[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 755-760]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

  Pending:

       Murkowski amendment No. 2, in the nature of a substitute.
       Markey/Baldwin amendment No. 13 (to amendment No. 2), to 
     ensure that oil transported through the Keystone XL Pipeline 
     into the United States is used to reduce United States 
     dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
       Portman/Shaheen amendment No. 3 (to amendment No. 2), to 
     promote energy efficiency.
       Cantwell (for Franken) amendment No. 17 (to amendment No. 
     2), to require the use of iron, steel, and manufactured goods 
     produced in the United States in the construction of the 
     Keystone XL Pipeline and facilities.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are back on the bill before us, a 
measure that would allow for the permit to be approved to allow for 
construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada into the United 
States. We had good discussion last week, certainly on Friday.
  We have several amendments that are pending before the body. The 
Senator from Massachusetts has one on oil exports, Senator Portman on 
energy efficiency, and there is another measure sponsored by Senator 
Franken relating to American steel. Obviously, it is important that we 
begin to process these amendments because we have a significant amount 
of interest in the issues in front of us. At this point in time there 
are--we had over 50 filed amendments as of Friday evening. As of this 
morning, we maybe have more on deck. There is clearly a great deal of 
interest not only on Keystone XL but other energy-related amendments as 
well.
  As we work through finalizing the events for this afternoon, I would 
like to alert Members that we would like to have votes on at least the 
three pending amendments that are before us that I just mentioned, 
hopefully by midafternoon. We are aware the Senate will close early 
today because of the President's State of the Union this evening. So my 
hope is that we would be able to process these three.
  It has come to our attention that Senator Portman's amendment may 
need to be modified. He is in the process of doing that, and it may be 
that we will be able to accept that amendment this afternoon by voice 
vote.
  At this point in time, I would encourage Members to come to us as the 
floor managers here, and let's figure out how we can get these 
amendments pending before the Senate. On the Republican side we have 
three folks who are queued up ready to offer theirs when it is 
appropriate. As we had agreed last week, we will go from side to side 
in terms of the amendments that will be considered. Hopefully this will 
be the beginning of a good, constructive week as we turn to regular 
order here in the Senate processing amendments.
  With that, I would turn to my colleague on the energy committee, 
Senator Cantwell, for any comments she might care to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, just to reiterate our opposition to this 
legislation, new polling has come out showing that the American public 
really does--over 60 percent--support going through a normal process 
and not subverting what are environmental laws. But we are going to 
move forward in getting this legislation voted on. My colleague just 
outlined a process for this afternoon. So I would encourage Members to 
come to the floor to offer their amendments. I know Senator Franken is 
coming to speak on his amendment, and I see the Senator from 
Massachusetts here to speak on his amendment. So hopefully while they 
are speaking we can get a vote schedule firmed up and talk about other 
amendments besides the three we have pending. But I would agree with 
the Senator from Alaska that Members should come down here and talk on 
their amendments and we should keep the process moving.
  With that, I am not sure who is queued up to speak.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe the sponsor of this 
legislation, Senator Hoeven, would like to address the Chamber for a 
few minutes this afternoon not only on the amendments that are pending 
but the bigger picture of Keystone XL.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. May I inquire of the Senator from Alaska and Senator 
Hoeven how long he intends to speak to make sure our colleague from 
Massachusetts knows he has his time before we get locked out for lunch?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, my inquiry would be: How much time does 
the Senator from Massachusetts need? I would be willing to defer my 
time until later, as long as I know I would

[[Page 756]]

have approximately 10 minutes before the hard break of 12:30 p.m.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would think that if it is OK to allow 
the Senator from Massachusetts to proceed, knowing that our hard stop 
is 12:30 p.m., that at least--I would make this request: that both 
Senators be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, starting with Senator 
Markey, followed by Senator Hoeven. If they want to extend their 
remarks, they can make a unanimous consent request to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. May I ask a parliamentary inquiry. It would be this. Is 
it possible for me to speak for 5 minutes, then reserve the remainder 
of my time and have the Senator from North Dakota speak, and then I can 
reclaim the remainder of my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will take unanimous consent.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.


