[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 399-401]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   THE ECONOMY AND KEYSTONE PIPELINE

  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the majority leader for allowing me this time to 
proceed. It is one thing to rewrite history a few years after it 
passes. It is another thing to rewrite it while you are still living 
through it. To say that this economic recovery is a Republican recovery 
is kind of funny and strange.
  In fact, the year 2014 was the best year for job creation since 1999, 
and it could have been a lot better in 2014 and in prior years if our 
Republican friends had not filibustered every single job proposal that 
President Obama put forward. It is sad because we could have gotten 
here much quicker.
  The economy added almost 3 million jobs in 2014, averaging almost 
250,000 jobs a month. The unemployment rate has fallen to 5.6 percent, 
and most of that decline--and here is the good news--came from long-
term unemployed workers getting back to work. The GDP growth has 
accelerated, reaching an annualized rate of 5 percent in the third 
quarter of 2014. This is the best GDP growth we have seen in over 10 
years.
  Our economic recovery has been long, it has been tough, but it is 
happening and I thank the President for his leadership. We have added 
11.2 million private sector jobs since February of 2010. That is the 
longest streak of recorded private sector job gains in American 
history.
  The stock market has bounced back from the crash and added more than 
10,000 points, reaching an all-time high of over 18,000 points. Our 
annual deficit has been reduced by almost two-thirds.
  I think it is important to put into context the job growth under 
Presidents Democratic and Republican. I think we need to look at 
private sector job growth. This is an extraordinary chart. Under George 
Herbert Walker Bush, there were 1.5 million jobs created in his term of 
office. In Bill Clinton's term of office, there were 21.2 million jobs 
created. I have seen that number up to 23 million, but that is probably 
including the public sector. But during Bill Clinton's term, there were 
21.2 million private sector jobs. Under George W. Bush, there was a 
loss of 460,000 jobs. Under President Obama, there is a gain so far of 
7 million, and he has 2 years to go, and we are just moving forward.
  To me this says that we Democrats know what we are doing, and if you 
want to look at deficits, that is another day's speech. It was Bill 
Clinton who balanced the budget. It was George W. Bush who unbalanced 
it, put two wars on a credit card, gave a tax cut to the rich, and we 
had terrible deficits. Barack Obama has now reduced this deficit by 
two-thirds.
  So I say all this leading up to my discussion of the Keystone 
Pipeline. How does that even connect? I will tell you. When a new 
majority takes over in Congress you know the first bill they take up 
symbolizes their priorities. Out of all the things that they pick, all 
the things that they pick, they pick a bill that in terms of permanent 
job creation will be thirty-five jobs. And that is proven by the State 
Department--35 long-term jobs.
  One has to wonder, Why are they doing this? I believe I know the 
answer. This is really a big hug and a big kiss to big oil and Canadian 
interests. That is what it is about. Otherwise, why wouldn't we turn to 
the highway bill? I think the Presiding Officer and I know we have 
worked across partisan lines on that issue, and it means good jobs for 
America--good jobs, long-lasting jobs, rebuilding our bridges and our 
roads and making sure we have transit systems that work. We have a 
terrible record in terms of the condition of our bridges today. 
Thousands and thousands--tens of thousands of bridges are not in good 
shape, and we have seen bridges fail, and we know the outcome. Why are 
we pursuing a project for Canadian oil business interests that they 
will make billions off of instead of pursuing projects for America--
America--such as building our infrastructure?
  This bill isn't about helping American workers or families. Let's be 
very clear. It does nothing. Again, when I say 35 permanent jobs, I am 
not making that up. That is in the final supplemental environmental 
impact statement which I believe the Republicans want to make final, so 
they are accepting it. The Republicans are accepting the fact that 
there are 35 permanent jobs, because they, in their language, say, We 
approve of the final supplemental environmental impact statement, which 
is where it says there will be 35 permanent jobs.
  Now, yes, there are temporary jobs for 2 years--a couple thousand--
but the fact is we can have millions of jobs when we rebuild our 
infrastructure. We have 400 new jobs coming to the Imperial Valley in 
my home State because we have lithium there and they are going to start 
producing it. So 400 jobs, just one little project. This is 35 jobs for 
Americans. They have to be kidding. This is what they have for us, 
after all that blood, sweat, and tears during the election? I think 
that wasting another minute on the tar sands project doesn't make any 
sense.
  What we need is a multiyear surface transportation bill. We still 
have unemployed people in the construction industry. We have 600,000 
construction workers who remain out of work. What are we giving them? 
