[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 450-463]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
  Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the 
motion to proceed to S. 1, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 1, S. 1, a bill to 
     approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
an hour to discuss the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to address my comments to the 
Keystone XL Pipeline approval bill--the legislation currently before 
the Senate--which is the motion to proceed to this legislation. The 
cloture on the motion to proceed to this legislation was passed 63 
votes in favor to 32 votes against last night. I thank my colleagues 
for that tremendous bipartisan vote, and of course the good news is 
that the vote advances us to the bill. We have to have another vote now 
to actually move to the bill today, and we are working through an 
agreement to hold that vote. Then we will be on the bill and in a 
position where all Members of this body can offer amendments--
Republicans and Democrats alike.
  We will have an open amendment process. We will have regular order. 
We can have an energy debate. Members of this body are going to get to 
do what they haven't been able to do in some time, which is offer their 
amendments, bring forward their ideas, and let's have that energy 
discussion, let's have these amendments brought forward and debated, 
and if they can garner 60 votes, they will be passed and attached to 
the legislation. This is how the Senate is supposed to work and I 
encourage my colleagues to participate by offering their amendments to 
have the debate and do the work of this body--the important work for 
the people of this great Nation.
  I would like to begin the discussion today in support of the Keystone 
XL Pipeline, the Keystone XL approval legislation, which is the bill we 
have in front of us, S. 1.
  I note that my esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from Utah, is 
here. He is a Senator who leads us on a variety of issues and has for 
many years in our caucus, as the chairman of the Finance Committee. He 
certainly understands tax policy and fiscal policy for this country.
  This legislation we are considering is a jobs bill. It is about 
energy. It is about jobs. It is about economic growth. It is about 
national security.
  The Senator from Utah is working on reforming our Tax Code and how we 
can stimulate economic growth in this country. So I wish to turn to him 
right at the outset and ask--as someone who truly understands how our 
economy works and how we have to build a good business climate in this 
country and how we have to empower the development of infrastructure, 
roads, and rails, pipelines and transmission lines as part of building 
an energy policy that will truly make this Nation energy secure--if he 
would take a few minutes and address not only this project on the broad 
basis of its merits, but particularly some of the economic aspects that 
are so important when we are talking about growing our economy and 
putting our people in this country to work in good jobs.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to thank my distinguished colleague 
for leading this fight. He has been leading it for years now. It is 
such a no-brainer. It is amazing to me that we have to go through this 
again. I thank him for yielding to me, and I would like to associate 
myself with the many persuasive arguments that have been made here by 
my colleagues--both Democratic and Republican--urging the speedy 
passage of this legislation.
  To me, the decision to approve this pipeline is an obvious one for a 
host of reasons:
  It will support more than 42,000 good-paying jobs. I didn't quite get 
what the assistant minority leader was saying today on how few jobs it 
will create. It actually will support more than 42,000 good-paying jobs 
during its construction phase.
  It will contribute more than $3.4 billion to our gross domestic 
product.
  It will aid in the goal of North American energy independence.
  As the State Department's environmental impact statement found, 
building the Keystone XL Pipeline will actually be better for the 
environment than not building it. The energy resources the Canadians 
produce will reach the market regardless of whether this pipeline is 
built, and Keystone XL is by far the safest, cleanest, and most 
efficient means of doing so. What are the arguments against it other 
than phony environmental arguments? That was the State Department, 
controlled by them.
  As a commonsense, bipartisan jobs and infrastructure measure, this 
bill is exactly the sort of legislation the Senate should be 
considering as its first order of business in this new Congress, but it 
should not have to be. The story here is about more than a single 
pipeline, no matter how many jobs its construction will create, no 
matter how important it is for our energy independence, and no matter 
how environmentally sound it is. This is a story about a regulatory 
process that is clearly broken. This is a story about special interests 
manipulating the bureaucracy to muck up a process that should be very 
simple and uncontroversial. This is a story about just one of many 
examples of tragically missed opportunities to create good-paying jobs 
and provide relief for household budgets across the country.
  The application for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline was first 
filed in September of 2008--more than 6 years ago. U.S. Senators have 
served more than a full term during that time. Children born after the 
application was filed are now in first grade.
  The notion that any infrastructure project should be held up for such 
a long period is disturbing not just to me but I think to anybody who 
carefully looks at this, but the delay of Keystone XL is even worse. 
Given the strong and well-documented economic and environmental case 
for the pipeline, Keystone is the sort of project that should have been 
quickly and easily approved for construction. But for some committed 
environmentalists inside and outside the Obama administration, common 
sense and balanced consideration of the facts no longer matter. 
Instead, to them, this simple pipeline has become a political symbol, 
regardless of what the science tells us. They have directed their ample 
energies at throwing up every procedural roadblock imaginable to the 
approval of the pipeline. As a result, this project has endured delay 
after delay.
  Over the past few years, the American people have rightly developed 
the

[[Page 451]]

impression that Washington is broken. There can be no better example of 
the consequence of this dysfunction than the Keystone XL Pipeline 
sitting in bureaucratic purgatory.
  When a project such as this--which is good for jobs, good for 
families, and good for families' budgets--gets bogged down in the Obama 
administration's redtape, it is absolutely the responsibility of 
Congress to act. Unfortunately, for years the Senate became a place 
where good ideas such as approving Keystone XL came to die, where 
control of the calendar and the amendment process prevented the 
consideration of so many good, bipartisan issues and ideas. Not only 
was the administrative process broken, but the Senate was also 
paralyzed and unable to step in and fix it.
  By taking up this important bill as our first matter of consideration 
in the new Congress, we are taking steps to restore the Senate to the 
great legislative body it is meant to be, the place where Senators work 
across the aisle to meet the needs of the American people.
  By coming together to propose a commonsense solution to get back on 
track this project which has become such a symbol of what is wrong with 
Washington, my friends from North Dakota and West Virginia are 
demonstrating exactly the sort of thoughtful, inclusive, and bipartisan 
leadership the American people have been demanding as they watched this 
greatest deliberative body in the world become the laughingstock of the 
world because we haven't gotten very much done. We haven't gotten very 
much done because of the way it has been run over the last number of 
years.
  It is my sincere hope that we move quickly and desperately and 
deliberately to approve this measure and that we soon begin considering 
serious regulatory reform to prevent the sorts of abuses we have seen 
bedevil the Keystone XL project. The American people deserve an 
efficient and effective regulatory process that works for them. It is 
time for the Senate to deliver.
  Having said these few words, I wish to personally thank my 
distinguished colleagues from North Dakota and my colleagues from West 
Virginia for the leadership they have provided on this issue.
  Senator Hoeven is a former Governor. He knows what he is talking 
about. He is one of the most reasonable, decent, and honorable people 
in this body. He has shown a great willingness to work with both sides. 
He has continued to fight for this even though it has been uphill for 
more than 6 years. He has continued to fight for it because it is 
right. It is the right thing to do, and it is in our best interest to 
do it and to do it now.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator 
from Utah for his leadership both today and over the past many years on 
this floor. I would like to pick up on a point he emphasized and did so 
very eloquently. He is in a unique position to comment on it, and that 
is the importance of having this open amendment process; having regular 
order on the Senate floor; allowing Senators, Republican and Democratic 
alike, to come forward and bring their ideas forward, bring their 
amendments forward, have this discussion, and do it in an open way.
  The whole effort here is to produce good energy legislation that will 
help this country move forward but also to foster bipartisanship--to 
foster bipartisanship on this bill and other legislation so that we can 
get the work done that this body needs to get done on behalf of the 
American people. That is what this is all about. This is about getting 
the work done for the American people on the important issues our 
country faces.
  That is why this bill is S. 1--not just because it is important 
energy infrastructure legislation, not just because we need to have 
this debate on energy, not just because we need to advance legislation 
to help build our energy future, but because it is truly an effort to 
get this body working in a bipartisan way on this and other important 
issues for the American people. That is what the American people want. 
They want us to get the job done.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Utah for bringing out the important 
fact and discussing why it is so important that we approach legislation 
in that way.
  I would like to turn to my good friend, the senior Senator from the 
great State of Arkansas, somebody who I think really has a good 
understanding of how our economy works and what needs to be done, 
somebody who has good relationships on both sides of the aisle, which 
is so important as we try to build support for this and other 
legislation, and somebody whose State is directly affected by this 
project. I know he will agree with me that it is very important on 
behalf of the State of Arkansas that we move forward with the Keystone 
XL Pipeline project. I think a very high percentage of the pipe that 
goes into this project--about a 1,200-mile-long project--is actually 
manufactured and made in Arkansas. So that is a clear benefit for the 
manufacturing industry and workers in the State of Arkansas that 
correlates directly to this project and to this legislation.
  So I would like to turn to the senior Senator from Arkansas and ask 
him about that and ask him to tell us about the importance of this 
project in terms of what it means to the great State of Arkansas.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about 
the Keystone Pipeline. I also wish to thank the Senator from North 
Dakota for his tireless efforts and his leadership on behalf of getting 
the Keystone Pipeline project moving.
  For the past 6 years I have urged the administration to approve the 
project. I voted for legislation to speed up the pipeline construction. 
This pipeline makes sense for job creation and the future of our 
Nation's energy supply.
  In a recent email survey sent to more than 30,000 Arkansans, I asked 
what issues the new majority in the Senate should focus on in the 114th 
Congress. Participants told me that one of their top priorities is an 
``all of the above'' energy policy that addresses current and future 
energy needs.
  The Senate has an opportunity to pass legislation that is a 
commonsense plan to improve our Nation's energy supply by approving the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. Tapping into these Canadian oil sands will offer 
us a reliable source of energy from one of our strongest allies and 
trading partners. This is good news as we work to reduce our dependence 
on oil from regions of the world that are hostile toward our country, 
and it is good news for Arkansas. Here is why.
  Approval of this infrastructure project will mean jobs. This is one 
reason it has the support of both parties. Organized labor has been 
very vocal in support of the pipeline. Unions understand that this 
infrastructure project will create well-paying jobs for skilled 
laborers, and it will do so at no expense to the taxpayers. And it is 
not just unions; certainly businesses are supportive of the pipeline 
too, as well as an overwhelming majority of Americans.
  Last month, as the Senator from North Dakota alluded to, I toured the 
Welspun Tubular Company, the Little Rock-based company hired to produce 
hundreds of miles of pipeline for the project. Company officers 
estimate that 150 jobs will be created just to load the pipe onto the 
railcars for shipment when the project finally gets the green light.
  The economic impact has wide reach to Arkansans. Blytheville's Nucor 
Corporation was slated to make some of the steel for the pipeline, and 
there is a trickle-down impact throughout the State.
  A central Arkansas Caterpillar employee wrote to me about the 
importance of this project to his job because of its impact on his 
livelihood. ``The Keystone pipeline project would be a huge boost to 
us,'' he wrote.
  Once built, the infrastructure will provide a safe and reliable 
supply of energy. Currently, this oil is transported