                            Amendment No. 13

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, we are about to engage in a historic 
debate; that is, over whether the Canadians--a Canadian oil company--
should be allowed to take the dirtiest oil in the world, the Canadian 
tar sands oil, to have the United States accede to the construction of 
a pipeline, like a straw through our country, which would then go down 
to the Gulf of Mexico, with no promise from the Canadians that they 
will not export the oil from the United States.
  So the issue which is raised, of course, is what is in it for the 
United States, since there is a very small number of jobs for our 
country once the pipeline is completed? We understand why the Canadian 
company wants to do this. If they can get that oil out onto the global 
marketplace, using the United States as the conduit, they can get a 
dramatically higher price for that oil. We understand their motivation. 
But what is in it for the United States of America?
  Ultimately, we have to decide what is in our best interests. My 
amendment says that if this pipeline is constructed, the oil stays 
here, our country gets the benefit, and our consumers get the benefit. 
Otherwise, it is not about energy independence; it is not about North 
American energy independence. It is about a Canadian company exporting 
the oil, using the United States as a conduit, as a straw, as a 
pipeline. That is it. What is in it for us?
  The American people right now are enjoying historically low oil 
prices. They love it. It is like a tax cut to every American. If this 
Canadian oil gets exported, you better believe it is going to act as a 
spur to raise the price of oil. The more oil that is here, the better 
for us. The more oil that leaves our country, the worse for us.
  I will give you another number, if you want to know, because this is 
a Canadian export pipeline. The United States of America right now is 
the leading importing country for oil in the world. We are No. 1. We 
import net about 5 million barrels of oil a day. We are No. 1. We are 
the No. 1 importing country. Then comes China, then comes India, then 
Japan. Five million barrels a day--how can we be exporting oil when we 
are the leading importer of oil?
  What countries do we import the oil from today, 2015? We import the 
oil from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela, from Iraq, from Russia, from 
Nigeria. How can we be exporting our young men and women in uniform 
over to the Middle East in order to protect these ships coming in with 
oil in them and simultaneously be exporting oil out of the United 
States, while we are still importing 5 million barrels of oil a day?
  That is what this debate is all about. It does not make any sense. 
This is the dirtiest oil in the world. This oil is going to dangerously 
add to the warming of the planet. The Canadian--the American Petroleum 
Institute will not promise the oil stays here, even though their ads on 
TV say that it is all about North American energy independence.
  So we have a huge choice we have to make here. Do we want to help our 
economy? Do we want to help our national security, help our consumers, 
help our manufacturers by giving them this lower price of energy--which 
except for labor is the No. 1 component in industry in the United 
States--and keep that price low? The Markey amendment says: Yes, that 
oil stays here in the United States of America for our own strength, 
our own economy, our own consumers, our own job creation, and will not 
be sent off onto the world so the Canadian oil company can get a much 
higher price for that oil while we take all of the risk. We would not 
be Uncle Sam, we would be Uncle Sucker if we did not keep that oil 
here.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to engage in 
a discussion with my colleague from Massachusetts on the important 
issues. He has raised several issues in regard to oil export and then 
also in regard to the environmental aspects.
  If I could take a minute to address both of those, for starters, I 
would point out that it is interesting that the Senator, my good friend 
from Massachusetts, is opposed to this pipeline project and talks about 
our need to import oil, and therefore we should not allow any exports, 
because we need to import oil. Yet he is opposed to a project that 
would not only bring Canadian oil to our country, 830,000 barrels a 
day, but also would help us move 100,000 barrels of oil a day from my 
State of North Dakota and my neighboring State of Montana--light sweet 
Bakken crude. So he objects to that, and he talks about our need to 
import oil. The irony here is that if he is successful and he and the 
other critics or opponents of this pipeline and the infrastructure are 
successful, then what Canada will do is they will build a pipeline to 
the west coast of Canada, and they will export that oil to China--100 
percent of it.
  So it appears that his argument is that because some portion of this 
oil may be exported if we build the pipeline, somehow it is better to 
force Canada to export 100 percent of it to China. Now, I do not begin 
to understand that argument. So if we cannot have 100 percent--every 
single drop--stay here, then we are better off to send all 100 percent 
to China. That is my opponent's argument. I do not understand it. It 
does not make sense to me.
  The second point I would like to make is if he goes to the 
environmental impact statement issued by the Obama State Department, 
the environmental impact statement says that the oil would be used in 
the United States. If he looks at the Obama administration's Department 
of Energy report, he will see that the report also indicates that this 
oil is going to be used in the United States.
  Now, that does not mean that we use every drop of it. I will give you 
some statistics. The United States retains 99 percent of all crude oil 
within the country that we produce. The United States uses 97 percent 
of the gasoline that we refine in this country. So, remember, this oil 
comes to refineries in Patoka, IL, and to the gulf coast. It goes to 
Cushing, and it gets refined.
  The statistics are that we use 97 percent of that gasoline from oil 
that is refined in our country. The other thing I would point out is 
that the oil that comes in on this pipeline, along with the crude that 
comes from the Bakken, is both Canadian and domestic oil. That cannot 
be exported without approval from the Secretary of Commerce of the 
Obama administration.
  So here again, my good friend from Massachusetts is putting forth an 
amendment that absolutely no oil in this one pipeline can be exported 
at any time to anywhere from the country, yet they already have 
provisions in law that it cannot be exported without the Secretary of 
Commerce's approval. The Secretary of Commerce is appointed by 
President Obama.
  So, again, if you look at the administration's own reports, and they 
have been done over more than 6 years that this project has been 
pending--the administration now has had 6 years to review this project, 
has done so, and has

