
that sounds difficult, you are correct. After being mined, the thick 
sludgy mixture that remains is transported to facilities that separate 
the oil using multiple water and energy-intensive rinse cycles.
  The water used in this process becomes contaminated, of course, with 
toxins, and is no longer suitable for other uses. Oil companies use 
massive amounts of water to mine the tar sands. In 2011, tar sands 
mining in Canada used more water than the entire city of Toronto uses 
annually, representing a significant new strain on freshwater 
resources.
  This is simply not the direction to go in. We need to fight climate 
change and promote bold, clean energy solutions that do not present a 
constant danger of harming our health, our drinking water, and our 
economy. Why are we spending time today trying to approve something 
that quite literally takes us in the wrong direction?
  This brings me to the second reason this pipeline ought to be 
rejected. It will have a direct, negative impact on the people and the 
communities that live in its path. The 875-mile route of this proposed 
pipeline has over 50 river crossings, including the Yellowstone River 
in Montana, which is still recovering from a major crude oil leak by an 
ExxonMobil pipeline in 2011. That pipeline leak contaminated 85 miles 
of the river and its flood plain, placing an enormous burden on 
families and the businesses that depend on it.
  Pipelines transport oil, but they also leak regularly. The existing 
Keystone Pipeline system for Canadian tar sands leaked 14 times during 
its first year of operation, with one incident leaking 21,000 gallons. 
In its environmental review, the State Department estimated that the 
proposed Keystone Pipeline

[[Page 15913]]

would fail several times a year. In 2010, a 6-foot break in a pipeline 
carrying oil tar sands spilled nearly 1 million gallons of crude oil 
into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. This was one of the largest 
inland oil spills in United States history and also one of the 
costliest, with cleanup costs totaling over $1 billion. Households in 
the area were evacuated and told not to drink the water. Thirty-five 
miles of the river were contaminated, and the cleanup continued 4 years 
after the spill. One of the most troubling things about this spill and 
any future spills from Keystone XL is that the companies who own the 
oil take advantage of a loophole in the law that lets them avoid paying 
their fair share into the national Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. This 
trust fund has been in place for 30 years. The money in it helps to 
respond to and clean up after oilspills. Every barrel of oil produced 
or imported in the United States is charged 8 cents. The money goes 
into a trust fund. It is basically an insurance policy for events when 
companies are unable to pay for spill cleanup or in an emergency 
response situation. It makes sense.
  What does not make sense is that due to this loophole, the oil from 
the tar sands in Canada is exempt from that 8-cent fee. Why would we 
vote for a bill that circumvents executive review of an international 
pipeline carrying the dirtiest oil in the world, produced in Canada, 
and headed mostly for world markets, and a bill that does nothing to 
close a loophole exempting oil from tar sands from having to pay a fee 
for environmental cleanup? In other words, how can this bill ask so 
little of the oil companies while giving them so much?
  A third reason to reject this bill and this pipeline is the impact on 
climate change. The facts plainly show that we must reduce carbon 
pollution, not add to it. To take care of our energy future and build a 
clean energy economy, we have got to go forward, not backward.
  If we are serious about leaving our children a healthy world, we will 
vote no and reject this pipeline. We know a majority of the public 
supports bold action to solve climate change. In recent years, no 
single issue related to fossil fuels and climate change has commanded 
the level of civic engagement as the Keystone XL Pipeline. Countless 
rallies, public hearings in cities and towns across the proposed route, 
lawsuits and debates in Congress reveal how much passion there is about 
this issue.
  In fact, the pipeline was booed so loudly when advertised on the 
Jumbotron at a Nebraska football game that the university cut ties with 
TransCanada, the owner of the proposed pipeline.
  Finally, the bill is flawed in terms of its process not only because 
of what it seeks to do but also because how it seeks to do it.
  The bill would circumvent existing executive branch review. Because 
the Keystone XL Pipeline would cross international boundaries, the 
State Department is responsible for reviewing and deciding if a permit 
is in the national interest. The way it is currently written, this bill 
potentially limits State and local siting decisions, as well as some 
legal challenges.
  It attempts to approve a pipeline that does not even have a finalized 
route, but does have lawsuits pending against it in the Nebraska 
Supreme Court. Congress should be focusing on the things that will have 
a positive impact on the economy and jobs. We have got to pass 
immigration legislation, we need to pass a defense authorization. Our 
CR expires on December 11. We need to move through the regular order in 
terms of appropriations. We should not be moving forward with Keystone 
XL.
  In my view, this is about whether we are committed to the past or 
committed to the future. This is about whether we are going to double 
down on fossil fuels or we are going to take bold action in terms of 
moving forward with clean energy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Let me just state to all of my colleagues on all sides 
of this issue, I appreciate this very much. It is a great debate. It is 
a great way for us to learn of our differences and try to find the 
middle, if you will.
  I come from the little State of West Virginia where basically the 
people are pretty commonsense, if you will, oriented. They look at 
something from the standpoint--our greatest trading partner in our 
State of West Virginia is Canada. Thirty-five States in the United 
States look at Canada as our favored nation to trade with. We have been 
doing more trading than ever before. We will continue to do so.
  I am coming at this from security. How do we remain secure as a 
nation? How do we become less dependent? If you look at what is going 
on in the world, maybe it will give you a picture of what we are 
dealing with, the facts of life.
  We all want to use the technology and we all can, through research 
and development, improve our technology to use the resources that are 
going to be used that the world has produced for us in a cleaner 
fashion. With that being said, I do not look at Keystone as being an 
export pipeline. Even the State Department's environmental impact 
statement states that export is unlikely to be economically justified 
for any significant time. Cost-to-market conditions dictate that this 
oil will go to domestic refiners and will be used in our country, the 
United States of America.
  By getting more Canadian oil, we can displace oil that we currently 
get from less reliable and sometimes hostile countries. Let me read for 
you how much oil we import right now; How dependent are we on this 
foreign oil? We should look at basically--of the 7.7 million barrels 
per day of crude oil imports--mind you, we are getting 7.7 million 
barrels per day into our country. I understand the pipeline's capacity 
would be about 870,000 barrels. That is the capacity--if they used the 
entire capacity. So we are getting 7.7 million barrels per day. Let's 
see where it is coming from. When you look at that, 3.5 million barrels 
per day or 45 percent comes from OPEC countries. Of course, Saudi 
Arabia is our largest OPEC supplier at 1.3 million barrels per day, 17 
percent of the crude import total.
  But our biggest supplier of crude continues to be Canada. It is 
already our biggest supplier. We are afraid that this is somehow going 
to tip the balance? Let's look at some of the countries that we get 
this oil from on a daily basis, the 7.7. Of course, we talked about the 
OPEC countries. But Venezuela, Colombia, Nigeria, Angola. These are not 
the model citizens of how they treat their citizens in their country, 
the humane treatment that goes on.
  With that being said, those countries I just mentioned, the five 
countries, that is 1.57 million barrels a day we buy from those 
countries. So, yes, I am looking at it from the standpoint that this 
has pulled us into conflicts around the world where we should not be.
  We have all said we have been pulled into these countries, been 
pulled into war because of oil. I think we all agree on that. This 
gives us a chance to be more secure as a nation and more independent 
from foreign oil. That is what we are talking about. The global supply 
of energy relies on oil producers in deeply unstable regions. I think 
we all agree on that too. In West Virginia, it just makes common sense. 
Would you not rather buy from your friends than from your enemies? 
Would you not rather buy from people who basically help your economy 
and are not willing to do harm to your economy or harm to your people? 
This makes sense to us in West Virginia. We would not be standing here 
having this debate right now if it had not been for your good Senator 
and our good friend from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. It would not have 
come up. It would have been moot. It might have gone in the next 
Congress. Who knows? I just appreciate so much Senator Landrieu being 
able to bring this to the forefront today. I really do. Whether we win 
or lose it does not matter.
  Basically the American people will lose if we do not pass this piece 
of legislation. If for whatever reason it is not passed, we are going 
to be more vulnerable, more insecure, more dependent than ever before.