[[Page 452]]

from Canada to refiners by rail and truck. A new, modern pipeline poses 
less risk to the environment than these current modes of 
transportation. The project will help maintain lower fuel prices, which 
is good for all Americans.
  At every hurdle, using science and common sense, this project gets 
the green light. Last week Nebraska's Supreme Court upheld the State's 
law approving a route for the pipeline through the State.
  Time and again this project passes the test, but the President has 
threatened to veto the bill. This isn't surprising considering the 
administration spent more than 6 years analyzing this and punting a 
decision down the road until further studies have been conducted. The 
pipeline is being studied literally to death. It is ready to go. Yet 
the President is still looking for ways to stop it.
  The American people deserve this affordable energy. They deserve 
well-paying jobs. Both can be accomplished by building the Keystone 
Pipeline.
  Again, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his tireless efforts 
in the past 6 years trying to get this project off the ground. The good 
news is I think we have made real progress.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Arkansas and once again point out this is another State that will 
benefit from this project. This is a State far removed from the route 
of the project. As I pointed out in earlier debate on this floor, all 
of the States on the route, from Montana to Texas, have approved the 
project--all of them. They have all approved it. The only entity still 
holding up the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline is the Federal 
Government, the Obama administration.
  All of the States have approved it. Those States on the route will 
realize tremendous benefits from the construction--from the 
construction jobs, from the hundreds of millions of dollars they will 
receive in tax revenues, payment in lieu of taxes at the State and 
local level. They will receive tremendous benefit from this project, 
not to mention of course the benefit the whole country receives as we 
become more energy independent by working with Canada to truly achieve 
North American energy security.
  But here is a State, Arkansas, far removed from the route of the 
pipeline. I do not think the oil will--I do not know about refineries 
in Arkansas. I do not think there are refineries there that it will go 
to. It will go to refineries in States such as Louisiana and Texas and 
so forth.
  But even still, Arkansas will benefit directly from this project 
because they manufacture much of the pipe that goes into the project. 
Those are good manufacturing jobs that not only benefit those workers, 
but then you have the secondary impacts. Once again I thank the Senator 
from Arkansas for coming down to the floor and taking a few minutes to 
point that out.
  We will continue over the next several weeks to talk about the 
benefits in other States as well. I thank the good Senator from 
Arkansas at this time. Even though I have floor time reserved until 
about 11:15 or a little more, I would like to actually stop and allow 
the Senator from Washington to talk about her views on it. I know she 
is not--of course, I work with her on the energy committee. She is our 
ranking member. I enjoy and appreciate working with her, but I 
understand she shares different views in this case.
  I ask unanimous consent that her time for the next 10 to 15 minutes, 
as she needs, not be counted against my time. I would be willing to 
defer so she can speak at this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I know we are 
going to be going back and forth on this issue and that we have other 
people coming. Later this morning we are going to have time divided. 
But I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota allowing us to join in 
the debate this morning and make a few points.
  I do want to say I appreciate the hard work of the Senator from North 
Dakota on the energy committee in general. I look forward to working 
with him on many energy policies. He and I have worked together on a 
couple of different agricultural issues. I certainly appreciate his due 
diligence, but needless to say I do not agree with the process of 
moving forward with this motion to proceed to the Keystone XL Pipeline 
bill.
  Many of my colleagues are going to be coming down and talking about 
the issues. Two of my colleagues, including the Senators from Utah and 
Arkansas, along with the Senator from North Dakota, brought up a couple 
of different points. But in my mind, they are talking about a 19th 
century energy policy and fossil fuel instead of us focusing on what 
should be a 21st century energy policy for our country.
  It is unfortunate that S. 1 is a very narrow, specific, special 
interest measure for a pipeline that did not go through the proper 
channels of a permitting process and because of that is flawed. As 
people are heralding it as the new Congress.
  This process continues today with people saying: Let's just give it 
more special interest attention and approve it. I believe America 
should be a leader in energy policy and that our job creation is 
dependent upon that energy policy for the future. We want to see 
America be a leader in this. I applaud the fact that the President 
reached a climate and clean energy agreement with China.
  We are over 60 percent of the world's energy consumption. If the two 
countries can work together on a clean energy strategy, I guarantee 
that will be good business for the U.S. economy. In fact, I read a 
statistic that something like 50 percent of all energy is going to be 
consumed by the buildings in China--there is huge growth in building 
development, but they do not have good building standards so those 
buildings consume too much energy. So there is a lot to do on energy 
efficiency that will grow U.S. jobs and help us. That is why we would 
rather see us focusing on some of the energy policies that we did in 
2005 and 2007. Those things unleash huge opportunities for American 
jobs and huge opportunities for American consumers to get a better deal 
and not be subject to price spikes.
  The 2007 bill had fuel efficiency standards in it and laid the 
foundation for the growth of the hybrid electric car industry and has 
added over 263,000 jobs in the last 5 years. That is the kind of smart 
policy we should be pursuing. We also have had energy bills that made 
investments in clean energy tax credits, something I was just talking 
about with my colleague from Utah, saying we needed to move forward on 
energy tax credits. If there is nothing else that we should be doing, 
we should be doing that as S. 1, because the predictability and 
certainty we would be giving to that industry would certainly unleash 
many jobs.
  So the 2005 and 2007 energy bills that we did in a bipartisan fashion 
helped foster an energy-efficient economy and helped support 450,000 
jobs according to a 2011 Brookings Institution report.
  These are examples of the types of things we have done in the past 
that have unleashed investment, and have grown jobs in the United 
States of America. They are important milestones in the type of clarity 
Congress can give to the private sector to spur growth and development. 
I can guarantee this is the opposite of that. This is about a special 
interest deal and overriding a process, including the White House 
process and local government process, that is so essential.
  Two examples of what we should be doing instead: As I said, the 
energy tax credits which have been delayed. As my colleagues from 
Oregon pointed out at the end of last year, we basically authorized 
them for about 2 more weeks in December. That was about all the 
certainty we gave the industry. A McKinsey report has estimated that 
providing the right incentives for retrofitting buildings and energy 
efficiency would help employ 900,000 people over the next decade; that 
the wind energy tax credit would employ 54,000 people, and there are 
other issues about modernizing our grid and new technology storage.

[[Page 453]]

  There is also very important work to be done in the manufacturing 
sector; that is, to help unleash innovation by making sure we set 
standards on improving efficiency and focusing on lightweight materials 
for both automobiles and aviation. We have seen huge job growth in the 
Pacific Northwest because we were able to transform aerospace into 
lighter weight materials. We are also working on a biojet fuel.
  So all of these things mean we have to get the R&D right, we have to 
get the tax credits right, and we need to help protect consumers from 
spiking energy prices. This is the evolution. I do not think anybody in 
America thinks we are going to hold on to a 19th century fossil fuel 
economy forever. The question is, Whether Congress is going to spend 
its time moving forward on a 21st century plan that gives the 
predictability and certainty to unleash that leadership and capture the 
opportunities in developing markets around the globe or whether we are 
going to hold on to the last elements of fossil fuel forever and leave 
our constituents more at risk.
  But I would like to take a few minutes and talk about this process my 
colleagues are trying to describe as to why we need to hurry. Because I 
can guarantee that is what people have been trying to do all along, 
hurry this along for a special interest. I do not believe that is good 
for the American people. I do not think it is good for this process.
  If we think about where we have been, this process is about people 
who are trying to push a route through no matter what the 
circumstances. Every State, people are saying, has approved this 
process. I can guarantee there are a lot of people in Nebraska and a 
lot of people in South Dakota who do not agree with that. They are very 
concerned about the public interest.
  Unfortunately, in the case of the Keystone XL project, landowners and 
ranchers in Nebraska affected by the pipeline did not feel they were 
afforded equal opportunity before the law. In their view the process 
was set up to benefit a special interest, the TransCanada Corporation. 
On three separate occasions, beginning in 2011, the Nebraska 
Legislature passed carve-outs to circumvent the role of the public 
service commission to approve the Keystone Pipeline.
  If this was such a great deal, why can't it go through the normal 
process, as in every other State, with a transportation and utilities 
commission ruling on siting? Why do we have to take the public interest 
out of it? The first carve-out included the Major Oil Pipeline Siting 
Act of 2011. So this bill laid out the rule that the public service 
commission determined whether a new pipeline project was in the public 
interest. In making this decision, the legislature required that the 
commission consider eight criteria.
  Among them: the environmental impact of water and wildlife and 
vegetation, the economic and social impact, the alternative route, the 
impact to future development in the pipeline's proposal, and the views 
of counties and cities. OK. That all sounds great, right? That is what 
the legislature says they should be considering. But the legislature 
also required the commission to hold public hearings and have public 
comment--OK, we are still on the right track--and importantly required 
the commission to establish a process for appealing the decision, so 
that any aggrieved party could have due process rights under the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
  Here is the punch line. Tucked away in that Nebraska legislation was 
a special interest carve-out that exempted TransCanada--Keystone XL--
from having to comply with the public service commission process. 
Specifically, the legislation stated, ``. . . shall not apply to any 
major oil pipeline that has submitted an application to the US 
Department of State pursuant to Executive Order 13337 prior to the 
effective date of this act.''
  There was only one company that qualified for this special interest 
exemption at the time of that legislation; that was TransCanada. So you 
got it. The legislature basically exempted them from that process, even 
though they were stating that these are the processes that you should 
go through. So at the very time the legislature created new rules for 
due process on the pipeline, it exempted them from those rules. I do 
not understand why TransCanada cannot play by the rules, but I 
guarantee you Congress does not have to join in and make S. 1 a special 
interest bill. They should make sure everyone plays by the rules.
  In this same legislative session, the Nebraska legislature also 
passed the Oil Pipeline Route Certification Act. This bill provided 
Keystone XL with an expedited review process by the Nebraska Department 
of Environmental Quality and gave the sole authority to approve the 
project to the Governor. Unfortunately, for the legislature and for 
TransCanada, these carve-outs quickly became irrelevant because 
President Obama denied the application in 2012. That is in part due to 
the fact that Congress had decided to try to intervene in the matter. 
That is when Congress said this is important and we should go ahead and 
do this.
  I am going to get into more detail on that in a second. This is 
important to understand because the initial Nebraska legislation was so 
narrowly tailored, it was designed to benefit the TransCanada pipeline 
and its pending date of enactment. What happened next? The legislature 
went back to the drawing board and created a third new special carve-
out for the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  The day following the President's denial of TransCanada's 
application, a new bill was introduced in the Nebraska Legislature. 
This bill was yet another path around the existing due process afforded 
to citizens in that State. The legislation allowed the company to 
choose whether to go through a formal process with the public service 
commission or seek expedited review with the Governor. I am sure a lot 
of U.S. companies would love to have that opportunity.
  These are U.S. companies that have to pay lawyers, go through 
environmental processes, make sure all of the issues are addressed. I 
am sure American companies would love to know any day of the week they 
can just go past a utility commission and get the Governor to stamp 
``approved'' on their project. Under this expedited approach, the 
legislature authorized the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 
to independently conduct an environmental impact report. However, 
unlike due process required by the public service commission, this 
process required only token outreach to the public.
  There was just one public hearing in 2012. This special process 
provided no recourse for aggrieved parties. There was no formal appeals 
process. Other than the courts, there was no administrative process 
with the ability for stakeholders to challenge the facts as a matter of 
record to base their formal appeal on. These are fundamental 
differences between an expedited consideration within the Governor's 
office and a process requiring a public interest determination by 
relevant decisionmakers at a commission.
  I know my colleagues here would like to argue that somehow this has 
been a long, drawn-out process. This has really been a process by one 
company constantly circumventing the rules on the books and trying to 
get a special deal for approval. We have to ask ourselves why. Why do 
they want to proceed this way?
  I know my colleagues always like to talk about their neighbors. My 
neighbors in British Columbia are not so thrilled about tar sands 
pipeline activity. They are not interested in it. So maybe that is why 
TransCanada wants to hurry and get this process through in the United 
States.
  I ask my colleagues, do you have confidence the public interest was 
really taken into consideration--that you run over the interests of 
private property owners on these issues? Was the department of 
environmental quality evaluation comprehensive?
  I can say one Nebraska landowner described the report as ``an 
incomplete evaluation of a natural resource with the magnitude of the 
Ogallala Aquifer, and now it is left in the hands of TransCanada to do 
their own policing.''