[[Page 757]]

produced five environmental impact statements. The conclusion of those 
environmental impact statements is ``no significant environmental 
impact.'' That is the administration's own environmental impact 
statements produced by the State Department.
  But after 6 years, they have come out and said: This oil will be used 
here, and to be exported, it would have to be approved by the Secretary 
of Commerce, as other oil exports are handled in this country. 
Furthermore, if we do not build the pipeline, it is either all going to 
be sent to China--so then we would not get any of it--or we are going 
to have to move it via railcars--1,400 railcars a day, creating more 
congestion on our railways.
  So at this point, I would inquire as to how much time I have used of 
my 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOEVEN. At this point, I would yield back to my good friend from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator very much. Year 2014 has just been 
reported by NASA as the single warmest year ever recorded in the 
history of the planet, going back to the earliest records. You do not 
have to be a detective to figure out what is going on. The world is 
dangerously warming. The United States can no longer preach temperance 
from a bar stool and tell the rest of the world they should be better 
while we continue to burn these fuels.
  But if they are going to build this pipeline, at least the American 
people should be the beneficiaries of the Canadian activity to sell all 
of this oil out onto the global market. What we are being told is: No, 
we do not want any restrictions. We do not want there to be any way in 
which we can keep that oil here, to keep prices at least low for the 
American consumer and for American job creation, to keep oil here so we 
can maybe back out the Saudi Arabian oil, maybe back out the Kuwaiti 
oil, maybe back out the Russian oil that we are importing right now as 
we sit here. But we are being told we cannot do that. We are being told 
the Republican leadership thinks that is a bad idea.
  When I asked the head of the TransCanada pipeline in the hearing if 
he agree to keep the oil in the United States, he just looked at me and 
said no. So this is what is going on.
  What happens for the American consumer? Well, I will tell you what 
happens. It is a very simple formula. Every time there is a $10 
increase in the price of a barrel of oil, it knocks two-tenths of a 
point to three-tenths of a percentage point off of the growth rate of 
the American economy.
  When Americans pay less for American oil and we import less foreign 
oil, consumers have more money in their pockets from that discounted 
American oil. That is like a direct economic stimulus for middle-class 
families and small businesses across the country. Analysts say the drop 
in oil prices will give hundreds of billions back to consumers and 
other parts of our economy. Every penny reduction in gas prices 
translates into $1 billion in consumer savings.
  So when the polling is done on this issue and the American people are 
asked if they would support the exportation of American oil, by a 3-to-
1 margin people say, all across the country, regardless of party: No, 
do not export it. Keep that oil here to make America stronger here at 
home.
  That is not Democrat. That is not Republican. That is not 
Independent. That is all people being polled across the board.
  That is just common sense because they know the more oil we export, 
the higher the prices are going to be for consumers here because we 
have less oil. This is a simple debate.
  The planet is running a fever. There are no emergency rooms for 
planets. We have to engage in preventive care. The Republican 
leadership thinks they have the votes in order to pass this bill which 
will dangerously warm the planet. My amendment says if that is going to 
be the case--and I am not voting for that bill--at least let's keep the 