We are giving them 2,000 temporary jobs and 35 permanent jobs? Let's do 
a highway bill. By the way, the trust fund is running dry and in 4 
months will be completely dry. Let's step up to the plate and do our 
job, not do the job for the Canadian oil interests.

[[Page 400]]

  I don't get it. I don't think it makes sense, because I know we have 
worked together on transportation projects. We are worried. Billions of 
dollars going to our States--whether it is Oklahoma, California, 
Nevada, east coast, west coast--the funding is going to be delayed or 
stopped. And all these short-term extensions the House did are 
absolutely irresponsible. It doesn't provide stability to our local 
governments, to our businesses.
  So we know what we have to do. We have to invest in our aging 
infrastructure. No country can be great if we don't have an 
infrastructure that moves people and moves goods. Again, 50 percent of 
our Nation's roads are in less than good condition and 63,000 bridges 
are structurally deficient. Let's do something for America. That is 
what we are here for; not to do something good for Canadian oil 
companies. Let's focus on what is good for the people.
  Now let's turn to this infrastructure project, the Keystone Pipeline. 
I want to say unequivocally--and I don't have any doubts because I 
resource everything I say--that from extraction to transportation to 
refining to [waste/waist] storage, misery follows the tar sands. That 
is the oil that gets put in the pipeline--the dirtiest oil. I think XL 
stands for extra lethal.
  So a pipeline is a pipeline. Fine. It is what we put in it. This is 
the filthiest, most polluted kind of oil. Tar sands oil contains levels 
of toxic pollutants and metals that are much higher than conventional 
crude oil--11 times more sulfur and nickel, 6 times more nitrogen, 5 
times more lead than conventional crude oil. Who is saying that? Is it 
Barbara Boxer? No. Let me source it: The USGS, the U.S. Geological 
Survey, the heavy oil and natural bitumen resources in geological 
basins of the world--documented. Tar sands equal the dirtiest oil.
  Why do some of my Republican friends and some of my Democratic 
friends--I admit that; I know there are a few--want to rush to bring 
this filthy oil into our country? The only benefit is to the Canadian 
oil interests. The fact is we need less pollution, not more pollution.
  Now high levels of dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens have been 
documented downwind from the tar sands refineries. People in nearby 
communities are suffering higher rates and types of cancers, such as 
leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Again, is this me saying it? Some 
rightwing blog took me to task the last time I said it. They said, Oh, 
she was on the floor making stuff up. OK. Let's be clear. I am not 
making stuff up. I am telling the truth, and I am going to document it 
in every case: Significantly higher levels of volatile compounds and 
carcinogens were found downwind of tar sands processing facilities. 
There were elevated rates of cancers linked to these toxic chemicals, 
including leukemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
  Where does this come from? Simpson, I.J., et al., air quality in the 
Industrial Heartland of Alberta, Canada and potential impacts on human 
health. Characterization of trace gases measured over Alberta oil sands 
mining operations: 76 speciated C2-C10 volatile organic compounds, and 
they list what they are. This is from two peer-reviewed papers.
  Is this what the Republicans do first? I thought we wanted to make 
people healthy. It is one thing to want to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act, which now, in my State, has reduced the uninsured by close to 50 
percent--that is bad enough. Now they want to bring in this oil and 
help the Canadian oil people and it is going to bring all of these 
carcinogens and all of this pollution to our country.
  We already know about the people from Port Arthur, TX, where they 
have these refineries. Look at this picture. A picture is worth a 
thousand words. I know that is a cliche, but it is a fact. I could try 
to explain to my colleagues what happens near the playground when this 
stuff is refined. One might say, Oh, that is nice, Barbara, but are you 
really making this up? No. Here it is. Look at it. They suffer asthma, 
respiratory ailments, skin irritations, and cancer. This is what 
happens, right near a playground. Now, there are some politicians down 
there saying, Bring it on. We want it. We like it. But talk to the real 
people there who live there with children. They have had enough of tar 
sands. They have had it up to here with them. They want none of it. 
Let's not forget about the waste. Once they burn all of this stuff, 
they have waste left over. It is called petcoke, petroleum coke. Look 
at this. This is what it looks like, as shown in this picture. It is 
stored in the Midwest. A lot of it is stored in the Midwest. What 
happens? In this photograph we can see it is not wet, so it can blow in 
the wind. Billowing black clouds have contaminated our children. They 
contain heavy metals. Children playing baseball have been forced off 
the field to seek cover from the clouds of black dust that pelted homes 
and cars.