[[Page 454]]

  Another family, who has been ranching for more than five generations 
in Nebraska, said the process left landowners with nowhere to turn with 
their concerns of erosion, water contamination or eminent domain.
  Another landowner had this to say about circumventing the process in 
Nebraska:

       I feel it is not in the best interest of Nebraska, nor the 
     citizens of Nebraska, to have our legislators crafting 
     special legislation to meet the specific demands of an 
     individual corporation.

  I couldn't agree with them more. That is exactly what we are trying 
to do today.
  The same stakeholders in Nebraska have also questioned the appearance 
of conflict of interest associated with the Nebraska Department of 
Environmental Quality report since it was prepared by a contractor who 
also worked for TransCanada and Exxon on different joint pipeline 
projects.
  Meanwhile, a majority of the State Supreme Court, 4 out of 7 
justices, just last week ruled that the legislature and the Governor's 
actions were unconstitutional.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator has consumed 15 
minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 2 
minutes to wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. My colleague has already given me some time this 
morning--and I can certainly come back and add more to the debate--but 
what I am outlining is exactly how this process has circumvented the 
laws of this land. One more action by this body is exactly what this 
special interest company is seeking.
  If Congress had succeeded in pushing the President of the United 
States into agreeing to the original route through Nebraska in 2011, 
the route would have been right through the Ogallala Aquifer. Even 
TransCanada had already agreed that it needed to change the route. I 
don't know why we are being asked to push something through when we 
really should allow the State Department to do its job.
  I will have much more to say on this process of the circumventing of 
public interest; about the devastating spill in the Kalamazoo River, 
and the fact that we don't know all we need to know about tar sands 
cleanup in water; and the fact that Midwest gasoline prices could be 
affected if this pipeline is approved.
  There are many issues. So I will gladly debate this with my 
colleagues throughout the rest of this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to resume my time for the colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I will take a couple of minutes to respond to the points 
that my colleague on the energy committee just brought up with regard 
to both the process and also in regard to the timeline for approval of 
this project. Then I will turn to my cosponsor, the Senator from West 
Virginia, and get some of his input on the project.
  Now we are starting to get into the kind of debate that we have 
wanted from day one. I had the good fortune to serve as Governor of my 
great State of North Dakota, and the good Senator on the floor with me 
from West Virginia was Governor at the same time of his State of West 
Virginia. We worked together many times on issues. I am a Republican, 
and he is a Democrat. We found common ground as Governors, and we found 
common ground in the Senate.
  This is what this is all about. This is what we want to have happen 
among our colleagues so we can get this and other important legislation 
addressed, passed, and help our country.
  But before I turn to my colleague from West Virginia, I wish to touch 
briefly on a couple of points that the ranking member of our energy 
committee brought up a moment ago. As she said, she opposes the 
project. I understand and respect her views, but she talked about the 
length of time the approval process takes.
  What I have to point out is that we have been in this approval 
process now for more than 6 years. So when she talks about needing more 
time to get the project approved, it is hard to understand how we are 
going to have a working, functioning economy, how we are going to get 
the private sector to invest the billions of dollars it takes. This 
project alone is the largest shovel-ready project that is ready to go--
just under $8 billion, $7.9 billion--and it has been held up for more 
than 6 years.
  America got into World War II and won the war in less than 6 years. 
Building the Hoover Dam, I believe, took less than 6 years. If we are 
going to create the kind of environment where we stimulate investment 
by the private sector, get our economy growing and growing and get 
people back to work, we can't hold private investment up.
  Remember, not one penny of Federal spending--almost $8 billion, 
almost all private investment that will help create jobs, help grow our 
economy, create hundreds of millions in tax revenue, help us to build 
our energy future, help us with national security by being energy 
secure--all those things--and the Federal Government has held them up 
for more than 6 years.
  How can we argue that there is any process there that works in any 
kind of a realistic or commonsense way when it has been up for more 
than 6 years.
  Specifically--as regards the State of Nebraska--in 2012 I put forward 
legislation which we passed in this body attached to the payroll tax 
holiday that required the President to make a decision.
  We didn't tell them what decision to make. We just said: Hey, you 
have to make a decision. At that point the project had been under 
review for 4 years--long enough, Mr. President, to make a national 
interest determination. That is what the legislation said that we 
attached to the payroll tax holiday. It passed with 73 votes.
  The President at that time said: No, I am not going to make a 
decision on the project now because of what he perceived to be the 
problem with the route in Nebraska.
  Remember, this project goes through States from Montana to Texas. 
Here it is. Remember, it is not carrying only Canadian crude. It 
carries crude from my State of North Dakota and the State of Montana. 
Light, sweet Bakken crude goes into this pipeline as well.
  Everyone talks about the Canadian crude, but they forget that this 
moves domestic crude as well. My State alone produces 1.2 million 
barrels of oil a day, and we are moving 700,000 of barrels a day on 
trains because we can't get enough pipelines. Here we want to put 
100,000 barrels a day into this pipeline, and we have been waiting for 
6 years putting more and more oil on rail cars, congestion on the 
rails. We can't move our agriculture products, and we have been held up 
for 6 years. But in 2012 we passed that bill.
  This body passed it, then the House, and it went to the President. 
Then he turned it down because he said the routing wasn't right in 
Nebraska. There is an objection here. Here we see the pipeline goes 
through Nebraska.
  He said: No, I am not going to approve it at this point because they 
have to square it away in Nebraska.
  In Nebraska, the State legislature, the elected body of the people, 
went to work with Governor Dave Heineman, a good friend of mine, and 
the Senator from West Virginia as well. We served with Governor Dave 
Heineman.
  The elected body of the people, the legislature, went to work with 
the Governor. They went through a long process. They rerouted the 
pipeline to address any concerns regarding the Ogallala Aquifer and any 
other concerns that had been brought--a long laborious process--and 
approved it.
  Every State on the route has approved the project. They have all 
approved it. They have had 6 years to do it. So it wasn't like they had 
to hurry, but they all approved it. Yet the Federal Government 
continues to hold it up and say: Oh, well, we have concerns.
  Now, my esteemed colleague from Washington, who opposes the project, 
said that she was concerned about the supreme court decision.
  Well, remember, the supreme court decision came up because after the

[[Page 455]]

State of Nebraska approved the project, then opponents challenged it, 
forced it into court, and it went to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The 
Nebraska Supreme Court found in favor of the Governor and the 
legislature for the State of Nebraska. They found in favor of the 
route, and the State of Nebraska said that is as it should be--OK.
  So that is all that was covered at great length by the elected 
representatives of the State of Nebraska and the Nebraska Supreme 
Court. I mean, how much more does this take? Furthermore, there is the 
point that my colleague was making: Well, if we had rushed, somehow 
this would have been a problem.
  We put it in the legislation in section 2, under the private property 
savings clause, to make sure that if there is any issue such as that it 
is addressed in this legislation. So the very concern that she has 
raised is in the legislation.
  The reason it is in there is because the good Senator from Montana--
which is also on the route--Mr. Tester, wanted this provision in the 
bill. He is also a Democrat. In showing the bipartisanship of the bill, 
he said: Well, let's make sure we take care of that. So we put language 
in the bill to make sure that the language we just addressed on the 
floor is addressed. It is very short, and I will read it--section 2, 
subsection (e):

       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 described 
     in section (a).