oil here, at least let's get the benefit for consumers so we keep 
prices low for gasoline, prices low for home heating oil, prices low 
for jet fuel, prices low for diesel. Let's keep the oil here, let's get 
the benefit in our economy, and let's not allow oil companies to set 
the agenda.
  The Republican leadership keeps saying it is all of the above. Ladies 
and gentlemen, this bill basically says: No. No, it is oil above all. 
That is what it is all about. It is not even oil that is necessarily 
going to stay in the United States, so it is a very simple argument I 
am making.
  We import 5 million barrels of oil a day. They come from the worst 
places in the world that we should be dependent upon--5 million barrels 
a day. We export young men and women over to the Middle East to protect 
that oil coming in. The least we owe to those young men and women is 
when we get a chance to reduce our dependence upon imported oil, we 
take that chance, that we send that message to the rest of the world 
that we understand our Achille's heel. We understand what makes us 
weak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I urge an ``aye'' vote 
on the Markey amendment.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I appreciate this debate. It is an 
important debate to have. Clearly, the Senator from Massachusetts and I 
have very different ideas about how this should be addressed, but this 
is the debate we should have. This is about the energy future we are 
building for this country.
  I am pleased we are engaged in this debate. Let's work to build the 
kind of energy plan that is going to truly make our country energy 
secure.
  To do that, we not only need to produce energy domestically, we need 
to work with our closest friend and ally, Canada. At the same time, as 
we produce that energy, we need the infrastructure to move it to our 
markets rather than sending it overseas.
  So it is ironic on the one hand the Senator is proposing an amendment 
saying: Oh, no. If we get any of this oil, we have to have all of it. 
He is making an argument that doesn't work in a global economy, where 
he is saying if we can't have 100 percent of it every single day--not 
one drop leaves--then export all of it. I want 100 percent or nothing.
  That doesn't make sense.
  The whole point is we have just finished showing that the oil will be 
used here, and for any of it to be exported we need the Secretary of 
Commerce's approval. But we have to talk about it in a larger context 
because this debate we are having isn't only about the Keystone 
Pipeline, it is about the future of energy security for our country.
  Are we going to work to produce oil and gas domestically? Are we 
going to work with Canada to bring their oil and gas that they produce 
as well to us, rather than having them export it to China, so we are 
energy secure?
  What I mean by that is we produce more oil and gas in North America 
than we consume. When we do that we become energy secure. As far as 
this argument about any kind of other source of energy or renewable, 
that this somehow precludes it, it doesn't. Let's produce all those 
other energy sources as well. They are not mutually exclusive.
  Preventing us from producing more oil and gas and working with Canada 
to produce more oil and gas so we don't have to get it from OPEC in no 
way excludes any other type of energy development. They are not 
mutually exclusive.
  So, yes, let's do it all but don't block this effort to make us 
energy secure in oil and gas so we don't have to depend upon OPEC. That 
is the real issue underlying this debate. That is why we have to build 
this vital infrastructure. Right now when Americans go to the pump, 
they are paying--I think I saw today the national average is about 
$2.05 for gasoline. Why is that?
  As I have said before on this floor, it is not because OPEC decided 
to give us a Christmas present. When OPEC can, they will try to push 
those gas prices right back up. The reason gas prices at