  This happened. This is why my friend Senator Durbin is so concerned, 
because it happened to his Little League players in the Chicago area. 
When inhaled, these particles can increase the number and severity of 
asthma attacks. They can aggravate bronchitis--I am coughing just at 
the thought of it--lung disease. They reduce the body's ability to 
fight infections. Where does that come from? I will say it again. When 
inhaled, these particles can increase the number and severity of asthma 
attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and 
reduce the body's ability to fight infections. What is the source of 
that? California Air Resources Board, Air Pollution Particulate Matter 
brochure dated May 6, 2009.
  So I don't know how exposing Americans to this kind of pollution is 
in the national interests. I believe instead of waiving all of the 
environmental reports as my Republican friends do in their bill, they 
ought to call for more studies on the health impact of the tar sands 
oil so our families know what they are going to get with this pipeline.
  Also there are spills to worry about. Not only is the Keystone tar 
sands pipeline harmful to human health, it hurts environments and 
communities located near it, because if there is a spill, it is the 
toughest kind of oil to clean up. Here is the source for that: The EPA 
NEPA compliance comment letter, State Department. That is what they 
talk about.
  We have had spills at the tar sands--spills in Michigan, spills in 
Arkansas. If my colleagues don't believe me, ask those folks. Do my 
colleagues know in 2010 a pipeline ruptured and spilled over a million 
gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan? The 
local health department ordered the evacuation of 50 households and 
approximately 100 families were advised not to drink the water. The 
Michigan spill was the largest inland spill in U.S. history and more 
than 40 years and $1 billion later, it is not cleaned up.
  So wait a minute. Let's review. Republicans take over and the first 
bill they give us is the tar sands bill. The only people it helps, in 
my opinion, backed up by fact, are Canadian oil interests. The only 
jobs it creates permanently are 35 jobs. What it does to our health is 
a disaster, because the tar sands oil is the most toxic, dirty type of 
oil, and if there is a spill, it is the hardest to clean up. Who do we 
think is paying the $1 billion to clean up a tar sand spill in 
Michigan? I can tell my colleagues. It is probably most of the 
government. Maybe we are trying to collect some from the private 
sector.
  If my colleagues don't believe me about Michigan, let's turn to 
Mayflower, AR. This is a beautiful neighborhood of homes, as shown in 
this picture. This is filthy, dirty, disgusting oil and the camera is 
taking pictures of it. In 2013, 200,000 gallons of tar sands burst from 
a pipeline, because it is volatile. It burst from the pipeline and 
spilled into the streets of a subdivision. It forced the evacuation and 
abandonment of 22 homes--residents who were exposed to high levels of 
benzene, a known carcinogen, and hydrogen sulfide. People in this 
community--not some made-up, mystical community or mythical community--
in this community they suffered dizziness, nausea, headaches, 
respiratory problems, all classic symptoms of exposure to the chemicals 
found in the tar

[[Page 401]]

sands. So remember this picture and remember the picture of the filthy, 
dirty oil and the petcoke, because a picture tells a thousand words, 
and that is the picture my friends want to make a reality in America. 
Their first great bill, their first great contribution to the economy, 
35 jobs. Please. We can do better. We can work together on a highway 
bill, on a transportation bill. We do so well on that. And we can add 
millions of jobs, especially in the construction industry.
  Now there is the issue of climate change. We know we are dealing with 
a lot of deniers on the other side of the aisle. They deny climate 
change is real. It doesn't matter what we tell them. July was the 
hottest month, August was the hottest month, and September was the 
hottest month in 2014.
  We know what is happening. The world knows what is happening. We have 
deniers here, so they deny any problem and they go rush to build the 
Keystone Pipeline. What will happen is the Keystone Pipeline will 
undermine our efforts to address climate change. The State Department's 
own analysis says a barrel of tar sands oil carried by the Keystone tar 
sands pipeline will create at least 17 percent more carbon pollution 
than domestic oil.
  Peer-reviewed research estimates that the increase in oil consumption 
caused by Keystone could result in up to 110 million metric tons of 
carbon pollution each year--four times the State Department's estimate. 
So this is even more than the State Department says. The source there 
is Erickson et al., ``Nature Climate Change.'' That is a peer-reviewed 
study as well. This is equivalent to carbon pollution adding 23 million 
new cars to the road or building 29 coal-fired powerplants. So the 
State Department is very modest in its projection. Even that is too 
much.
