[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 886-887]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I thought last night, as the majority whip 
just mentioned, that the President once again showed his sense of why 
the majority in the Congress and the majority of people in the country 
support the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is not just about the pipeline, 
even though he doesn't quite seem ever to get that. It is about whether 
we are going to truly take advantage of more American energy.
  Clearly, the President suggested that was one of the great 
accomplishments of his administration. I think we could make the 
argument--and make it effectively--that his administration hasn't done 
much to implement the great steps we have made forward. In fact, on 
public lands and other measures that we were in the process of 
considering when he became President, they have backed away from that 
rather than stepped forward.

[[Page 887]]

  We seem to be unwilling to step forward and embrace this great 
opportunity that is so much more than the jobs for just the pipeline 
itself.
  I filed two amendments today on the pipeline bill--the topic we are 
talking about, the topic my good friend from North Dakota has done so 
much to bring attention to since the day he arrived in the Senate.
  It was 4 years ago, when the Keystone XL Pipeline application was 
only 2 years old at the time. Now 6 years later, we are continuing to 
miss an opportunity. It seems that on this topic, as once was said 
about seeking a solution to the Middle East, we can't seem to miss an 
opportunity to miss an opportunity.
  But the two amendments I have filed deal with a couple of critical 
issues that relate to our energy future and our infrastructure future. 
One would be a community affordability amendment where we would have to 
have a study to look at the impact that all of these EPA regulations 
have on communities. These are EPA's unfunded mandates on communities, 
where they tell communities they have to do things but really don't 
give the community any idea how to pay for it.
  The Presiding Officer and I are from two States that have many small 
communities. Those small communities often have a water system, a sewer 
system, and a storm water system, and the EPA comes in and says: Here 
is what we want you to do--maybe not with one of those, maybe with all 
of those--the air quality, the water quality.
  I know the EPA has one regulation on water where the solution can't 
cost more than 2 percent of the median income over a specific period of 
time.
  Now, 2 percent of your income, if you haven't been paying it for your 
water bill, your sewer bill or your whatever bill--2 percent of your 
income is taken right off the top of your income. It makes a difference 
to most families, but at least there is a cap there. But you can have 
that 2 percent on increasing the cost of the water system and another 2 
or 4 or 5 percent on increasing the storm water system, and somebody 
has to pay those bills.
  What this amendment does is suggest that we figure out who is paying 
those bills, what is a reasonable way to pay those bills, and how those 
bills can be paid. We know on the Senate floor, and the President 
knows, and the EPA knows who pays those bills and the people who have 
access to those services. There is no mythical payee here. The person 
who pays your utility bill is you, and if there is increased cost to 
the utility system, that comes to you. The person who pays your water 
bill is you.
  So I believe we need to have a coordinated effort to see how those 
projects impact communities, impact families, and understand how this 
works.
  So this amendment that I filed today directs the EPA to collaborate 
with the National Academy of Public Administration to review existing 
studies of costs associated with major EPA regulations. The amendment 
also directs the administration to determine how different localities 
can effectively fund these projects. The end result would be to come up 
with a working definition of a phrase they use a lot--individual and 
community affordability--but I can't find any evidence that this 
phrase--individual and community affordability--really means anything.
  The amendment I filed today has already been endorsed by the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National 
Association of Counties, and the chamber of commerce in my hometown, 
Springfield, MO.
  The other amendment I am filing, submitted as a sense of the Senate, 
is that the President's U.S.-China greenhouse gas amendment would be 
looked at in a different way. This amendment is cosponsored by my 
colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe. It talks about the agreement 
negotiated between the President and the People's Republic of China 
and, in fact, says this agreement really has no force and effect 
because frankly, Mr. President, it already has no force and effect in 
China. Of the two parties the President says have agreed to this, we 
are the only one who would have to do anything. We think this is a bad 
idea--Senator Inhofe and I--and I think others will join us. It is a 
bad deal for our country, it is economically unfair, it is 
environmentally irresponsible, and once again it produces exactly the 
opposite result of what we would want.
  First of all, I think the Constitution is pretty clear on agreements 
negotiated between countries. There is a Senate role to be played. It 
requires the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate should insist 
we do that job. Whether it is here or on any other agreements with 
other countries, those agreements need to be consented to by the 
Senate. It happens to say that in the Constitution.
  These agreements, under this amendment, also would have to be 
accompanied by actions that may be necessary to implement the 
agreement, including what it costs to implement. The amendment says the 
United States should not sign bilateral or other international 
agreements on greenhouse gases that will cause serious economic harm to 
the United States. It also says the United States should not agree to 
any bilateral or international agreement imposing unequal greenhouse 
gas commitments on the United States.
  The reason I filed this amendment is simple. The agreement the 
President unilaterally negotiated with China and announced last 
November is a bad deal for workers and a bad deal for families, whether 
those workers are in Missouri or Arkansas or anywhere else in the 
country today. The agreement requires the United States to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions from 26 to 28 percent below the 2005 levels by 
2025. It allows the Chinese to increase their emissions until 2030.
  So last night the President said in his State of the Union Address 
that the United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon 
pollution and China committed for the first time to limiting their 
emissions. Well, let's be very frank about that. The President is 
actually right. He has agreed that we would double the pace, somewhere 
around 26 to 28 percent below the 2005 levels in the near term, but the 
Chinese have agreed actually to be allowed to increase their emissions 
for another 15 years and then they would consider--they would 
consider--reducing emissions after that. What this does is drive jobs 
and opportunity to China and other countries that care a lot less about 
what comes out of the smokestack than we do. We lose the jobs we 
otherwise would have had. We try to solve a global problem on our own 
even though we have made great strides already, some of which were 
cost-effective, but they get less cost-effective all the time.
  I am grateful my colleagues allowed me to have a few extra minutes. I 
have filed these amendments, and we will be talking more about them and 
the Keystone XL Pipeline issue over the next few days. I look forward 
to having a vote on these amendments and the vote on the Keystone XL 
Pipeline.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are in 
morning business and the minority is now entitled to 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________