  So we tried to make sure--and furthermore--let me also read judicial 
review. That section is long, and I won't read it. But we also provided 
for judicial review so that if any of those issues are a concern--in 
addition to the language we put in to protect States rights--you also 
have judicial review. I don't know how much more we can do to make sure 
any and all concerns she just raised in regard to the process of the 
individual States is protected.
  Again, I make the case today that we have all gone through great 
lengths to approve the project. The only entity blocking it now after 
more than 6 years is the Federal Government.
  There is one other point I would make briefly before turning to the 
Senator from West Virginia. The good Senator from Washington talked 
about alternative energy sources, renewable energy sources, other 
energy resources, and how we need to develop them. They create jobs, 
and that is great.
  This is a note on which I will turn to my cosponsor, the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia. We are for ``all of the 
above'' energy approach, but we have to get over the idea that somehow 
they are mutually exclusive. We go forward and build important 
infrastructure so that we can make sure that we don't have to import 
oil from OPEC or from countries such as Venezuela or from other parts 
of the world, to ensure that we can be secure in energy and that we can 
produce as much or more oil than we consume--both domestic oil 
production and in Canada. We need the infrastructure.
  But that in no way precludes the development of any other sources of 
energy. They are not mutually exclusive. So to say that we should be 
doing one and not the other--how does that make sense? Let's do them 
both.
  On that note, I turn to my colleague. Ask anybody in this body, 
particularly those coming to the Senate as a former Governor. He is 
somebody who not only is very bipartisan in his approach to all of 
these issues, somebody who has not only advocated for producing all of 
the above in terms of energy, but somebody who has done it in his time 
as Governor.
  So I turn to my colleague and say: Can't we do both? Isn't approving 
this part of doing it all?
  Mr. MANCHIN. First, I thank the Senator from North Dakota, my friend, 
for taking the lead and working with me so closely. I am very excited 
about the process, the open amendment process.
  We are learning a lot in debates, a lot of good ideas are coming out 
of this. When all is said and done, we will have a better piece of 
legislation. That is what this is all about.
  Let me make sure everyone understands this is not all about 
pipelines. If this is about an XL pipeline or any other pipeline, we 
wouldn't have a hundred thousand miles of pipeline in America already. 
Since the Industrial Revolution we would not have built all the 
pipelines needed to carry the energy that we need to run this country. 
This is not about pipeline.
  This is about the concerns we all have with greenhouse gas emissions 
and the development of the oil sands in Canada--nothing to do with the 
pipeline.
  With that being said. We have to be very clear that Canada is going 
to develop the oil sands whether or not the Keystone pipeline is built. 
That is a fact, and we have talked about this.
  The State Department--our own State Department in this great country 
of ours, the United States of America--has conducted five environmental 
assessments of the Keystone Pipeline and have found in all of them that 
the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Now 
these are the things we have to be cognizant of.
  The State Department also found the pipeline is unlikely to 
significantly affect the rate of extraction in Canadian oil 
development. That means whatever we do here is not going to change the 
rate of development in the oil sands.
  The State Department also examined alternatives to the proposed XL 
Pipeline. These alternatives included what would happen if no action 
were taken at all. Let's say we do nothing here; that nothing comes 
about with this pipeline. Likely, the crude would be shipped westward 
by rail or by tanker. That is happening today. So they are going to 
ship it anyway. And if that continued, it would be considered no 
action. If we take no action here and don't build this pipeline for 
whatever reason, the greenhouse gas emissions--which we are all 
concerned about, and our debates are about that, really--will be 
between 28 to 42 percent higher if we do nothing.
  So those people who are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions 
should say: Well, OK, why do we want to contribute to more? The 
pipeline decreases that. If we don't do it, we have 28 to 42 percent 
more emissions by how we will move this oil. So the pipeline addresses 
our energy security limits, and I have talked about that before, and 
our dependence on foreign oil.
  I have said this many times. We all are entitled to our opinions, and 
I think we are all going to hear all those opinions in the next couple 
of weeks. But what we are not entitled to is our own set of facts, 
because the facts are what they are. I have said this before, and I 
will repeat it again, and I will continue to repeat: We buy, as of the 
2013 figures from the Department of Energy's EIA, we--the United States 
of America--buy 7 million barrels of crude oil a day. Whether we like 
it or not, we are buying it. Now, I am sure people say: I wish we 
didn't. Well, that is what it takes for our economy to run. We are 
buying that oil--7 million barrels a day.
  Then we need to look at where the oil is coming from. If you are 
upset with Canada producing oil, we already buy 2\1/2\ million a day 
from Canada right now. We are already dependent upon Canada for 2\1/2\ 
million barrels a day.
  We also buy oil from other countries, and I think we should all 
question why we are buying oil from these other countries, especially 
when we look at Venezuela. We buy 755,000 barrels a day from Venezuela. 
They are an authoritarian regime that impoverishes their citizens. We 
know that. They violate their human rights and have shown their 
willingness to put down political protest with horrific violence. Yet 
we are supporting that by purchasing a product from them which they 
then use the resources from to continue this type of regime.
  The same here: In 2013, we bought 1.3 million barrels from Saudi 
Arabia. Now I don't know about my colleagues, but I question whether 
the resources from that or the proceeds from that oil that we paid 
Saudi Arabia for were used for the betterment of the United States of 
America, for our best interests. I have my doubts about that.

[[Page 456]]

  We also buy over 40,000 barrels a day from Russia. I don't need to 
say anything about what is going on there. I think we all know that.
  The Keystone Pipeline would allow us to safely import more oil from a 
stable ally and one of our best trading partners. In fact, it is the 
No. 1 trading partner of 35 of our 50 States in the United States of 
America. Our No. 1 trading partner is Canada. It is also the most 
stable regime we have, the best ally we have ever had.
  The pipeline will have a final capacity of a little more than 800,000 
barrels a day. So right there we could stop buying any oil from 
Venezuela or cut down dramatically the amount of oil we buy from Saudi 
Arabia and become less dependent. We can continue to produce energy in 
North America while stabilizing global supply as well as benefiting 
Americans and our allies.
  In fact, last year, one of President Obama's former national security 
advisors--one of the President's former national security advisors, 
Retired Marine Gen. James Jones--told the Foreign Relations Committee:

       The international bullies who wish to use energy scarcity 
     as a weapon against us all are watching intently. If we want 
     to make Mr. Putin's day and strengthen his hand, we should 
     reject the Keystone.

  Let me repeat that:

       If we want to make Mr. Putin's day and strengthen his hand, 
     we should reject the Keystone. If we want to gain an 
     important measure of national energy security, jobs, tax 
     revenue and prosperity to advance our work on the spectrum of 
     energy solutions that don't rely on carbon, it should be 
     approved.

  So you have to decide which side you are on. Do you want to make Mr. 
Putin's day or do you want to find alternatives and use all of the 
above and be less dependent on foreign oil?
  In addition to our national security interests and energy 
independence, this bill will also create thousands of jobs. I think we 
have talked about that. I hear the argument: Well, yes, but they are 
not going to be permanent. You know, we have built a lot of bridges in 
America, a lot of infrastructure, and a lot of roads. I don't know of 
any permanent jobs we have after we build a bridge, but we have a lot 
of good construction jobs when we are building the bridge. I don't know 
of any permanent jobs after we build a road, but we have a lot of good 
construction and high-paying jobs. And when you start looking at that, 
the building and construction trades, the teamsters, the AFL-CIO, all 
of our friends of working Americans, the middle class--the hard-working 
Americans--support this piece of legislation. They want these jobs.
  Our own State Department says it will create about 42,000 jobs to 
construct the pipeline and thousands of other related jobs. So why 
don't we seize the opportunity?
  We talk about amendments. This is an open amendment process. A lot of 
my colleagues, a lot of my Democratic colleagues on my side of the 
aisle, have some great ideas and I am going to work with them. I agree 
with my Democratic friends that companies shipping oil through this 
pipeline should pay the excise tax to the oilspill trust fund. There is 
no reason they should be exempted from these payments. I am going to 
work with them to put that amendment in. It is a good amendment and it 
will strengthen the bill. That is what the amendment process is about.
  I agree also with my colleagues on the Democratic side that any steel 
needed in the future on this product should be bought from American 
steel companies. That is great. That is promoting more jobs in America: 
Buy American steel. Don't let them dump on us. We should be supporting 
American jobs.
  I also agree with our friends we shouldn't export any of our oil 
abroad. If that oil comes to America, it should be subjected to the 
same laws as all the oil that is extracted in America. So if we extract 
in the Balkans, if we extract in Texas, we treat them all the same. 
Those are all good amendments.
  I would like to think this process will strengthen a piece of 
legislation and hopefully give us 68, 70 votes. That would really give 
us a good piece of legislation for the American people.
  We have been promised an open amendment process, and I am so thankful 
for that. This presents an incredibly valuable opportunity to 
accomplish some of our Democratic priorities--some of our Democratic 
priorities that we talk about all the time on my side of the aisle. I 
believe the process will improve the bill, and I hope to convince my 
colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
  Let us get the needed votes we need to make sure we move our country 
forward, become less dependent on foreign oil and more self-sufficient 
and more secure as a nation.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I know we have several colleagues who want to come and 
speak on other issues this morning, and then we have some Members who 
want to join back in on this debate, but I want to make a few points 
and finish up my remarks from earlier and then yield to our other 
colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I ask the Senator to yield for the purpose of a question. 
I want to understand the time. I need about 3, 4 minutes to wrap up. I 
did relinquish 15 minutes for the other side, so I would request 3 to 4 
minutes to wrap up and then I would certainly yield the floor to her.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Go right ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I just want to wrap up.
  I want to thank the Senator from West Virginia. I am glad we are 
engaged in this debate. I think we should debate all aspects of it, as 
we are, and I look forward to that continuing effort.
  I do, though, want to wrap up on a point as to the environmental 
impact. We have talked about a number of different aspects of this 
pipeline project. We are talking about taking great care in the 
approval process to address all the issues at the State level. We have 
talked about making sure we put provisions in the bill to respect that 
State process. That has been going on for more than 6 years and, 
obviously, it is now well past time for the Federal Government to move 
forward and make its decision.
  But again, back to that process. If the President continues to oppose 
this legislation--and he has indicated he will veto it because he has a 
process and he hasn't finished the process--then he needs to 
demonstrate and finish the process. He indicated he was holding out for 
the decision in Nebraska. Well, the decision in Nebraska has been 
completed. So if there is a process, if there is a real process, then 
he needs to make a decision and he needs to tell us when he is going to 
make that decision. And if the President follows his process, he needs 
to make a decision in favor of the project. Because as I am pretty sure 
we are going to hear from some of the opponents of the project, they 
will say: Oh, well, based on environmental issues, that is why he 
should turn it down.
  I understand and respect their views on some of the climate change 
issues, and they are certainly entitled to those opinions, but based on 
five studies--three draft environmental impact statements and two final 
environmental impact statements done on this project--the Obama 
administration's State Department in those environmental impact 
statements found this will result: As a result of this project, ``no 
significant environmental impact.''
  I understand they are going to spend a lot of time talking about 
their views on climate change, and that is fine. I understand that. But 
there is a difference between opinion and that general discussion and 
the science of this project. That is the finding by the Obama 
administration.
  We will have more discussion on this issue, in addition to the fact 
that Canada is working to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from oil 
production in their country and in the oil sands. Since 1990, on a per-
barrel basis, they have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by about 28 
percent, and they are continuing to do more. So they are addressing the 
environmental