[[Page 15914]]

  It is one thing to live in a perfect world--Utopia. Some of my 
colleagues have talked about that. I appreciate that. But the bottom 
line is, it is not the real world. The real world we are living in--I 
have talked about coal too. There are 8 billion tons of coal being 
burned in the world. People say: Well, I do not want to use coal in 
America. That is fine. If you quit using every kind of coal in America, 
you are not going to change the environment that much. But on the other 
hand, there will be more coal burned than ever before. We do not want 
to build any more coal-fired plants in America. We are done. That is 
fine. Twelve hundred new coal-fired plants will be built around the 
world in the next 3 to 4 years. Would not it be better to find the 
technology--would not it be better to have control of that, be able to 
have a whole other industry around the technology that uses the coal 
cleaner not just in America but around the world?
  Would it not be better to have control of this oil coming to the gulf 
coast? If we have control of it, it will be used here. The fear tactic 
is that it is going to go somewhere else in the world. Markets will 
dictate where everything goes. But the bottom line is, we use most of 
Canada's oil now. They are the largest exporter to our country.
  So all we are saying is to take a good, hard look at this. Think 
before you vote today, my colleagues, of what we are doing and what we 
are doing for the security of our Nation, what we are doing for the 
best trading partner we have ever had. That oil is going to go 
somewhere. It is being shipped now in a highly unstable type of 
condition that is more vulnerable. It takes more oil to move that 
product today than ever before. Pipelines are by far the safest way to 
do it.
  I have said this: If we can move oil in the most demanding and 
probably the most hostile, if you will, environmental conditions that 
we have as far as nature produces in the Arctic, and we as the United 
States benefit by that oil that is being produced in the Arctic by us 
in America, for all of us in the lower 48, if they are able to, do you 
not think that it can be done here?
  I look at it from the standpoint that they are saying enough is 
enough.
  I thank Senator Landrieu for bringing the bill to the floor, for 
having a very informative debate that we can move forward on. I would 
hope that my colleagues would see fit that the United States of America 
will benefit, the security of our Nation will benefit, wars could be 
prevented and conflicts around the world. Maybe we could use our might, 
if you will, to help other parts of the world without having to fight, 
defend, and liberate from that standpoint.
  But I do not believe that we should be in parts of the world where we 
are today because of the oil that we have been chasing. I believe that 
by having our own ability to work with the best trading partner we 
have, which is Canada, that would definitely benefit the security of 
our Nation. I look forward to this vote this afternoon or later this 
evening, whenever it may come. I enjoy the debate that is going on and 
the information I am gaining. I look forward to a more spirited debate 
for the rest of the day.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am about to yield to Senator Cardin.
  A point I want to make is this is an interesting debate. The 
proponents have said for years: Build the pipeline because we need the 
oil here. Then confronted with the fact that the oil will not stay 
here--it is going to go elsewhere--they say: Oh, what is the 
difference. It is going elsewhere, but what is the difference. The 
difference was your argument was to make us self-sufficient. You can't 
have it both ways. The fact is this oil is going to be exported.
  With that I yield 12 minutes to my colleague, a great leader on the 
environment, Mr. Cardin.
  Mr. CARDIN. First, I thank Senator Boxer for her extraordinary effort 
on this issue.
  Let me get this straight. This debate is about giving competitive 
advantage for the shipping of the dirtiest oil located in Canada 
through the United States for export. It is through the United States--
not through Canada. The environmental risks are in America, and it 
circumvents our regulatory review process and attempts to deny property 
owners the right to challenge the route in court.
  The Keystone Pipeline is a shortcut to an existing pipeline network 
to export some of the world's dirtiest crude oil from Canada to other 
countries. The current pipeline network could handle this, but the 
operators want a competitive advantage for the dirtiest oil by 
shortcutting the pipeline that currently exists.
  There is very little benefit to the United States. Certainly, as has 
been pointed out, the oil is not destined for the United States.
  There are few permanent jobs. It poses significant environmental 
risks. It eliminates appropriate executive review, tries to interfere 
with judicial review, and should be rejected by this body.
  First, let me talk about tar sands--exporting tar sand crude from 
Alberta, Canada, to other countries, through the United States rather 
than through Canada. It could go through Canada, 700 miles west to the 
British Columbia coast. But the Canadians object. Why? Because they 
don't want the environmental risk in their country. They are asking the 
United States to do bear their burden. It is not for U.S. energy use. 
It is for the international market, and it poses significant 
environmental risk. We are talking about producing the dirtiest type of 
energy sources that we know.
  In 2010 there was a tar sands crude oil spill in the Kalamazoo River 
in Michigan. The estimated cost of the cleanup associated with that 
spill is $1.2 billion. Spills happen. We are adding tremendous risk to 
our country.
  This is against a backdrop we see here in the United States and 
globally where the price of oil is declining dramatically. Look at what 
we are paying at the pump for gasoline today. In the United States we 
have had a 70-percent increase in domestic oil production since 
President Obama took office. So we are getting all the oil that we 
need. We don't need to add the dirtiest oil in the world.
  The United States is more energy independent today than we have been 
in decades. Why? Because we use less energy.
  Let me give one example. Fuel economy standards in automobiles are up 
25 percent since 2004. We are using less oil, less energy. We are 
developing alternative and renewable sources. Our future is in clean 
energy.
  I am pleased we are having this debate on the floor of the Senate. We 
should be having a debate about developing additional sources of clean 
energy, which will help us be energy secure, add good-paying jobs, and 
be friendlier toward our environment.
  One example is Tesla Motors--an American company, unlike 
TransCanada--which recently chose Reno, NV, as the site of a $5 billion 
``gigafactory'' that could employ 6,500 workers on a permanent basis. 
Tesla hopes to complete construction of the facility by 2020. It will 
produce 50 gigawatt hours per year of lithium ion battery packs, more 
than the entire global production in 2013 and enough for 500,000 
electric cars annually. Once the factory is in full operation, it could 
help lower the costs of battery packs by 30 percent in 2017 and by 50 
percent in 2020.
  Tesla expects to create 3,000 construction jobs, and that is 
important--construction jobs are important--and 6,500 permanent jobs 
upon completion, generating $100 billion in economic activity over the 
next 20 years.
  So let's compare that to what Keystone is advertised to produce. They 
tell us that Keystone will provide 42,000 jobs, but what they don't 
tell us is that the number of direct construction jobs is 3,950 and 
that's just for one or two years. The rest of the jobs are indirect or 
``induced''--that is, induced activities from people getting paychecks, 
spending them on groceries, et cetera, and that's only during the 
construction period. Permanent jobs are 50. Look at the ratios: Tesla 
is over 2-to-1, with regard to permanent jobs-to-construction