[[Page 758]]

the pump are down now for all our consumers and for all our small 
businesses is because we are producing more oil and gas at home and we 
are getting more from Canada.
  The United States uses about 18 million barrels per day of oil. Right 
now we produce about 11 million barrels in the United States. We import 
another 3 million from Canada. That gets us up to about 14 million, so 
we are down to only importing about 4 million a day.
  If we continue to work with Canada and develop our own energy 
resources, pretty soon we will be at that point where we produce more 
energy than we consume, but we have to have this discussion about 
needing the infrastructure and also our ability to operate in global 
markets.
  I will talk more about that, because if we produce more oil and gas, 
it puts downward pressure on oil prices on the world market. Most of 
those world markets are priced off of Brent crude.
  As we produce more oil, we not only help ourselves, we help our 
allies. So we have to understand what it takes to build an energy plan 
and do it the right way rather than blocking the very infrastructure 
and doing the very things that have led to incredible benefits today 
for our consumers at the pump.
  If that were a tax cut, that reduction of more than $1 in the gas 
prices is $100 billion in our consumers' pockets. That is the impact.
  So it is about jobs. It is about energy, it is about jobs, it is 
about growing our economy, it is about national security--but not by 
blocking these efforts that are benefitting our consumers, making our 
country stronger, safer, and helping our allies but by continuing to 
move forward with them.
  I look forward to discussing that more and the environmental impact.
  One more statistic before I turn to my good colleague from Nebraska. 
Since 1990, the greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands-produced oil 
have gone down 28 percent, almost one-third, because in Alberta they 
are taking huge steps to continue to improve the environmental 
stewardship of this production.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I look forward to discussing that further. I think I have 
control of the floor time until 12:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is not controlled.
  Mr. HOEVEN. All right. Under prior agreement, I turn to my colleague 
from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I see my colleague from Minnesota who wanted to speak 
on his amendment which is pending, and I know our colleague from 
Nebraska is here. She has been waiting, so I hope before we adjourn we 
could accommodate both of them.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent that we turn to my colleague from 
Nebraska, and I would be willing to confer, as far as time, to the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his comments.
  Mr. President, I, too, come to the floor to speak on the great 
improvements to our economy due to energy production.
  The American oil and gas surge has created jobs across this country 
and renewed investments in infrastructure, transforming many unlikely 
States and cities into energy hubs for fuel production.
  Over the past 5 years alone the United States has increased our 
domestic supply of oil and gas by 50 percent. In an amazing turnaround 
the United States is now on track to overtake Saudi Arabia as the 
world's top oil producer, resulting in the creation of thousands of 
American jobs and greater savings for consumers.
  The natural gas industry has also grown tremendously and in the 
United States has become one of the world's No. 1 producers.
  Across this great Nation we are fortunate to have a diverse portfolio 
of energy resources, including coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, natural 
gas, and multiple renewable energy resources such as ethanol, wind, and 
solar. These resources can be used to improve the lives of all 
Americans.
  American consumers are now blessed with multiple options to obtain 
the affordable, reliable energy that is being produced in an 
environmentally responsible manner, but in order to maintain and grow 
our domestic energy security we need to have policies that support that 
goal.
  Unfortunately, President Obama has given only lip service to an ``all 
of the above'' energy strategy while pushing a counteragenda that has 
restricted domestic production and energy choices. That costs Americans 
billions of dollars.
  Meanwhile, the EPA is taking this anti-American energy agenda to a 
new level with proposals that jeopardize the affordability and 
reliability of electricity for all Americans.
  The EPA's proposed rule for existing powerplants would force the 
premature retirement of efficient, low-cost coal-fueled generation, 
leading to the potential loss of billions of dollars of investments 
made over the past decade to make coal plants cleaner.
  These proposals would make it nearly impossible for the United 
States--which possesses the world's largest reserves of coal--to 
continue to utilize this affordable and abundant energy source. 
Nebraska's families and businesses, which depend on coal-fired 
generation for nearly two-thirds of their electric needs, are going to 
be disproportionately penalized under this plan.
  Under this administration the Federal Government has quashed energy 
projects by slow-walking, politicizing, and rejecting routine permits 
to build energy infrastructure such as the Keystone Pipeline. This 
important project has the clear capacity to grow our economy and 
maintain our energy security.
  On this floor we have heard many comments during this debate about 
the Nebraska Legislature and what was done with regard to the Keystone 
Pipeline. Let me set the record straight. I was in the Nebraska 
Legislature at that time. In fact, the proposed pipeline route crosses 
my former legislative district.
  By the way, I am a cattle rancher. I live in the Nebraska Sandhills 
and I live over the Ogalalla Aquifer. The legislation was not coerced 
and the Nebraska Legislature was certainly not confused, as some of my 
colleagues on the other side have implied.
  The Nebraska Legislature is a very open and public process. Every 
bill--every single bill that is introduced--has a public hearing, and 
our citizens are welcome and encouraged to come to those public 
hearings to express their opinions before legislative committees.
  We also have three stages of debate. We have three stages of debate 
on every single bill before that final vote.
  The Nebraska Legislature made decisions dealing with the pipeline 
siting within our borders.
  The bill passed on a 44-to-5 vote. I would also mention that the 
entire Nebraska congressional delegation--which does include a 
Democratic Congressman from the Second Congressional District who also 
served in the Nebraska Legislature--is united in our support for this 
bill. Last week this bill was called an opening gambit or spin by some 
of my colleagues.
  For the vast majority of Nebraskans, this is about certainty. 
Nebraskans want a decision made. This has been going on for 6 years. It 
is time for the President to make a decision.
  I am also working on some commonsense amendments to improve the 
arduous NEPA approval process and to protect private property energy 
production. I am also going to be offering amendments to set 
commonsense limitations for Federal land designation.
  I am excited about the opportunities we have to pursue policies where 
we can champion the productive use of America's energy resources in 
this Congress and where we will be able to capitalize on our country's 
energy prosperity. I am excited and looking forward to an open 
amendment process where we can do our jobs, where we can