[[Page 457]]

issue by doing what? Investing in technology that not only produces 
more energy but does it with better environmental stewardship.
  So instead of empowering that investment, here we want to block it? 
That is not the way to address better environmental stewardship. The 
way to do it is by encouraging the investment that not only produces 
more energy but does it with better environmental stewardship.
  Again, I want to thank my colleague and fellow member of the energy 
committee for deferring so I could wrap up, and I look forward to 
continuing this debate and discussion on this important issue.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as I said, I know we have other 
colleagues here, so I will wrap up my opening remarks on the debate, 
then turn it over to other colleagues who are wanting to speak on this 
subject and other matters this morning.
  I want to respond to a couple of things, because I know our 
colleagues keep thinking this is something we have to do and we have to 
expedite. But the reason why this project hasn't been approved to date 
is because we haven't followed the process, and people keep bringing up 
objections to that process.
  Along those lines, I want to turn back to congressional involvement 
in this matter during the back-and-forth with Nebraska on the pipeline 
route change in the Sandhills region.
  During the time from 2008 until 2012, the U.S. State Department was 
reviewing TransCanada's initial pipeline application. This process 
requires a national interest determination by the President. It is 
worth reminding my colleagues this was a process laid out by President 
Bush. But in the review of that process, in their initial application, 
the State Department, in 2011, announced that an alternative route 
through Nebraska needed to be found to avoid the uniquely sensitive 
terrain of the Sandhills area.
  The President and the State Department said we need to go a different 
route. So what happens next? One would think that most people would 
stop and listen and say: Oh, my gosh, there is a concern about this 
aquifer. But that is not what happened. That is not what happened. 
People came to Congress and said: We should get the old route approved 
in the aquifer that provides 30 percent of the groundwater for 
irrigation through the United States--where a spill would have been 
disastrous.
  At the same time the State Department was telling the company, we 
have real concerns; you need to re-route the pipeline. The company was 
coming here to Congress trying to push the old route through at the 
same time the State Department was negotiating. So I would say to my 
colleagues, if you think you are helping this process, you are hurting 
it. You are trying to take away the negotiating power of the State 
Department to make sure that environmental and public interest issues 
are addressed here.
  Now I know my colleague, whom I look forward to working with on the 
energy committee, thinks his legislation has protected something in the 
area of property rights, but let me be clear: This legislation ensures 
that the status quo in Nebraska under the Supreme Court decision last 
week will stand. It simply affirms that the use of eminent domain on 
behalf of TransCanada will be the law. So we are not doing anything in 
this legislation to protect them. Jamming Keystone XL onto the 
temporary payroll tax cut bill was a mistake, and the bill today is 
also a mistake. This bill says, ``Don't try to answer all of these 
questions that we think the State Department should decide in our 
national interest.'' The President should have the ability to say yes 
or no on this.
  I would like the President to answer these questions as they relate 
to the tar sands oil in water, only because I had a chance to ask the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard a year ago about this issue. We are very 
concerned about the transport of tar sands out of the Pacific 
Northwest. The commandant at that time said we have no solution--no 
solution. So when my colleague from Michigan talked about the $1.2 
billion that was spent on tar sands cleanup because it sank in the 
Kalamazoo River, I think these are issues that the State Department has 
every right to raise with the company to get answers on.
  Just recently TransCanada has been redoing some of its pipeline in 
other areas because it has also found that the welds in the pipeline 
were not properly done. So in the State Department's Environmental 
Impact Statement, it required TransCanada to get a third-party 
validator to validate whether it was actually meeting the standards we 
want to see on the pipeline; but, no, our colleagues would like to 
interrupt that and say: We know best, just like we were ready to make 
it right with the Sandhills aquifer. We know best.
  So I ask my colleagues not to rush a process that has been failed 
from the beginning, that did not allow for the public interest to be 
adequately afforded its right.
  I don't understand what the hurry is. I do want to hurry on energy 
policy, but it has much more to do with getting the tax credits and 
clean energy incentives in place that will unleash thousands of more 
jobs and give predictability. That is the prerogative and the 
responsibility of Congress, to look at these tax incentives to 
establish economic incentives. It is not our job to site pipelines when 
the local process has not played out. At least don't stop the President 
from making sure these environmental issues are addressed.
  My colleague from Massachusetts has been waiting, and I know he was a 
leader in the House of Representatives prior to his time in the Senate 
making sure that tar sands should pay into the oilspill liability trust 
fund, and I certainly appreciate his leadership on that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I rise for recognition to speak on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Presiding Officer very much and I thank the 
Senator from Washington for her great leadership on this issue.
  We are having the beginning of an historic debate here on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate. We are debating whether the dirtiest oil in the 
world, the tar sands from Canada, is going to be brought through the 
United States in a pipeline, like a straw, and brought right down to 
Port Arthur, TX, to a tax-free export zone so that it can be exported 
out of the United States.
  What is in it for our country?
  Well, when you think about it, we are going to take the environmental 
risk, but the benefits flow to the Canadian companies. The benefits 
flow to the oil companies. This whole argument that it deals with 
American energy independence is false, and the way in which we are 
going to ensure that we are protected is that we are going to bring an 
amendment out here on to the Senate floor to debate whether this oil 
should stay in the United States. We export young men and women 
overseas to protect these ships coming back from the Middle East with 
oil. Why should we export the oil that is already in the United States 
when it can reduce our dependence? That is our challenge, and we must 
deal with that.
  As well, the Canadians under existing law are exempt from paying a 
tax into an oilspill liability fund. That can no longer continue as 
well. That is upwards of $2 billion over 10 years to deal with 
oilspills in the United States created by Canadian oil, and they are 
exempt. That is wrong. That is just plain wrong. So this is a very 
important debate, but it goes right to the heart--let's admit it--of 
energy independence in the United States. That oil should not come to 
our country, go right through it and out. We have a responsibility to 
the young men and women we send around the world to not provide any 
false advertising about this oil and where it is going to go.


                             Net Neutrality

  Secondly, I want to talk a little bit about net neutrality. We are 
coming up to the first anniversary of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 
striking down the rules the Federal Communications

[[Page 458]]