[[Page 15915]]

jobs. Keystone is 50 permanent jobs to 3,950 construction jobs. The 
number of permanent is so insignificant that this pipeline does not 
generate economic progress in our country.
  Why aren't we talking about the transportation bill? We want to talk 
about jobs? Yes, we will get construction jobs. Thank you, Senator 
Boxer, for your extraordinary leadership on that bill. If we had a 
long-term transportation bill, we would be helping the construction 
industry by creating a lot of construction jobs. And guess what? At the 
end of the day, we would have a modern transportation system that would 
promote economic growth in America. Let me just give you one of those 
projects as an example: the Purple Line in Montgomery and Prince 
George's Counties, MD. We want to get that done. It will not only 
create construction jobs--it will not only create permanent jobs, it 
will help people live longer because they won't be stuck in traffic. It 
will really help our economy grow. That is the type of debate we should 
be having.
  Instead, we are talking about putting in a pipeline that poses 
incredible environmental risk not only to the United States but to our 
entire global community.
  The Natural Resources Defense Council has shown how tar sand 
extraction methods are very dangerous to our environment and could 
release 11 million to 47 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 
equivalent into our atmosphere.
  It is done in a way that--I was listening to my colleague from Hawaii 
talk about it--that is destroying the Earth. They are in the process of 
destroying the Boreal forest, which acts as a carbon ``sink,'' while 
producing petroleum coke as well as tar sands crude. They are emitting 
carbon dioxide just to produce the tar sands crude; they are emitting 
greenhouse gases. Add transportation, refining, and consumption of the 
ultimate product, the tar sands, and it is the worst form of a carbon 
footprint that we could have in our environment.
  The risks are real, including the danger to our environment from 
spills and come at a time when U.S. global leadership is so critical 
for action on climate change.
  According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment, the reality of 
climate change is clear and apparent. I could give examples of the 
droughts in California, of the increased wildfires in the West, or 
extreme weather conditions caused by polar vortexes in all parts of our 
country. Our sea level is rising from Miami, FL, to my own State of 
Maryland, where 70 percent of the population lives in coastal areas. 
They are very concerned about what they are seeing as a result of the 
rising sea levels. So it is critically important to have U.S. 
leadership. This is what it is about--U.S. leadership.
  President Obama demonstrated that leadership when he met with 
President Xi of China. The United States and China account for about 
one-third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. I have heard on this 
floor many times: Why are we doing certain things if China doesn't do 
certain things? Well, guess what. China is responding to our 
leadership.
  Congratulations to President Obama for getting commitments from 
President Xi that China will reduce its carbon footprint. Specifically, 
China pledged that non-fossil fuel sources will account for at least 20 
percent of the country's energy use by 2030. That is U.S. leadership 
working with China to help lead the global community. Let us show even 
more leadership by rejecting the Keystone Pipeline.
  Lastly, let me talk about process for a moment or two, if I might. 
The regulatory protections should not be circumvented by congressional 
action. State courts in Nebraska should not be circumvented by 
congressional action. We need to listen to the people from the region 
as they have expressed their concern about Keystone XL, and I quote 
from a person named Ben Gotschall from the organization, Bold Nebraska, 
which is part of the anti-pipeline coalition called the Cowboy-Indian 
Alliance:

       The Cowboy Indian Alliance shows our cooperation and our 
     working together in mutual respect. That shared bond proves 
     that we pipeline fighters are not just a few angry landowners 
     holding out, or environmentalists pushing a narrow agenda. We 
     are people from all walks of life and include the people who 
     have been here the longest and know the land best.

  We are talking about circumventing the regular order in order to have 
a narrow result that affects real people's lives. We can do better than 
that. We need to reject this ``pipeline by congressional action.'' 
Congress needs to act in a responsible way, and passing this bill is 
not doing that. This pipeline travels through the United States so that 
Canada can get its dirtiest oil into the international marketplace. 
Canadians don't want the pipeline in their country for good reason, 
because they know the environmental risks of the pipeline and tar sands 
development are unacceptable.
  The energy will not have any major impact on the United States. It is 
for export. It is not for the United States.
  Why are we doing this? There are very few permanent jobs involved 
here--fewer than 100. We already heard that. The risks to our 
environment--we have seen that. We have seen it happen before. We know 
what devastation tar sands oil spills can cause. We know what the 
cleanup cost are all about.
  Why are we subjecting communities to this when they don't want it and 
the environmental risks are so great? Why are we calling into question 
U.S. leadership globally when we are able to get progress that we have 
been asking for, and that Chairman Boxer has been asking for, to get 
China to act? Why are we trampling on the appropriate role of the 
executive and judicial branches and local government by doing what we 
are attempting to do today?
  I hope my colleagues will reject this bill. And I hope that we will 
work together for an energy policy that makes sense for America and 
that invests in clean energy, which will help our economy grow, help us 
be energy secure, and be friendly to our environment. With that, I 
yield back the remaining time to Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I request 5 minutes.
  I see the Senator from Wyoming, who is going to rebut the arguments 
made by the Senator from Maryland. So I will take 5 minutes, and then 
the Senator from Wyoming will have all the time he wants within the 
framework.
  First, I will say that I have great respect for the Senator from 
Maryland. He is an excellent debater, and we just saw the skills of his 
debating. But I want to put some things on the record that show he is 
absolutely, completely wrong in his assessment and statements, as 
respectfully as I can. He is completely wrong.
  First of all, this is the environmental statement. It is printed, it 
is done, it is finished, and it was finished in January of this year. 
This is the fifth environmental statement.
  So anyone who comes to this floor on the Democratic side of the 
aisle--because no one on the Republican side will say this because they 
are all in unity with a group of us to build this pipeline--they are 
wrong. It is factually incorrect that the environmental studies have 
not been completed because I have it in my hands. This is the fifth.
  Let me say what the result of this environmental impact statement by 
the Obama administration--not by the Bush administration, not by a 
former Republican administration, but the current, Democratic 
administration--concluded. People at home who are listening can get out 
their computers and their pens. This is what this study says. If the 
Keystone XL is built, it will represent .015 of global greenhouse gas 
emissions--.015 of greenhouse gas emissions. That is the equivalent, if 
people want to keep writing, to 300,000 passenger vehicles in America. 
Seems like a big number, except that we have 253 million cars on the 
road.
  OK. So think about this. The President's own environmental study, 
which is the fifth one, completed in January, has done its work. It has 
submitted this for the record. This is not subject to debate. The 
conclusion of this study is it will, taking everything into 
consideration, increase greenhouse gases