[[Page 759]]

offer amendments, where we can debate those amendments, and most 
importantly where we can vote because that is the only way we are held 
accountable to our constituents, the American people.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Murphy be recognized for up to 5 minutes following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 17

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment I have 
offered with Senators Stabenow and Manchin, which is amendment No. 17 
to S. 1. Our amendment recognizes the importance of the iron and steel 
industries in our country and ensures that if the pipeline is built, it 
is built with American iron and steel so we can create more jobs and 
strengthen our economy.
  Congress has had a long history of using ``Buy American'' provisions 
in order to maximize the economic benefits of infrastructure projects. 
``Buy American'' provisions ensure that more goods and manufactured 
items used in infrastructure and other projects are produced here at 
home. In fact, as recently as 2013 Congress passed a provision in the 
WRDA Act--the Water Resources Development Act--to require the use of 
iron, steel, and other domestically produced goods in water 
infrastructure projects. That is important because it means that we 
keep jobs and profits here at home instead of sending them abroad.
  Unfortunately, there is no such requirement when it comes to 
construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. In fact, according to 
TransCanada itself, half of the pipe for the U.S. portion of the 
pipeline would be sourced from foreign countries. And for the other 
half that would be put together here in the United States, much of the 
raw material, such as the steel that goes into the pipe, could be 
sourced from overseas. This is the problem our amendment addresses. Our 
amendment would require the use of domestic iron, steel, and other 
manufactured goods in the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, 
provided the material is readily available and affordable.
  If adopted, the amendment would create jobs for iron ore miners, such 
as the ones across the Iron Range in my State of Minnesota. It would 
create more jobs for shippers who ship the ore across the Great Lakes 
or by rail or down the Mississippi River. It would create more jobs for 
our steelworkers who work in steel mills across this country.
  At the same time, we specify in our amendment that these requirements 
would be implemented consistent with our trade agreements.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said we 
shouldn't put such restrictions on a private company. But we have to 
remember that this isn't your typical private company. The underlying 
bill to authorize the pipeline would throw out the established approval 
process for the construction of a cross-border pipeline by a foreign 
corporation. That means all of the important assessments regarding 
things such as safety and the environment that our Federal agencies 
might have made on this project are tossed by the wayside. So if 
Congress is going to intervene on behalf of this foreign company, then 
the least we can do is to make sure the company building the pipeline 
uses American-made iron and steel.
  This is a very pragmatic amendment. We all have different views on 
the approval process for this pipeline, and while I believe Congress 
should not circumvent the approval process we have in place, I think we 
can all agree that we want jobs here in America. So I invite my 
colleagues to stand up for our domestic iron and steel producers by 
supporting my amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I come to the floor to support the amendment which is the pending 
business on the floor today.
  This is only my second session in the Senate, but I imagine that it 
means something to be Senate bill 1. It probably means something even 
more to be Senate bill 1 in the new Republican-majority Senate. Why? 
Because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had 8 years in the 
minority to think about what should be the first bill, the No. 1 
priority of this new Republican Senate, 8 years to think about every 
problem American families are facing, to vet every possible solution to 
these problems and decide what is going to be the first bill we are 
going to debate to make this country a better place. There were a lot 
of measures the new majority could have chosen. We could have been 
sitting here talking about a tax cut for the middle class or we could 