Commission had put on the books to protect the Internet, to ensure that 
it is open, that it is entrepreneurial. Network neutrality is just a 
fancy word for nondiscrimination, just a fancy word for saying that it 
is open, that entrepreneurs, that smaller voices have access, so they 
cannot be blocked by communications behemoths. This is an issue that 
goes right to the heart of job creation in the United States of 
America.
  Consider this. In 2013, 60 percent of all of the venture capital 
funds invested in the United States of America went toward Internet-
specific and software companies. That is all you have to know. That is 
60 percent of all venture capital money. That is why 4 million people 
have registered with the Federal Communications Commission their views 
that net neutrality is central to this entrepreneurial activity in our 
country. The FCC is going to promulgate or announce the beginning of 
the promulgation of new regulations in February. We are on the first 
anniversary right now of the rules having been struck down. There are 
none.
  From my perspective, this goes right to the heart of the new 
generation of companies. Yes, we have Google and eBay and Amazon and 
YouTube and all rest of these first-generation companies, but there are 
new companies like Dwolla and Etsy that are at the heart of the new job 
creation, and we have to make sure they and others like them are not 
denied access.
  So, in both of these issues, net neutrality and on the pipeline issue 
coming down from Canada, it is all about job creation. It is all about 
making sure that if America is going to take the risk, America should 
get the benefit. And it is not going to on the pipeline issue. It is 
not. This is the dirtiest oil in the world. This is going to contribute 
to dangerous global warming.
  Yet the oil companies are going to be able to sell it out on the open 
market. And why? Because the price of a barrel of oil on the open 
market is $17 higher than it is in Canada. You don't have to go to a 
business school to figure out this model. Get it out and onto the open 
seas, sell it to China, sell it to Latin America, sell it to other 
countries around the world. That is what this is all about. That is 
what is at the heart of this entire Keystone Pipeline agenda.
  It is wrong for us to be short-circuiting a process that will 
guarantee that the environment of our country, the environment of our 
planet is, in fact, protected by the President and by the process that 
has been put in place.
  I am so glad we are finally having this debate to make sure we put 
all of the facts out on the table.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for up to 4 minutes, followed by Senator Shaheen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Isakson and Mrs. Shaheen pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 150 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, I have two unanimous 
consent requests: No. 1, that Senator Whitehouse be allowed to follow 
me and, No. 2, that my remarks not break up the debate on the pipeline 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, with all of the issues our country 
faces, here we are debating a Canadian pipeline. What are we doing? A 
new majority has taken over the Senate and their first bill--their 
opening gambit--is the Keystone Pipeline. What is going on?
  Is it about jobs? There has been an awful lot of talk about jobs over 
the last couple of days, but this opening gambit--both obviously and 
demonstrably--has nothing to do about jobs. If this were about jobs, 
instead bring up the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, the 
bipartisan bill the Republicans spiked last year. That bill has been 
estimated to produce nearly 200,000 jobs, more than quadruple the 
42,000 jobs supported by the construction of the pipeline.
  If this were about jobs, bring up the highway bill, which came out of 
EPW unanimously last year. That bill was estimated to support 3 million 
jobs a year, 70 times the number of jobs the Keystone Pipeline will 
produce. Forty-two thousand is a pittance compared to that.
  Right now the economy is adding over 70,000 jobs every week. In the 3 
weeks we spend arguing about this bill, we will add five times as many 
jobs as the Keystone Pipeline would provide. We matched Keystone in 
just 4 average days of job growth. Yet we are going to spend 3 weeks on 
this issue?
  If this were truly about jobs, bring up an infrastructure bill--the 
kind our Republican friends have relentlessly stymied when they were in 
the minority. Set up an infrastructure fund. God knows wherever we look 
American infrastructure is crumbling. Schools, airports, trains, water, 
health information infrastructure, smart grids, and broadband are all 
yearning for activity.
  We could do very big things on jobs. We get 13,000 jobs on average 
for every $1 billion spent on infrastructure, and we need the 
infrastructure, but instead we are doing this. It is definitely not 
about jobs.
  Is it about the merits of the pipeline? Hardly. With oil prices at 
$50 per barrel, it is not even clear that the pipeline is viable. The 
State Department calculated that crude oil prices below $75 per barrel 
would limit the development of tar sands crude.
  According to a recent report from the Canadian Energy Research 
Institute, due to a steep increase in production costs, new tar sands 
projects require crude prices of at least $85 per barrel to break even. 
We are around $50 per barrel. The U.S. Energy Information Agency 
predicts that crude oil prices will average below $65 well into 2015.
  Shell, Total, and Statoil have all canceled or postponed major tar 
sands expansion projects. Southern Pacific Resources has nearly gone 
broke transporting heavy crude to the gulf by rail. The Canexus 
terminal in Alberta has run far below capacity, plagued by logistical 
problems, lost contracts with developers, and has been put up for sale. 
At $50 per barrel this pipeline could already be a zombie pipeline--
dead man walking.
  Moreover, Keystone XL would be an environmental disaster. 
Notwithstanding the talking points to the contrary, the facts prove 
otherwise. As a source of carbon pollution alone, it will produce the 
equivalent of as many as 6 million added cars on our roads for 50 
years. That is enough added carbon pollution to erase 70 percent of the 
carbon reductions from the recent motor vehicle emission standards that 
the automobile companies agreed to.
  The cost of that carbon pollution adds up. Using official U.S. 
estimates of the social cost of carbon, the economic damage of the 
emissions from the Keystone Pipeline will amount to $128 billion in 
harm over the lifetime of the project. These are enormous costs that we 
will pay, borne out as parched farmland, harms to our health, and 
flooded businesses and homes. It is not about jobs and it is not about 
the merits of this pipeline. Unfortunately, it is not even a venue for 
a serious discussion about climate change--for a conversation about 
what carbon pollution is doing to our atmosphere and oceans.
  In all of last week's conversation about the Keystone Pipeline tar 
sands bill, the number of times Republicans mentioned climate change 
was exactly one time, and that was only when Chairman Murkowski 
summarized testimony submitted to her energy committee by an opponent 
of the pipeline. She used the term while describing the witness's 
testimony. There was one reference to a Democratic witness's committee 
testimony, and that is it. There were ``zero'' serious conversations.
  We are long past time for a serious bipartisan conversation about 
carbon pollution and climate change. What a

[[Page 459]]

great thing it would be if part of the new majority's new 
responsibility was just to take an honest look at those issues. But for 
sure this isn't that. Republicans remain politically incapable of 
addressing climate change. Forget addressing climate change, 
Republicans remain politically incapable of even discussing it.
  It is not jobs, it is not the merits of the pipeline, it is not an 
opening on carbon pollution and climate change, and the President has 
already told us he is going to veto this bill.
  What the heck are we doing? I will tell you what I think we are 
doing--and I think the facts support this conclusion--but first what 
you have to understand to understand what is going on is that the 
Republican Party has become the political wing of the fossil fuels 
industry. There has always been a trend of this within the Republican 
Party, but since the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court gave 
the fossil fuel industry the great, fat, juicy gift of its Citizens 
United decision, fossil fuel industry control over the Republican Party 
in Congress has become near absolute.
  According to the Center for American Progress, the fossil fuel 
industry spent nearly three-quarters of $1 billion over the last 2 
years on lobbying and direct and third-party campaign contributions. 
That is just what is reported. That doesn't even count the anonymous 
dark money that is preferred by many special interest donors. It 
certainly doesn't include the pungent fact that even if a special 
interest never spends the money, just quiet, private, backroom threats 
of attack ads can influence political behavior.
  We can argue this point more on another day. I have talked about it 
frequently, and I think I have made the case pretty convincingly in 
other ``Time to Wake Up'' speeches that the evidence points to this as 
the present state of affairs within the Republican Party. So for 
purposes of this discussion, take it as my premise, anyway, that the 
Republican Party in Congress is now effectively the political wing of 
the fossil fuel industry.
  That premise clarifies what is happening here. The fossil fuel 
industry has a shiny new Republican Senate majority, and it wants to 
take it out for a spin. It wants to take its new Republican-controlled 
Congress out for a spin. That is what this Keystone opening gambit is 
all about. This is somewhere between performance art, a show of 
obedience, and a show of force.
  Well, fine. Take us out for a spin. Have your fun. But the laws of 
nature that turn carbon pollution into climate change and into ocean 
acidification aren't going away. God laid down those laws, and they are 
not subject to repeal by man. Ignore them all you want. Worship at the 
altar of the fossil fuel Baal all you want, but there will be a price 
to pay for this negligence and inaction. It is truly time for this body 
to wake up.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Cuba Policy

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to say that nothing has changed 
in Cuba since Cuban arms were captured on this North Korean ship going 
through the Panama Canal a year and a half ago, just after the Obama 
administration started its secret negotiations with the Cuban 
Government--not the regime, not its mindset, nor its oppression of its 
people.
  This is the essence of the regime. They put this missile system and 
MiGs in a container ship going through the Panama Canal, hid them under 
tons of sugar in violation of U.S. Security Council resolutions. It was 
the most significant violation of security council resolutions as its 
relates to North Korea in quite some time, and certainly the biggest 
violator in all of the Western Hemisphere.
  We could not trust the Castro regime then, and we cannot trust it 
now. What we can trust are the voices of those who promote human rights 
and democracy who have been arrested and rearrested time and time 
again, year after year, for demanding nothing more than their ability 
to speak their minds freely, openly, and without fear.
  Voices such as Berta Soler, the leader of the Ladies in White--the 
Ladies in White are a group of women who each Sunday travel to mass 
dressed in white, normally holding a gladiola--peacefully. These are 
women whose husbands or sons languish in Castro's jail simply because 
of their political views. And as they march to church, they are 
savagely beaten by state security.
  Berta Soler, the leader of the Ladies in White, said:

       Sadly, President Obama made the wrong decision. The freedom 
     and democracy of the Cuban people will not be achieved 
     through these benefits that he's giving--not to the Cuban 
     people--but to the Cuban government.
       The Cuban government will only take advantage to strengthen 
     its repressive machinery, to repress civil society, its 
     people and remain in power.

  Or the voice of Yoani Sanchez, a prominent Cuban blogger and 
independent journalist, who said, ``Alan Gross was not arrested for 
what he did but for what could be gained for his arrest. He was simply 
bait and they were aware of it from the beginning. Castroism has won, 
though the positive result is that Alan Gross has left alive the prison 
that threatened to become his tomb.''
  Or the voice of Rosa Maria Paya, the daughter of Oswaldo Paya, the 
island's most prominent and respected human rights advocate, who was 
killed in what the regime calls an automobile accident, what many of us 
call an assassination. His whole effort was under the existing Cuban 
Constitution to petition his government under that constitution for 
changes in the government, of which he amassed thousands of signatures 
of average Cubans across the island, and the regime saw that as such a 
threat that he was run off the road and, sadly, killed.
  His daughter Rosa Maria Paya said:

       The Cuban people are being ignored in this secret 
     conversation, in this secret agreement that we learned today. 
     The reality of my country is there is just one party with all 
     the control and with the state security controlling the whole 
     society.
       If this doesn't change, there's no real change in Cuba. Not 
     even with access to Internet. Not even when Cuban people can 
     travel more than two years ago. Not even that is a sign of 
     the end of the totalitarianism in my country.

  Or another voice, the voice of Sakharov prize winner Guillermo 
Farinas, who spoke for many Cuban dissidents when he said this:

       Alan Gross was used as a tool by the Castro regime to 
     coerce the United States. Obama was not considerate of Cuban 
     citizens and of the civil society that is facing this 
     tyrannical regime.
       In Miami, Obama promised he would consult Cuba measures 
     with civil society and the non-violent opposition. Obviously, 
     this didn't happen. That is a fact, a reality. He didn't 
     consider Cuba's democrats. The betrayal of Cuba's democrats 
     has been consummated.

  As you can see, Farinas is in the midst of being arrested by state 
security simply for a peaceful protest.
  Or the powerful voice of the husband of Berta Soler, Angel Moya, a 
former political prisoner of the Black Spring in 2003 when Fidel Castro 
imprisoned 75, including 29 journalists along with librarians and 
democracy activists. He said this:

       The Obama Administration has ceded before Castro's 
     dictatorship. Nothing has changed. The jails remain filled, 
     the government represents only one family, repression 
     continues, civil society is not recognized and we have no 
     right to assemble or protest.
       The measures that the government of the United States has 
     implemented today, to ease the embargo and establish 
     diplomatic relations with Cuba, will in no way benefit the 
     Cuban people. The steps taken will strengthen the Castro 
     regime's repression against human rights activists and 
     increase its resources, so the security forces can keep 
     harassing and repressing civil society.