[[Page 15916]]

by .015 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which is the 
equivalent of 300,000 passenger vehicles, which is .12 percent of total 
cars in the U.S.
  So this is what we can do. We can build the Keystone Pipeline, 
creating thousands of temporary and millions of permanent jobs, which 
are not created by the permanency of the pipeline itself but by the 
signal that America is serious about energy independence. That will 
create millions of high-paying jobs. There is no disputing that fact.
  It is not the jobs that build the pipeline we are fighting for so 
much--although the pipefitters and boilermakers and the unions are 
fighting for that, and I am fighting with them--it is the signal it 
gives that we are serious about energy independence, and that we honor 
and understand there are already pipelines in our country. There are 
pipelines in our country. We have been building pipelines in this 
country since before most of us were born--all of us were born. That is 
what is so outrageous about this debate.
  Yes, this pipeline comes from Canada, our best trading partner, our 
most reliable ally, a country that is the most equivalent to us in the 
United States of America, and because it is a pipeline connecting 
Canada and the United States, it has all become this bogeyman that is 
going to wreck the world.
  The environmental impact study, Senator Cardin, has been done. It is 
in.
  The second thing I wanted to talk about is this. We pass a lot of 
crazy bills around here. This bill is two pages--S. 2280. Here it is. 
This is the first page, this is the second page. Everybody in America 
can read it. I would strongly recommend to those who are listening, get 
it and read the bill. It will literally take 15 seconds. It is so 
simple, and Senator Hoeven and I wrote it to be simple. As I have said 
before, we wrote it to go the distance. We wrote it to go the distance. 
It is not complicated. It simply says this: After waiting 5 years, and 
after acknowledging all environmental studies have been done, all 
economic studies have been done, we direct the President of the United 
States to give his approval.
  We are not circumventing the President. Every report he has requested 
has been turned in to him, every single solitary one. In addition, and 
the Presiding Officer knows this, because at her request and Senator 
Tester's request, Senator Hoeven and I added this language:

       Private Property Savings Clause.
       Nothing in this Act alters any Federal, State or local 
     process or condition in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act that is necessary to secure access from an owner of 
     private property to construct the pipeline and cross-border 
     facilities. . . .

  In other words, this language says all private property rights will 
be honored. That was not in the House bill. Senator Hoeven and I put it 
in this bill because we wanted to put that debate to an end. All 
private property rights are honored.
  The environmental studies have been completely completed. Also in our 
bill is respect for Nebraska because we are not trying to run over 
Nebraska. We say here--and I will point it out in just a minute--that 
subject to the final decision by Nebraska about where this is going to 
go, Nebraska can decide. As we can see, all the other States have said 
fine to their line. Nebraska has to decide. That is in the court. This 
bill says they can still decide this. There is nothing telling Nebraska 
where to build it.
  I hope people who come to the floor to talk about this pipeline will 
bring their facts and not fear--facts, not fear. I am a fierce 
proponent of the pipeline and they are fierce opponents and I respect 
them. There are two people I greatly respect: Barbara Boxer and Ben 
Cardin. But we are on the exact opposite side of this issue.
  So let's discuss facts, and let me just say one more thing and then I 
will give this to Senator Barrasso, because this is more personal. I 
was very disappointed in the Senator from Kansas when he came out and 
said something akin to he finds it strange--I think his words were he 
is kind of amused that we would be debating this because he thinks this 
is some kind of political opportunity.
  I have a lot of respect for the Senator from Kansas. I worked with 
him. I was his chair and he was my ranking member on emerging threats. 
We have been through some pretty tough meetings together. When this 
country was under attack during 9/11, I was the chair of emerging 
threats and he was the ranking member when the Twin Towers burned. He 
is a marine. I always joked: He is a marine and I am a Girl Scout, so I 
think he has one up on me. Nonetheless, we both have a pretty good code 
of honor. So for him to come to the floor, after being in the foxhole 
with me on that day, and to say he thinks this is some kind of 
convenient opportunity for me is beneath the dignity of himself, the 
Marine Corps, and the State he represents.
  This is a serious issue. We should have debated it months ago. The 
only reason we didn't--and Harry Reid is now on the floor and he has 
heard me say this to him in private and I will say it in public--is 
because neither leader could get their caucuses in a position to have 
this debate. There were many reasons for it, but all those reasons 
cleared up after this election. That is why we are having this debate, 
because I asked for it.
  I support and I appreciate the Members, no matter how they vote, in 
having this debate. If we had more debates like this, the American 
people might be hopeful we could get something done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                          Attack in Jerusalem

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am going to use leader time for these 
remarks, and it will not interfere with any of the time that has been 
allocated to these gentlemen and ladies.
  In far away Israel, during morning prayer, a horrific attack took 
place. A number of people were having their morning prayer. Four rabbis 
were savagely beaten, hacked to death, with a meat cleaver. Two 
Palestinian men entered the synagogue in Jerusalem and savagely 
murdered these four rabbis in the midst of morning prayer. Three of 
these victims were American citizens, the other, I am told, was a 
British citizen. One of them was a leading scholar, Hasidic scholar. 
More than one dozen others were hacked, hacked with a meat clever, 
while they were there praying. A number of these people are in critical 
condition as we speak.
  Secretary of State John Kerry today said: ``Innocent people who had 
come to worship died in the sanctuary of a synagogue.''
  Places of worship have always been a refuge in times of peace and in 
times of conflict. Yet these terrorists hacked and brutally murdered 
worshippers in the midst of prayer.
  This is not an isolated incident. Recently, Palestinian terrorists 
have carried out shocking attacks all across Israel. Seven Israelis 
have been killed in these horrible attacks, including a 3-month-old 
American infant--a baby, 3 months old--an Israeli soldier, a border 
patrol officer.
  These attacks are a direct result of incitement, and I call upon the 
Palestinian leadership to condemn these attacks unequivocally. This 
butchery has no place in the modern world and they should stop it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank Majority Leader Reid for his 
remarks. Sometimes it does feel the world is falling apart and we have 
to speak out, as we are doing every time these terrorists rear their 
heads.
  I know we have some time over here by Senator Barrasso, but I just 
wanted to make a point on the environmental impact statements, although 
it is hard to get back.
  As I understand it, in the Hoeven- Landrieu bill, the EIS is 
approved. So if the Nebraska bureaucracy determines there is a new 
route--and I think this is what my friend from Maryland was getting 
at--it doesn't matter what the new route is, the EIS is deemed 
approved. I have to say I don't think that is right. I think the people 
who live along that new route have a right to have a new EIS if in fact 
now the pipeline is being moved in a different direction.