  Here is more. Here is the State Department. That is the 17 percent 
quote. And it could add up to an additional 27 million metric tons of 
carbon pollution each year. That is more of the State Department. This 
is their modest conclusion. We believe the peer-reviewed study shows it 
is far worse than even the State Department says.
  If you don't believe climate change is a problem, I am really sorry 
for your constituency because let me tell you what scientists are 
saying. And I am saying it is 98 percent of scientists. Let's be clear. 
Ninety-eight percent of scientists say climate change is real, and 2 
percent say: We are not so sure. So my friends side with the 2 percent.
  Suppose one of my friends didn't feel well and went to the doctor, 
and the doctor said: I am sorry to tell you this, sir, but you have a 
cancer that is raging over your body, and we need to operate today.
  You say: I want a second opinion.
  That is good. You go get a second opinion.
  The second doctor says: Absolutely, you better get that operation.
  You say: Well, I want a third opinion.
  All right. I understand it. You go for a third opinion. Absolutely, 
those two doctors were right, but you keep going, and you get nine 
opinions that all say: Sir, you are a dead man if you don't get this 
operation. And then you find the 10th, and he says: You know, just go 
on a vegetarian diet, and you will be fine. If you listen to that one 
out of 10 doctors, there is something wrong with you.
  It is just like Big Tobacco. They did the same thing. They said: Oh, 
tobacco is fine, not a problem--until we realized there was a whole 
campaign by the big tobacco companies to turn us away from the fact 
that tobacco causes cancer. That is the truth. Guess what we found out. 
In a Union of Concerned Scientists expose, they found out that the same 
people who led that fight of tobacco denial are leading the fight of 
climate denial.
  If this was just going to hurt you, I say to my Republican friends 
rhetorically, I wouldn't care. I mean, I would be really sad and sorry 
if one of my friends went to the doctor and didn't listen to the best 
advice. But you know what. That hurts him. I would be miserable, and I 
would try to talk him out of it. But this is about my constituents and 
the people of this country. I have to say this is wrong. This is just 
wrong.
  This is an opportunity to bring the parties together. We could have 
done it around so many issues and in particular the highway bill. So 
common sense tells us this isn't the right thing to do. We are looking 
at unleashing this dirty, filthy oil. It is going to be harmful to our 
families' health. It is going to worsen the impact of climate change. 
It will not create the jobs we need to create.
  Again, I urge my colleagues vote no. It is not ready for prime time. 
There are going to be amendments that will reveal the fact that if we 
go forward with this, it is actually going to raise gas prices for 
Americans because all this stuff is going to be exported. Even the tar 
sands that are now currently in America--they are going to export it 
because of the world market. We are going to have amendments that are 
going to show that.
  This bill doesn't even have a ``Made in America'' amendment to it. We 
are going to offer that. Why don't we make this deal here? Why don't we 
put people to work here? That is not in this bill. This bill is not 
ready. This bill does not help us; this bill hurts us. I know my 
friends came here to make this country better. I think they think it 
helps. I don't question that. But if you look at all of the facts--and 
I have them lined up here, one after the other--whether it is the jobs 
impact, the health impact, who benefits, who gets hurt, it is pretty 
clear. It is on the record. All you have to do is look at it. Don't 
shop around for a doctor who will tell you this is a good deal because 
they have already spoken. It is not a good deal. We can do so much 
better.
  Because I think it is going to be a contentious debate, after this I 
hope we turn to the highway bill. My friend Jim Inhofe and I, who 
worked so well together, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
and across the Capitol on the other side, the House, can finally come 
together and do something that will send a strong signal to the 
American people that the election just ended, now let's govern. But 
when you bring things before the body that some of us feel are so 
detrimental to the American people, I am willing to vote on it at 
midnight. It is OK with me. We will vote at midnight and vote at 1 
o'clock in the morning. I don't care what time we vote, but why are we 
taking this up? This is not what we should be doing.
  S. 1--I looked at some of the S. 1 bills the Democrats have put 
forward, and they mostly have to do with creating a lot of jobs or 
making sure there is equal pay for equal work or making sure the 
minimum wage is increased. We could be doing all of those things 
together.
  It is with pride that I stand here again for my State. It is with no 
animosity about the election. It was hard-fought and hard-won. But I 
believe this is an enormous mistake, and I will continue to stand on my 
feet as long as it takes to make the case as to why I think it is wrong 
and make the case where I think there is so much else we could do for 
the good of our people.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for his courtesy.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________