  These are the voices of those who languished inside the belly of the 
beast. These are the voices not of this romantic image that some have 
of Castro's Cuba but of the reality, the harsh

[[Page 460]]

reality--people who, simply to be able to promote the basic freedoms 
that we enjoy here in the United States and most people in the Western 
world, are constantly thrown into jail for long periods of time, beaten 
and oppressed.
  Those are the voices of freedom inside of Cuba. These are the men and 
women who have been arrested and suffered under the oppressive hand of 
the Cuban regime for the belief in the right of all Cubans to be free. 
These are the people who know that nothing--nothing--has changed. The 
regime, after reaping the benefits of what in my view is a bad deal, is 
still arresting peaceful protesters, including more than 50 at the end 
of December.
  As a matter of fact, on New Year's Eve when most of us were 
celebrating the advent of the new year, there was an effort inside of 
Cuba. Tania Bruguera and a series of other human rights activists and 
political democracy activists were going to hold in Revolution Square a 
1-minute opportunity for any Cuban who wanted to come forth and talk 
about what they aspired to for their freedom, what they aspired to for 
the Cuba of tomorrow to be. It was going to be a peaceful demonstration 
and an exposition of the hopes and dreams and aspirations of Cuba's 
political dissidents and human rights activists inside their country. 
In that peaceful effort, dozens of human rights activists and political 
dissidents, including the organizers, were arrested before they ever 
got to the event. The event was totally suppressed.
  Weeks after the administration's deal with the Castro regime--even 
then--the simple act of speaking for 1 minute about what your views 
would be of the future were repressed. So let me say that while I 
welcome the news that Cuba has released 53 political prisoners and that 
the administration has finally shared the list of names it negotiated 
with the Castro regime, this entire process has been shrouded in 
secrecy.
  Reuters reports that the administration officials said the list was 
created in June or July. But some of the 53 were released well before 
June, before the list was supposedly put together. As a matter of fact, 
14, to be exact, were released 6 to 8 months before the December 17 
announcement. One was released over a year ago.
  So, clearly, the list that supposedly was put together by the 
administration with the regime could not have envisioned or could not 
take credit for those who were released well before the list was put 
together. Many had simply finished their unjust prison terms. Clearly, 
keeping the list secret provided the regime the flexibility to define 
``mission accomplished.'' The fact is, the release of 53 political 
prisoners does not mean there are no longer political prisoners inside 
of Cuba. Human rights groups had stated, prior to the President's 
speech in December, that there were over 100 long-term political 
prisoners in the country, and there were 8,900--to be exact, 8,889--
political detentions in Cuba last year--an appalling number--8,889.
  In short, while 53 political prisoners have been let out of jail, the 
same corrupt jailer is still ruling the country. The Castros have a 
long history. I have followed this not only for all of my career of 23 
years in the Congress, but even before that. They have a long history 
of rearresting these political and human rights activists whom they 
previously released.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute remaining under Democratic 
control.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent to be able to continue for 
about 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the fact is that as someone who has 
spoken out time and again on the brutal repression of the Cuban people 
under the Castro regime, someone whose family has suffered the 
consequences, I believe the agreement this administration has reached 
with the Castro regime is one-sided and misguided. It fails to 
understand the nature of the regime that has exerted its authoritarian 
control over the Cuban people for over 55 years. Now, no one wishes 
that the reality in Cuba were more different than the Cuban people and 
Cuban Americans that have fled the island in search of freedom.
  In December, the same month that the President announced changes to 
U.S. policies, the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National 
Reconciliation, a group that works within Cuba, documented 489 
political arrests, bringing the total number of political arrests 
during the first 11 months of 2014 to nearly 8,900.
  This is the regime that imprisoned an American citizen for 5 years 
for distributing communications equipment on the island. Releasing 
political prisoners today in Cuba is meaningless if tomorrow these 
individuals can be arrested again and denied the right to peacefully 
pursue change in their own country. It is a fallacy that Cuba will 
change just because an American President believes that if he extends 
his hand in peace, the Castro brothers will suddenly unclench their 
fists.
  As you see from the quotes I have read, a majority of democracy 
activists on the island, many whom I have met with in the past, have 
been explicit that they want the United States to become open to Cuba 
only when there is a reciprocal movement by the Castro brothers. They 
understand that the Castros will not accede to change in any other way. 
In my view and in theirs, the United States has thrown the Cuban regime 
an economic lifeline. With the collapse of the Venezuelan economy, Cuba 
is losing its main benefactor, but it will now receive the support of 
the United States, the greatest democracy in the world.
  This is a reward that a totalitarian regime does not deserve. It is a 
reward that at the end of the day perpetuates the Castro regime's 
decades of repression. The regulatory changes the regime has won, which 
are clearly intended to circumvent the intent and spirit of U.S. law 
and the U.S. Congress, present a false narrative about Cuba that 
suggests that the United States and not the regime is responsible for 
its economic failure. So let's be clear. Cuba's economic struggles are 
100 percent attributable to a half century of failed political and 
economic experiments that have suffocated Cuban entrepreneurs. In Cuba 
private business is controlled by the Cuban government--most 
significantly the military--with the benefits flowing directly to the 
regime's political and military leaders.
  Cuba has the same political and economic relations with most of the 
world. But companies choose not to engage because of political, 
economic, and even criminal risks associated with investment on the 
island, as exhibited by the arbitrary arrests of several foreign 
investors from Canada, England, and Panama in just recent years.
  To also suggest that Cuba should be taken off the list of state 
sponsors of terrorism is alarming while Cuba harbors American fugitives 
such as Joanne Chesimard, a cop killer who is on the FBI's list of most 
wanted terrorists for murdering New Jersey State Trooper Werner 
Foerster. She is not the only one who is a cop killer inside of Cuba 
from the United States. There is also Cuba's colluding with North 
Korea, as I showed before, to smuggle jets, missile batteries, and arms 
through the Panama Canal in violation of the U.N. Security Council 
resolution, and for giving refuge to members of FARC from Colombia and 
members of ETA from Spain, groups that the State Departments has 
recognized as foreign terrorist organizations.
  Now, finally with respect to the President's decision to attend the 
Summit of the Americans, I am extraordinarily disappointed that we 
intend to violate our own principles laid down in the Inter-American 
Democratic Charter in 2001, on the Summit being a forum for the 
hemisphere's democratically elected leaders. This action disavows the 
charter, and it sends the global message about the low priority that we 
place on democracy and respect for human and civil rights.
  So in this new Congress I urge my distinguished colleague, the now 
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, to 
hold

[[Page 461]]

hearings on this dramatic and mistaken change in policy. I will keep 
coming to this floor to address at length all of the issues I have 
raised. I will come to this floor again and again to expose one of the 
most oppressive, repressive, and undemocratic regimes in the world.
  To those of my colleagues who herald this agreement and for those in 
the press who still live with the mistaken romanticism of the Castros' 
revolution and who speak out about human rights abuses and democratic 
movements all over the world, it is so hypocritical to be so silent--a 
deafening silence when it comes to the democratic and human rights 
movement inside of Cuba.
  I have listened to many eloquent speeches of my colleagues about 
human rights violations and democracy movements in many parts of the 
world. But on Cuba their silence is deafening.
  This does not end here. It does not end today with one speech. It 
surely will not end until the people of Cuba are truly free.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I wish today to address S. 1, 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 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 economy? 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 examining the impact of the Keystone Pipeline on 
atmospheric carbon dioxide pollution and global warming. This chart 
displays the variations in carbon dioxide that have occurred over time, 
back through the last 800,000 years. We have seen that carbon dioxide 
levels have gone up and down within a modest range until modern times 
and the Industrial revolution.
  At that point, where they continued to oscillate as they have in the 
past, we see a steady, upward progress into a realm not seen within 
these last 800,000 years. This is the impact simply of human kind 
pulling up a lot of fossil fuel out of the ground and burning it--
whether it comes in the form of coal or it comes in the form of oil or 
it comes in the form of gas.
  Now, let's take a look and see how the temperature of the planet has 
corresponded with the levels of carbon dioxide. What we find, going 
back in time, is a very strong correlation with the carbon dioxide in 
red and temperature change in blue--a very close correlation between 
carbon dioxide around our planet and the temperature of the planet.
  Well, this makes enormous sense since any high school student can 
establish in the laboratory that carbon dioxide has thermal properties 
in trapping heat. As less heat radiates from the Earth, the Earth 
warms. Well, this certainly bears upon our stewardship of this planet. 
By many estimates, to contain global warming to 2 degrees Celsius--that 
is just shy of 3.9 degrees Fahrenheit--human civilization must 
transition aggressively and rapidly away from conventional fossil fuels 
and toward the use of nonfossil, renewable energy.
  Now, this shift is within our power. It is a challenge presented by 
this circumstance and by our stewardship of human civilization on this 
planet. But are we up to the task? Do we have the political will to 
undertake responsible stewardship of our beautiful blue-green Earth? 
That is the test that stands before this body--this Senate--at this 
very moment.
  Building the Keystone Pipeline, which opens the faucet to rapid 
exploitation of massive new unconventional fossil reserves--the tar 
sands--takes us in the exact opposite direction from where we need to 
go. It locks us into the dirtiest fossil fuels on the planet for a 
generation. It accelerates human civilization down the road to 
catastrophic climate change.
  That is why building the Keystone Pipeline is a mistake. There is a 
lot at stake. Global warming is not some imaginary concept based on 
computer models or something that might happen 50 to 100 years from 
now. Indeed, global warming is not only present right now, but it is 
already making vast changes in State after State, and nation after 
nation.
  The warmest 10 years on record for global average surface temperature 
have occurred in the last 12 years. Let me repeat that. The warmest 10 
years on record for global average surface temperature have occurred in 
the last 12 years. That is pretty powerful evidence that something 
dramatic is occurring. The effects can be seen in every State. The 
average forest fire season in the United States is getting longer. 
Since the 1980s the season has grown by 60 to 80 days. That is 2 to 3 
months of additional fire season. The average amount of acres consumed 
annually by wildfires has doubled to more than 7 million acres.
  One study estimates that global warming, through the combined impact 
of greater pine beetle infestation and the greater number of forest 
fires and more severe forest fires will decimate the western forests of 
the United States by the end of this century. That is not the only 
impact that we are seeing. In addition, the snowpack in our mountains--
in our Cascade Mountains--is decreasing, which means smaller and warmer 
trout streams. That is not good for fishing.
  It means less water for irrigation--not good for farming. The Klamath 
Basin, a major agricultural basin in Oregon, has suffered through many 
years and three horrific droughts just since 2001, in substantial part, 
because of the lower snowpack.
  This chart, which shows Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, 
shows the areas of intensity of the decrease in snowpack. The decreases 
are circled in red and the increases in the snowpack are circled in 
blue. As you can see, the decreasing snowpacks vastly, vastly outweigh 
the occasional spots where there have been reported increases.
  This translates to the types of droughts we have been seeing in the 
Klamath Basin, in this area of southern Oregon, and the droughts we 
have seen in northern California, a very significant impact on 
agriculture.
  So when some are critical on this floor--some climate deniers who 
choose to ignore all of the facts on the ground and say there is no 
impact and no harm--well, they simply are putting forth a myth designed 
to serve the oil, fossil fuel, and coal industries in order to advance 
those powerful special interests.
  Well, I have a special interest. That special interest is the people 
of Oregon, who are being impacted by the longer forest fires, who are 
being impacted by the droughts. I have a special interest. It is called 
planet Earth. That trumps the Koch brothers, that trumps the coal 
industry, that trumps the oil industry.
  There are other impacts that we are seeing. One is the impact on our 
oceans. As the high levels of carbon dioxide in the air interact 
through wave action with the ocean, the ocean absorbs some of that 
carbon dioxide. As it absorbs that carbon dioxide, it becomes carbonic 
acid. Here we see some charts from Hawaii. In the purple here we have 
the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide over a 50-year period.
  Then we have measurements of carbon dioxide in blue in the water. 
Then we have the measurements, over that same period, of the pH or 
acidic content of the oceans. What we are seeing is that as the pH 
level drops, that means that the oceans are more acidic. Now, what 
happens when the ocean is