[[Page 15917]]

  I understand the bill calls for property rights to be respected, and 
that is called eminent domain. I know a lot of my friends on the other 
side hate eminent domain, usually, but now they are embracing it 
because that is what is in this bill. But the fact is, if as a result 
of a court case brought by property owners the route changes, it is our 
counsel's understanding the EIS is still automatically approved.
  I wanted to get that on the record because my friend was in fact 
questioned, and I think he was right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor to express my 
support for the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. This is 
bipartisan legislation. The House passed this bill with 31 Democrats 
voting for it.
  Last week, Senate Republicans welcomed the news that the outgoing 
Senate majority leader had finally decided to let the Senate vote on 
this legislation and that vote is finally going to take place today. 
For years House and Senate Republicans have been pushing legislation to 
approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, but until now the outgoing Senate 
majority leader wouldn't even let the Senate vote on this measure. This 
was all part of the majority leader's efforts to protect the President 
and the President's agenda.
  The majority leader had hoped the American people would forget about 
the Senate. He had hoped they would be satisfied with President Obama's 
job approval. Well, 2 weeks ago, the American people made it clear they 
have not forgotten about the Senate. The American people made it clear 
they are not satisfied with President Obama and his policies. Instead, 
the American people want the President to work with the Senate to enact 
bipartisan legislation to grow our and economy and to create jobs.
  President Obama and Senate Democrats can do that today by supporting 
the bill we are approaching to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. This 
pipeline is going to create thousands of jobs right here at home. It is 
not just my view, it is the view of the President's own State 
Department.
  According to the State Department, the construction of the Keystone 
XL Pipeline would support over 42,000 jobs--42,000 jobs. That is the 
reason many of the Nation's largest labor unions support the 
construction and approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. In addition the 
pipeline would facilitate American crude oil production. Specifically, 
this pipeline will ship up to 100,000 barrels of oil each and every day 
from North Dakota and Montana. Currently there is insufficient pipeline 
capacity to ship oil out of North Dakota. As a consequence, oil 
producers must rely on railroads to ship oil out of State. Shipping 
crude oil by rail is more expensive than shipping it by pipeline. The 
Keystone XL Pipeline would provide oil producers a cheaper shipping 
method and in turn encourage production of more American energy.
  This pipeline will also increase our Nation's energy security. 
Specifically, the pipeline will provide an additional access to 
Canadian oil. We should welcome access to Canadian oil. Canadian oil is 
a far better alternative to oil from Venezuela, the Middle East or West 
Africa, areas of the world which don't share our values and too often 
work against our American interests. In contrast, Canada is a strong 
ally, Canada is America's top trading partner, and Canada already 
provides the United States with reliable and secure sources of energy.
  Now is the time for President Obama to make a decision on the 
Keystone XL Pipeline.
  As the senior Senator from Delaware, a Member of the President's own 
party, said last week: ``We have waited not just months but years for a 
decision on Keystone,'' he said. ``This is too long.''
  In fact, the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline has been pending for 
over 6 years. During this time the State Department has conducted five 
environmental reviews of the project. Each of the reviews has been 
positive. I say to President Obama: Time is up and the excuses have run 
out. It is time for you, Mr. President, to make a decision.
  President Obama should once again acknowledge that elections have 
consequences. Specifically, he should signal to the American people 
that he has heard the message voters across this country sent just 2 
weeks ago: their message of support for bipartisan legislation that 
grows our economy, creates jobs, puts people back to work, their 
message of support for legislation such as the approval of the Keystone 
XL Pipeline.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, let me just say that at long last this 
week we are going to be voting on the Keystone XL Pipeline. The vote 
has been a long time coming--years, in fact. Republicans have been 
trying to get this pipeline and the many jobs it will support approved. 
It would have been at the top of our agenda in January when we take 
control of the Senate, but we are happy to get a head start on that 
work a little early. It is just too bad that it took an election defeat 
and a runoff election to finally motivate the Democratic leadership to 
allow a vote on the measure. It should have received a vote years ago.
  In fact, the Keystone Pipeline, if there is such a thing, is a win-
win. It will create jobs. One can argue about how many jobs. The 
President's own State Department said it would support over 42,000 
jobs. It will decrease our reliance on oil from dangerous countries. It 
will increase revenues to State and local governments. It will free 
space on overcrowded rail lines so the farmers can get their goods to 
the marketplace, and it will do all of that without spending a dime of 
taxpayer money.
  Our economy has been limping along for years. The unemployment rate 
is still hovering at near recession levels and 9 million Americans are 
unemployed. More Americans are working part-time jobs because they 
cannot find full-time employment. Household income has fallen nearly 
$3,000 since President Obama took office while the price of everything 
else, from food to health care, has risen.
  Americans need jobs and economic opportunities, and the Keystone 
Pipeline will help supply them. As I said, the State Department 
estimates that in my home State of South Dakota alone, construction of 
the pipeline would bring 3,000 to 4,000 jobs and generate well over 
$100 million in earnings. It will also bring over $20 million in annual 
property taxes to South Dakota counties. I know some of the counties in 
the middle of my State are counties that are struggling to keep up with 
the cost of keeping the local governments going. School districts are 
struggling to survive and property tax revenue that will come in as a 
result of building a pipeline will help sustain many of those local 
governments and many of those school districts during some pretty 
difficult times.
  My State is just one of the States that benefits. Nationwide, the 
pipeline will support more than 42,000 jobs--construction jobs from 
welders to pipefitters, to those who work at local hotels and gas 
stations. It will invest $5.3 billion in the U.S. economy and bring 
States a total of $5 billion in property taxes over the life of the 
project. That is a lot of funding for local priorities such as schools, 
law enforcement personnel and roads and bridges. Opponents of the 
pipeline like to cite environmental concerns as a reason for opposing 
the pipeline and its jobs.
  Five separate environmental reviews from the President's own State 
Department have found that the pipeline possesses no meaningful risk to 
the environment. In fact, even the State Department admits the Keystone 
Pipeline is the safest way of transporting the oil. It is safer than 
rail or truck. It is important to remember Canada will be extracting 
and transporting its oil regardless. The only question is whether we 
want it to come to the United States along with the thousands of jobs 
it will create or whether we want to let Canada ship that oil overseas.
  The American people have been very clear about their feelings about 
this project. Poll after poll has shown strong support. Republicans 
support