have been talking about a proposal to make college more affordable. We 
could have been talking about a proposal to grow small businesses all 
across the country. But we are not talking about those things. After 8 
years of stewing over the problems America faces, Senate bill 1 is an 
oil pipeline.
  As my colleagues who are in opposition to the underlying bill have 
said, this isn't just any oil pipeline; this is a pipeline to ship 
foreign oil right through the heartland of the United States, most 
likely on its way to foreign customers. And it is not just any oil; it 
is the dirtiest oil you can dream up.
  Building this pipeline and increasing the development of tar sands in 
Canada is the pollution equivalent, according to one study, of putting 
4 million new cars on North American roads. But not to worry, say many 
of the proponents of the bill. Admittedly, many dispute some of those 
underlying studies. But the real point here is jobs. It is about 
creating jobs here in the United States.
  This is a sight which is familiar to every single American. It is a 
McDonald's franchise. On average, a McDonald's franchise employs about 
30 to 40 people. That is nothing to sneeze at. Thirty to forty people 
having jobs is a big deal. But the Senate doesn't normally worry itself 
with debating the establishment of a new McDonald's franchise. It is a 
big deal to a local community, but it is not something that necessarily 
moves the needle in terms of the national economy. Yet the Keystone 
Pipeline would create the same number of permanent full-time jobs as 
the average McDonald's franchise. Yes, it creates construction jobs, 
and I don't want to discount the fact that it puts a lot of people to 
work building the pipeline. But do you know what also puts people to 
work? Building a new high school. Building a new rail line. Improving 
our crumbling infrastructure. That puts a lot of people to work as 
well. In the end, the added value to the economy of a new school or a 
new bridge or a new rail line dwarfs that of a pipeline which, without 
the adoption of the Markey amendment to be offered later, will quite 
possibly just take the oil from one country and send it through the 
United States to another country--never mind all of the environmental 
side effects of continuing to develop this oil.
  So I am going to oppose the underlying bill, but I am here to support 
Senator Franken's amendment because if we are going to approve this 
pipeline, let's do everything we can to ensure that even though we are 
only going to create 40 full-time jobs, that we are creating as many 
part-time jobs as possible. That is why it makes sense to require that 
the iron and steel that are going into this pipeline come from America. 
And we know we need to pass this amendment because Keystone has already 
promised that half of the steel and half of the iron is going to come 
from overseas companies. Mr. President, 330,000 tons of pipeline is 
going to come from overseas companies.
  This concept is not new. We do it all the time. We just passed the 
WRDA bill with bipartisan consensus. ``Buy American'' provisions were 
in there. The American Recovery Act--``Buy American'' provisions were 
in there. We have had laws on the books for a long time that apply 
``Buy American'' provisions to private companies that are doing

[[Page 760]]

business in and around industries regulated or funded by the U.S. 
Government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MURPHY. So this amendment will just make sure that at least in 
the short-term we are going to put a few more Americans to work, even 
if we are not going to do anything about the rather paltry economic 
numbers in the long run.
  I am supporting the Franken amendment, and I encourage my colleagues 
to support it as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to make a couple of points. One is that in 
regard to this amendment, to my knowledge, they are talking about 
situations where a project is publicly funded, funded with taxpayer 
dollars. In this case, I would point out by way of closing that this is 
roughly an $8 billion project, but it is privately financed. This isn't 
a publicly funded project; it is financed by private companies and, in 
fact, will create hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue--State, 
local, and Federal Government level--to provide dollars back to the 
taxpayers, with absolutely no tax increase.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________