[[Page 462]]

more acidic? It affects the coral reefs, for one. Coral reefs are very 
sensitive to this. We have seen, from scientists who are studying coral 
reefs, significant damage both from water temperatures and from 
increasing acidity.
  One scientist from Oregon State University who studies coral reefs 
around the world came here to DC and presented a series of slides 
showing the reefs he studied. He said: These are my babies and my 
babies are dying. Those coral reefs are the basic food chain for a 
significant amount of sea life that is harvested for human consumption. 
To put it differently, fishing families around the world often depend 
on the coral reefs to sustain the foundation of their livelihood.
  Off the Pacific coast, we are seeing a big impact on our oysters. The 
Whiskey Creek shellfish hatchery started having trouble in 2008 with 
the growth of its baby oysters that are known as oyster seeds. I 
visited that hatchery 3 months ago to hear their story about what they 
had faced.
  At first they thought: Well, maybe this problem is from a bacteria. 
Maybe this problem is from a virus. Maybe this is from something else. 
They brought in Oregon State University to research and they figured 
out that it was, in fact, the acidity of the water, the very acidity 
that I just showed you the chart about.
  The acidity does not happen in just one place. It is happening 
broadly across the world. The oyster seed--if they are having trouble 
fixing their shells because of the high acidity in the water, well then 
what else is going on? The oysters--here are some headlines related to 
the oysters.
  Up in Washington State, the Seattle Times reported: ``Oysters dying 
as coast is hit hard.'' In fact, I was flipping through channels a 
month or 2 ago, and there was the Governor of Washington over at a 
hatchery on the coast of Washington, just like I visited Whiskey Creek 
Hatchery in Oregon. It is the same story. Oysters are dying. Why? 
Because of the acidity of the water.
  This is a headline from the Los Angeles Times: ``Oceans' rising 
acidity a threat to shellfish--and humans.''
  From Oregon: ``Researchers scramble to deal with dying Northwest 
oysters.''
  So for my colleagues who want to wreak this kind of harm to our 
farms, to our fisheries, and to our forests, how about you figure out 
from the folks of your State how to pay for the damage being done in my 
State to our forests, our fishing, and our farming. How about you 
figure out how to pay for the damage being done throughout the United 
States and throughout the planet. You want to unleash the dirtiest oil 
in the world from the tar sands and increase this damage? Tell me how 
you are going to compensate those who are injured across this Nation 
and across the world.
  I hear a lot of comments about responsibility. I hear a lot of 
comments from my colleagues across the aisle about accountability. Put 
your actions where your statements are and show us some accountability 
for the damage you are wreaking by approving this pipeline, by voting 
for this pipeline.
  Does this bill before us, which would open the faucet on a massive 
new reserve of fossil fuels, advance the stewardship of the planet? 
Does it advance our rural economy? Clearly the answer is no. 
Stewardship, accountability, and responsibility would insist that we 
not open this faucet to further damage of the kind we are seeing right 
now, that we not unlock the tar sands.
  But proponents of the pipeline say: Wait, we have some arguments on 
our side. Let's examine those arguments.
  First they say: You know, this will create 4,000 construction jobs.
  Well, let's take a look at this chart. This is a chart that shows the 
Keystone--roughly 4,000 construction jobs. That represents this little 
tiny line at the bottom, if you can even see it.
  Now let's talk about the Rebuild America Act, which colleagues across 
the aisle filibustered in order to kill it even though it was revenue 
neutral. That is how many jobs the Rebuild America Act would create.
  If you want to talk jobs, let's talk about a jobs bill. Let's 
substitute the Rebuild America Act for the Keystone act. Let's have a 
real jobs bill, a real stimulus bill, a bill that would put people to 
work in construction across this Nation in a way more intense fashion 
than would the Keystone bill.
  Proponents have a second argument. They say that bringing this 
additional oil from Canada down to the Gulf of Mexico will increase our 
national security because all that oil will be refined and utilized in 
the United States.
  Well, my colleagues are a little confused about this. They haven't 
thought about why it is Canada wants to ship it to a gulf port--so that 
it can have access to world markets, so that it can get the world 
market price. Our refineries in the gulf coast are largely fully 
occupied now. An additional supply of crude means additional crude you 
can export to other countries that have refineries that are short of 
supply. Well, that is profitable to Canada, but that doesn't mean the 
oil will get used in the United States.
  They say: But wait a minute, some of it might get refined and 
utilized in the U.S. system.
  Well, let's acknowledge that some of it might get refined, albeit it 
is clear why the oil is being shipped to the gulf coast because it is 
being shipped there to get into the world market and be available for 
export to the world. Let's say some of it might happen to be utilized 
in the United States. That little bit of impact is nothing compared to 
what we can do by investment in renewable energy that would decrease 
our reliance on fossil fuels. So a far better solution would be 
investing in renewable, non-fossil fuel energy that doesn't have the 
impact on the fishing, the farming, and the forests.
  But, say proponents, if the Keystone Pipeline is not built, an 
alternative pipeline will be built through Canada.
  Well, that is certainly highly questionable. If it were easier and 
cheaper to go through Canada, TransCanada would not be seeking to build 
the Keystone Pipeline.
  Oh, they say, they will figure out a way to run a pipeline west to 
the Pacific.
  But you know that has to pass through First Nation lands, and it has 
to have all kinds of approvals. And there are folks in Canada who 
actually feel as deeply and passionately about being good stewards of 
our planet and not contributing to the assault on our forests, our 
farming, and fishing as many of us here feel, and there is going to be 
intense opposition. That is why TransCanada wants to push this through 
the United States in order to reach the world market and the gulf 
coast. It is cheaper and easier, and they have no confidence they can 
build a pipeline to substitute.
  Opponents say: If it is not shipped by pipeline, it will be shipped 
by railroad--which, of course, is again way off the fact track because 
the railroads are already congested, making additional capacity modest 
at best. In addition, the price point for shipping by rail is much 
higher than the price point for shipping by pipeline. If you change the 
price of the pipeline, you change the supply and demand curve, and you 
don't end up producing the same amount of oil.
  So these arguments made are thin efforts to camouflage a fundamental 
fact that this is a great deal for TransCanada, it is a great deal for 
the oil industry, and it is a terrible deal for Americans depending on 
rural resources, a terrible deal for our oceans and our fisheries, a 
terrible deal for our forests, and a terrible deal for our farming.
  So if you care about the future economy of the United States, if you 
care about rural America, if you care about all of us who depend on 
rural America for these wonderful and important resources, then you 
will oppose this pipeline.
  There is no question, this is a sweetheart deal. Talk about 
accountability? TransCanada won't even have to pay into the oilspill 
liability fund. They are being exempted from that fund. They do not 
have to pay into the insurance fund that will help clean up when their 
pipeline leaks. And they all leak. That is outrageous. You want 
accountability? Put forward the amendment that says they would have to 
pay into the oilspill liability fund, the same as

[[Page 463]]

any other person or group pumping oil through a pipeline in the United 
States. Say that they would be fully responsible for every bit of 
damage that local governments and State governments and the U.S. 
Government have to pay for to compensate for the damage created by 
those oilspills. Let's hear some responsibility and accountability from 
the proponents of this pipeline, not this sweetheart deal for a 
Canadian company.
  Tackling carbon pollution--global warming--is going to take an 
enormous amount of international cooperation. Just recently, the United 
States and China entered into an agreement to address global climate 
change. President Obama announced the goal of cutting American net 
greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. 
The Chinese President announced that China would invest heavily in 
renewable energy to generate 20 percent of China's energy from 
nonfossil sources by 2030 and would seek to decrease China's 
CO2 emissions thereafter.
  These goals will require significant efforts by the United States and 
massive investments by China. Do they go far enough? No, not in the 
context of the challenge faced because of our elevated carbon dioxide 
levels around the world, but this agreement by the two biggest carbon 
polluters among nations is a significant step forward. It is the type 
of leadership the world has been asking for.
  We cannot simply wish for nations to work together, we have to do our 
part. That is why we should be talking today not about how to turn on 
the tap for the dirtiest oil on the planet but how to work with other 
nations to invest in energy conservation, to invest in non-fossil fuel 
renewable energy.
  Let's turn back to the test President Theodore Roosevelt put before 
us. He said that there is no more important mission than ``leaving this 
land even a better land for our descendents than it is for us.'' That 
is the challenge. Let's rise to that challenge.
  Mr. President, let's rise to that challenge. Help lead your 
colleagues--all of us--in stopping this assault on our farms, our 
fishing, and our forestry. Stop this sweetheart deal for a Canadian 
company, and let's substitute a real jobs bill, a rebuild America jobs 
bill that will create more than a hundredfold more construction jobs 
than the jobs we have before us.
  When we think about the complete lack of accountability and 
responsibility embedded in this bill, when we think about the enormous 
damage that comes from turning on the faucet to the dirtiest oil in the 
world, there really is only one way to vote on this bill, and that is 
to vote no.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________