[[Page 15918]]

the pipeline. Democrats in both Houses of Congress support the 
pipeline. Unions support the pipeline. The only people who seem to 
oppose it are Members of the far leftwing of the Democratic Party. The 
reason we haven't had a vote in the Senate is not because a majority of 
Senators don't support the project, it is because Senate Democratic 
leadership refused to hold a vote despite having support from their 
side of the aisle.
  While it is unfortunate it took the Democratic leadership this long 
to come around, I am glad we are finally here. I hope the Senate will 
finally approve the pipeline. If this bill passes today it will have 
one final hurdle to clear and that is the President of the United 
States. I very much hope he will listen to the voices of American 
workers and the bipartisan majorities in the Congress. Given his recent 
comments, I am skeptical.
  The President has demonstrated a disturbing commitment to holding the 
American economy hostage to priorities of the far leftwing of his 
party. Take his recent energy agreement with China which would force 
American companies to implement costly new measures while China gets to 
do nothing. The national energy tax that the President unveiled back in 
June will put tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of 
American workers out of jobs and devastate entire communities. The 
pipeline's economic benefits to support the American people and five--
five--successful environmental reviews have yet to convince the 
President to approve this project. I am concerned this vote probably 
isn't going to help, but I hope I am wrong.
  By signing this bill, the President could send a powerful message 
about his willingness to work with Congress, and he can show the 
American people he heard their demands for change in Washington and 
that their economic priorities can be addressed.
  I am sorry American workers have had to wait years for this project 
because, let's not forget, they are the ones who have been hurt the 
most by the administration's refusal to approve the pipeline. I hope 
today marks the end of their waiting and I hope it marks the beginning 
of a new era in the Senate.
  When Republicans take over in January, bills such as Keystone will be 
the order of the day. We will take up jobs bills that passed the House 
with bipartisan support but have been waiting for a vote in the 
Democratic leader's Senate. We will take up legislation to create 
economic growth here at home by opening new markets for American 
agriculture and manufacturing overseas. We will repeal the medical 
device tax which is opposed by Members of both parties thanks to the 
fact that it is eliminating thousands of jobs in the medical device 
industry, and that will be just the start.
  I hope that just as they did today, Democrats will work with us even 
more on bills to create jobs and economic opportunities for the 
American people because it is the people of this country for whom we 
ought to be doing everything we can to help and to support. I can state 
that the people in the Midwest, in the heartland whom I represent, 
already spend--if they make $50,000 a year--20 percent of their income 
on energy, either fuel or electricity. All these proposals, the 
national energy tax, the deal with China, continue to drive up the cost 
of energy and make it more difficult and more expensive for middle-
income families who are increasingly squeezed by these policies.
  I wish to close by quoting from a letter the leaders received from 
the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives in which they urge Congress 
to support legislation to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, and this is 
what they say:

       The Keystone XL Pipeline also is part of a long-term 
     solution to alleviating the transportation pressures many in 
     agriculture have faced. This year, farmers around the country 
     experienced some of the largest harvests they have seen in 
     generations. For some, their successful year has come to an 
     alarming halt when trying to sell and transport their crop. 
     Farmer cooperatives in the upper Midwest are facing major 
     delays in getting their farmers' grain to market due to the 
     sustained shortage of rail equipment resulting from the 
     increased use of rail to transport crude oil. The Keystone XL 
     Pipeline will ultimately free up locomotives and track to 
     move more grain to market and improve our ability to handle 
     year after year record harvests.

  Yet another reason to support this project and the jobs that come 
with it, the energy independence that comes with it, the lessening--
relieving, if you will--of rail capacity issues that are plagued in 
many areas of the Midwest and making it harder for farmers to come to 
the marketplace.
  This is a project that is a win-win, and I hope when the vote comes 
later today, we will have not just the majority of the Senators but the 
60 votes that are necessary to move this to the President's desk.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will yield to Senator Merkley, but before I do, I was 
so glad to hear a Republican say he wants to work on jobs. I would just 
say to my friend before he leaves, the CEO who runs the pipeline says 
there will be 35 permanent jobs. OK. I would like to suggest to my 
friend that if he truly wants to help the middle class, he ought to 
join with us first in raising the minimum wage, which is critical, and, 
secondly, embracing a clean energy future while we still use, where it 
is safe, domestic oil production, clean coal, things we can do that 
don't threaten the air our children breathe, pollute the water they 
drink, and destroy the planet.
  To hear a Republican stand and talk about jobs is music to my ears, 
but I would like to put into the Record a report I just got from my 
California people at home who say:

       California's climate policies are reducing carbon 
     emissions, saving consumers at the pump, cutting oil use, and 
     cleaning our air.
       California's economic recovery has outpaced the rest of the 
     country since the so-called ``great recession,'' while our 
     state has implemented the nation's strongest climate 
     policies. . . .
       California can reduce greenhouse gas pollution while 
     growing the economy; we have been doing it for the last 35 
     years. Innovative energy policies over the past three decades 
     have saved Californians $56 billion on household energy costs 
     and allowed them to reduce expenditures on imported fossil 
     fuels and redirect spending to create 1.5 million full-time 
     jobs.

  And they go on to talk about the fact that they are looking toward 
1.5 million full-time jobs. I am just saying to my friend, if this is 
truly about jobs, let's pass a transportation bill. Let's make sure we 
do the things that help our people.
  I am going to hold up a picture of the air in China. This is what it 
looks like when you throw the environment under the bus. We know, 
because in California we had some bad air until a Republican President 
passed the Clean Air Act, signed it into law.
  You want to know public opinion. I will tell you. The public supports 
the EPA and they support clean air, clean water, safe drinking water. 
This tar sands isn't about the building of a pipeline, it is what is 
going into it--the filthiest, dirtiest oil, and we have put in the 
Record all the elements, the pollutants, that are in this oil. You can 
laugh it away if you want. That is fine. But I have to tell you, when 
you hear about the health impact that is going on in Canada from this 
tar sands, when you go down to Port Arthur, TX, or meet with the people 
here as I did, what you will see there is a community suffering because 
this is the dirtiest oil.
  So, yes, jobs--that is where it is with this Senator. I come from a 
family which is first-generation American on my mother's side. We 
worked for everything we got. Education was key to it.
  Hey, how about joining with us on that? How about reducing interest 
rates on student loans? But to stand here and say this is the absolute 
job producer is phony. It is phony baloney.
  With that, I yield to my friend for 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address S. 2280, which would 
approve construction of the Keystone Pipeline to transport tar sands 
heavy oil from Canada to the gulf coast.
  The key consideration is whether this bill--by authorizing the 
pipeline--would contribute significantly to global warming, which is 
already damaging

[[Page 15919]]

our rural resources and our future economic prospects with profound 
consequences for families in America and around the world.
  Also, are there better ways to create jobs that would enhance rather 
than damage our world? In the words of President Theodore Roosevelt:

       Of all the questions which can come before this nation, 
     short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great 
     war, there is none which compares in importance with the 
     great central task of leaving this land even a better land 
     for our descendants than it is for us.

  Let's start by addressing the vision that President Roosevelt put 
forward and examine the impact of the Keystone Pipeline on atmospheric 
carbon dioxide pollution and global warming.
  In this chart we see, going back 800,000 years, that the carbon 
dioxide has gone up and down. In recent years it has been quite steady 
until the start of the Industrial Revolution, and then it has soared--
soared above levels it has been at for hundreds of thousands of years.
  In this second chart, we see that there is absolutely no question 
that heat--put here in blue--correlates to the carbon dioxide in red. 
When the carbon dioxide level goes up and down, the heat of the planet 
goes up and down.
  By many estimates, to contain global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, 
humans can burn only about an additional 500 gigatons of fossil carbon. 
That is the fossil budget we have to work with to avoid catastrophic 
global warming. But currently, the world's top 200 fossil fuel 
companies have identified 2,800 gigatons trapped in their fossil fuel, 
and that doesn't include the carbon from tar sands and oil shale.
  Here is the problem: To protect the planet from catastrophic global 
warming, we need to leave four-fifths of the identified conventional 
fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Building the Keystone Pipeline, 
which would open the faucet to rapid exploitation of a massive, new 
unconventional reserve--the tar sands--would make it much less likely 
for human civilization to succeed in meeting that carbon budget that is 
so important to our future economic and environmental world, and that 
is why building the Keystone Pipeline is a grave mistake.
  Global warming is not some imaginary foe embedded in some computer 
model with effects 50 years from now. It is here and we can see it at 
this very moment. The warmest 10 years on record for global average 
surface temperature has occurred in the last 12 years. Moreover, the 
effects can be seen in Oregon--and actually across the Nation. The 
average forest fire season is getting longer. Across the Nation, since 
the 1980s, the national season has grown by 60 to 80 days, and the 
average acres consumed annually by wildfires has doubled to more than 7 
million acres. This sight has become all too familiar in our home State 
of Oregon.
  One study estimates that global warming, through the greater impact 
of greater pine beetle infestations and larger forest fires, will 
decimate the western forest of the United States by the end of this 
century.
  In addition, the snowpack in our Oregon mountains is decreasing, 
which means smaller and warmer trout streams--that is not a good thing 
if you love to fish--and less water for irrigation. The Klamath Basin--
a major agriculture basin in Oregon--has suffered through many dry 
years and three horrific droughts since 2001, in substantial part 
because of lower snowpacks.
  The red circles on this chart represent a significant decrease in the 
snowpack. As we can see throughout the northwestern United States--
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and stretching into northern 
California--there is a huge decrease in the snowpack which is resulting 
in devastating consequences for agriculture.
  As the high levels of carbon dioxide in the air are absorbed by the 
oceans, the carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid. That acid, as one 
would expect, makes the oceans more acidic.
  This chart, which presents the carbon dioxide and the pH time series 
from Hawaii, presents the challenge clearly. CO2 in the 
atmosphere went up from 320 parts per million to about 380 parts per 
million over a period of about 50 years--a steady increase in carbon 
dioxide. We then see, with this blue set of data, that there is a 
parallel trend of the carbon dioxide that is in our ocean, and then we 
see from the light blue data that the pH level is dropping, which means 
that the ocean is more acidic. That is a 30-percent increase in the 
acidity of the ocean over a very short period of time.
  The greater acidity is having an impact on sea life. One impact is on 
coral reefs, which are the ocean's most diverse ecosystem and the base 
of the ocean's food chain. Fishing families around the world depend on 
coral reefs as a foundation for livelihood.
  Another impact is on the reproduction of oysters. The Whiskey Creek 
Shellfish Hatchery in Oregon, which I visited a few weeks ago, started 
having trouble growing baby oysters--known as oyster seed--in the year 
2008. The hatchery almost went out of business, but a scientist from 
Oregon State University was able to help identify and address the 
problem. The problem, it turns out, stems from the increase in the 
acidity of the Pacific Ocean. If the oyster seed, or the canary in the 
coal mine, is having trouble forming shells, what else is going wrong 
in the ocean due to rising acidity?
  In summary, carbon pollution is having a direct and substantial 
impact on the vitality of our forests, farming, and fishing. Our rural 
resources are being damaged now, and the problems will multiply with 
additional carbon pollution. So as members of the human family on this 
planet, with the moral responsibility to exercise wide stewardship of 
our resources for future generations, we must address this challenge of 
carbon pollution, and we must do so now. Wise stewardship means we must 
leave four-fifths of the conventional fossil fuels in the ground.
  Would this bill before us, which would open the faucet to this 
massive new reserve of fossil fuels, advance such stewardship? The 
answer is clear. Stewardship demands that we not build infrastructure 
to unlock tar sands--the dirtiest source of oil on the planet.
  The proponents of the pipeline have come to the floor and made 
interesting arguments--arguments worth examining to see if they 
actually hold water. First, they argue that the pipeline would create a 
tremendous number of construction jobs. Here is a comparison of direct 
construction jobs created by the pipeline--the little tiny wedge down 
here represents the pipeline jobs versus the jobs that would be created 
by the Rebuild America Act, which would create hundreds of thousands of 
jobs. So just 4,000 or so jobs in construction of the pipeline versus 
hundreds of thousands jobs from the Rebuild America Act. If anyone on 
this floor is actually serious about jobs, we would pass the Rebuild 
America Act today.
  The proponents have a second argument. They say that bringing this 
additional oil into America would increase America's oil independence. 
We heard that argument just a few moments ago by my colleague from 
South Dakota. The argument goes that this strengthens America's 
national security by decreasing America's dependence on the Middle 
East, but that argument overlooks a fact. This is not American oil, 
this is Canadian oil. This is not oil destined for the United States, 
it is destined to be refined in the gulf coast so that it can be 
exported around the world. These tar sands will do no more for America 
than if they were exported through Canada to the world market.
  In fact, if you want the oil to be used in America, the best thing to 
do is to not build the pipeline, because that means the area around the 
tar sands will be the area getting that oil. Shipping Canadian oil to 
the world market via America adds nothing to America's security.
  The next argument from proponents is that the pipeline has no 
environmental effect--indeed, we just heard this argument as well--
because the oil from the tar sands, it is argued, will reach the market 
by rail if not by pipeline. This argument is demonstrably false. There 
is not enough rail capacity to substitute for the pipeline, and the

[[Page 15920]]

cost of shipping oil by rail is much higher than pipeline, greatly 
reducing the economic incentive for rapid development of the sands. All 
the while proponents say if the Keystone Pipeline is not built, 
alternative pipelines will be built through Canada, but that is 
certainly not at all clear.
  If it were easier and cheaper to build through Canada, TransCanada 
would not be trying to build through the United States of America. 
Moreover, there is tremendous opposition within Canada to building such 
pipelines, and that is part of the reason TransCanada wanted to build 
it through the United States. The opposition within Canada to 
additional pipelines is just as fierce as it is in America for the same 
set
of reasons--fundamentally important moral reasons--about the 
stewardship of our environment and our future economy. It turns out the 
Keystone Pipeline represents a real risk to our rural resources, our 
farming, and our fishing. It represents a real risk to the future 
health of our economy needed to sustain middle-class jobs. The pipeline 
itself creates very few jobs compared to a serious investment in 
infrastructure, and it adds nothing to our national security.
  There are several other serious problems with this pipeline that have 
often been glossed over. For one, TransCanada is exempted from 
contributing to the Oil Spill Liability Fund. That is outrageous. You 
could call this bill the TransCanada protection act. Why are we doing a 
special deal for a Canadian company? Oilspills like this happen with 
these pipelines all the time, and they will not contribute one slim 
dime to the Oil Spill Liability Fund that American companies have to 
contribute to. Why would anyone vote for that sort of special deal for 
a foreign company--that irresponsible failure to contribute a single 
dime to the Oil Spill Liability Fund?
  In addition, we are giving a foreign corporation the ability to 
exercise eminent domain to seize the lands of American citizens. Since 
when do we give power to a foreign corporation to take land away from 
American citizens without their desire? It is fundamentally unfair to 
American landowners. The legal basis for eminent domain is that there 
has to be a compelling public good. What is the compelling public good 
in this situation? Is it the generation of private profits for a 
Canadian corporation? That doesn't meet the test. Is it the damage from 
the oilspills that will occur in communities across America? That 
doesn't meet the test. Is it the contributory damage----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that his time has 
expired.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for a minute 
and a half more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Is it from the damage from carbon pollution to our 
farming, fishing, and forests? That doesn't meet the test.
  Frankly, tackling carbon pollution is going to take an enormous 
amount of international cooperation. Just a few days ago the United 
States and China entered into an agreement to address the global 
climate change crisis. The Chinese President announced that China would 
invest heavily in renewable energy to generate 20 percent of China's 
energy from nonfossil fuel sources by 2030, seeking to decrease China's 
CO2 emissions thereafter. That is the type of leadership the 
world has been asking for.
  We can't simply wish for nations to work together. We have to 
negotiate and do our part. That is why today we should not be talking 
about how to turn on the tap to the dirtiest oil on the planet, but how 
to meet the 2025 goals and how to create jobs by investing in energy 
conservation and renewable energy.
  Let's remember the test that President Theodore Roosevelt gave us. 
There is no more important mission than ``leaving this land even a 
better land for descendants than it is for us.'' This bill fails the 
test.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I think we are going to take a recess 
shortly. I just wanted to thank everybody on both sides for their 
statements.
  To sum it up from my perspective, you have a situation here that, 
frankly, I am very glad we are confronting because there are lots of 
people who say: Oh, this is no big deal, it is just a little pipeline, 
and we have so many pipelines.
  Senator Thune said: Oh, it is so much safer to transport this oil by 
pipeline than other ways. Just try telling that to the people of 
Marshall, MI. There was a spill in 2010 in the Kalamazoo River. They 
are still trying to clean it up. It is not the pipeline that is the 
issue, folks, it is the dirty tar sands oil that is so much more 
dangerous, has more heavy metals, and more carcinogens. It is a 
problem. By virtue of its weight, it sinks to the bottom, and they 
cannot clean it up. I can't believe the statement was made about how 
safe this is. We have seen stories that there are problems with the 
welding in the existing pipeline. We might want to speak to the people 
in Mayflower, AR. Do my colleagues know that Exxon had to buy back the 
homes because they couldn't be lived in anymore because this stuff 
spilled and contaminated an entire neighborhood?
  So I call this the extra lethal pipeline. The pipeline itself is 
benign. It is what is going through it and what it will unleash in 
terms of 45 percent more carbon over time and 45 percent more tar sands 
than we would otherwise have, so we figure that everything gets 
increased by that amount. There is going to be more carbon, there is 
going to be more sulfur, more mercury, more lead.
  This is important today. I am so glad we are having this debate. My 
colleagues say we never allowed a vote. There was a lot of boxing 
around in the boxing ring on that one. We tried. I don't mind having a 
vote on this. I have never minded having a vote on this. I think it is 
an important debate. People disagree. It is OK. We should air it out. 
But the bill before us would stop a process that is in place that is 
very important, not because it is a ``process'' but because 2 million 
people wrote comments about the Keystone Pipeline. We should not say to 
them: Your voices don't matter; we are going to truncate the process; I 
don't care what you said.
  We already know there is a court case. This bill would approve the 
EIS. Even if Nebraska moves the route to another route, guess what: 
This bill that is pending here--the Hoeven-Landrieu bill--would already 
say the new EIS is approved. That is wrong. So only 35 permanent jobs. 
Most of this oil is exported. Economists say the price of gas in the 
domestic market will go up. And we compare it to embracing a clean 
energy agenda while we still develop oil where it is safe and sound, 
and we still develop all of the above when it is safe and sound. But if 
we embrace clean energy, I have to tell my colleagues, the jobs will 
dwarf the 35 permanent jobs for sure that this pipeline brings us.
  In California we are so excited with what is happening. And we don't 
want to look like the people in China where they walk around in masks, 
and we don't want to have little girls and boys with those inhalers 
because they can't breathe the air. This is real. This is about health. 
Yes, it is about jobs. Yes, it is about prices. And I find it really 
fascinating that a few years ago when this all came up, what did we 
say? We said, Oh, this pipeline will make us energy independent. Now we 
know that we are going to allow this oil to go right through the middle 
of our country. Misery follows the tar sands: spills. We have already 
had spills. We know what happens when there is a spill. And what do we 
get at the end? The oil goes to the rest of the world.
  Our friends say, oh, it is still good. It is good for prices. No, it 
isn't good for prices. Economists have told us it is not good for gas 
prices, and it doesn't help us become energy independent. It imperils 
our planet with large amounts of carbon going into the air. It imperils 
our families with pollutants that are very carcinogenic and very 
dangerous.
  So I hope we will let the process continue. I don't know what happens 
today. I know the handwriting is on the wall. I know it is on this one. 
But when we see the country we love going

[[Page 15921]]

down a route that makes sense, following a procedure that makes sense, 
letting court cases resolve themselves, letting the people's comments 
be looked at, making sure we know exactly what we are doing, and we see 
that process shortcut by legislation and people who, by the way--and I 
am talking about my Republican friends: Oh, we are not scientists. We 
don't know if there is climate change. That is right, they are not 
scientists and they don't know, so they should listen to 98 percent of 
the scientists who are telling us that the Keystone is a dangerous move 
for this planet, because it is going to allow this oil that is far more 
carbon intensive.
  I am a humble person. I am not a scientist; I do listen to them. I 
have to say to go blindly down this path is a huge mistake. Yet, that 
is what we are facing, and it is fine with me that we are facing it. We 
will stand and we will debate until there is nothing more to be said. 
We are probably getting to that place right now, so I will stop and 
reserve the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________