Keystone XL Pipeline

Floor Speech

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, tomorrow is the sixth anniversary of the application for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Six years. Six years ago, September 19, 2008, the TransCanada company applied for a permit for approval to cross the Canadian border to build the Keystone XL Pipeline from Hardisty, Canada, down to Cushing and ultimately the gulf coast, to provide not only oil from Canada but to move oil from States such as my State of North Dakota, of light, sweet Bakken crude, oil from Montana, to our refineries here in the United States. Six years ago, that application was filed, effective tomorrow. So we are here today to talk about the need not only for a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline but for approval of this vitally important project.

The reality is we can make this country energy secure, energy independent, working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. But to do it we not only need to develop all of our resources, our energy resources in this country, and work with Canada as they develop their energy resources, but we need the infrastructure to safely, effectively, efficiently, dependably move that energy to where it is needed, to our consumers.

That is what the Keystone XL Pipeline project is all about. This is truly about building the roads, the rails, the pipelines, the transmission, the energy infrastructure we need as a vital part of our energy plan for this country. We have bipartisan support. We have 57 Senators who support this legislation--57. The reality is I think by next year we will have 60.

So while we sit here and wait--now for 6 years, effective tomorrow 6 years, waiting for a decision from the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline--ultimately I believe this decision will be made by the American people, as it always is and as it always should be. Because I believe that after these elections in November as we go into next year we will not only have 57 Senators who support this project, we will have over 60.

Then Congress will pass legislation, a bill that we have submitted, a bipartisan bill we have pending before this body right now. We will pass it. We will attach it to something the President will not veto. The House has already passed this legislation. Because over 70 percent, I think in the most recent poll, of the American people want this project. They want this project approved.

So here after 6 years--we are going to talk about some of the history of this and all of the work we have done. But before I do that, I want to turn to my colleague from Wyoming, somebody who is incredibly knowledgeable when it comes to energy, somebody who has worked on energy in all different aspects, somebody who truly understands that, look, for the benefit of the American people to build our energy future we not only need to produce that energy, we need the infrastructure to transport it safely, effectively, and well.

I wish to call on the Senator from Wyoming for his remarks on this sixth anniversary of the application, waiting for approval, waiting for a decision from the administration on the Keystone XL Pipeline, for his thoughts and for his comments. I turn to the good Senator from Wyoming.

Can the Senator give us his thoughts as to why this project is still awaiting a decision from the administration, after the President told us, told our caucus last year, at a caucus we had here in an adjacent room, that we would have a decision by the end of 2013, why we are here still awaiting a decision on behalf of the American people?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank the Senator from Wyoming for his diligence and for his work. This is a bipartisan issue. We have legislation now with 57 supporters that is pending before this body. In fact, we have passed this legislation. We actually had passed very similar legislation, different only in the respect that it called on the President to make a decision--this was back in 2012. I think we had 73 votes on this issue. The difference is, the pending bill we have provides congressional approval because the President once again delayed the decision when we passed legislation calling on him to make the decision earlier. So now we have come back with binding legislation, after doing congressional research. This bill makes the decision congressionally under the commerce clause that gives Congress the ability to oversee commerce with foreign nations.

Simply what this does is we say to our closest friend and ally, Canada--TransCanada is a Canadian company--that: Yes, you can cross the border with this pipeline, which is the latest, greatest technology we have for pipeline transport.

Let me show one other chart here, so people understand. When we are talking about pipelines, oil and gas pipelines in this country, this gives you a little sense of the pipelines we have--thousands of pipelines, millions of miles of pipelines that move oil and gas around the country, from where it is produced to the consumers who very much need it. So that gives you a sense of all of the pipelines we have.

Now we are talking about one that has the latest and greatest technology that we are seeking to get approved. To put this into some context, the project we are seeking to have approved is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The reason XL is because the Keystone Pipeline is this pipeline here, which goes from Hardisty up in Alberta down to the Patoka, IL, area as well as Cushing. That is the Keystone Pipeline. So I want to make sure there is no confusion. That is the Keystone Pipeline. That was approved in 2 years and built in 2 years.

So in 2006 the TransCanada company--I was Governor of North Dakota at that time. You can see it runs right through North Dakota. Obviously these things are immensely important. We are now the second largest oil-producing State in the Nation. We produce over 1 million barrels of oil a day--light sweet crude, second only to Texas. We have to get that to our markets and to refineries.

I started working on these projects when I was Governor. In 2006, TransCanada applied for approval of the

Keystone Pipeline. Originally that was supposed to carry 640,000 barrels a day. I think it now carries 750,000 barrels a day. That application was applied for in 2006. It was approved in 2008. The pipeline was built and came online 2 years later. So 2 years to permit, and 2 years to build--4 years total.

When TransCanada applied for a second permit in 2008 for a sister pipeline, Keystone XL, it seemed pretty logical that it was going to be approved, particularly when the initial project had been approved in 2 years, built in 2 years. This is the actual pipeline infrastructure we have. When they wanted to build the sister pipeline, 830,000 barrels a day, it seemed kind of pretty logical they would go through the process and get it approved.

On September 19, 2008, they applied for that approval to move oil from Hardisty, pick up additional oil in North Dakota, Montana, take it down to Cushing and down to the refineries in the gulf, and get oil over to the refineries in Louisiana. September, 19, 2008. Tomorrow is September 19, 2014. Six years later, no decision.

I wish to turn to my colleague, the senior Senator from the great State of Oklahoma. Cushing is a hub for oil from all over the country. It is vital that we are able to move oil in and out of there, because that is a huge transition point between where we produce oil, including our region, but from all over the country and Canada and move it to refineries where it is distributed throughout the country. So we need to be able to move product in and out of Cushing, which is truly a hub for the Nation. That is exactly what this pipeline does.

I would turn to the senior Senator from Oklahoma. I would ask him: Why in the world, given what I have described here--we have thousands of pipelines, millions of miles of these pipelines. We have to get product from where it is produced to refineries and to our consumers. We cannot put it all on rail or you create incredible congestion that leads to accidents and backlogs in shipping of other products. This is the latest, greatest technology for pipelines, for the transport of oil.

Why in the world--what rationale would there be not to approve this pipeline?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to thank the Senator from Oklahoma and pick up on a point he made very well. He made of number of points that are extremely compelling, but one of the points he made is that overall, since about 2008, 2009, that area, our oil production in America is up 40 percent. So people say: Well, we are producing 40 percent more oil than we did in 2008, the end of 2008, so that is good. That is reducing the amount of oil we have to import into this country. We were below 50 percent. Now we are closing in on 60 percent and more oil that we produce. Together with Canada and Mexico, we are up over 75 percent, in terms of the oil that we consume, we produce in this country or get, as I say, from our closest allies and working on getting to 80 percent.

Well, people would say that is very good, but the Senator from Oklahoma made a very important point. Understand that is because we are up 60 percent in oil production on private land--on private land. We are actually down in terms of our production on public land; we are down between 6 and 7 percent. So when you net the two, we are up about 40 percent, but that is because we are up about 60 percent on private land.

I will give an example of how that works on the ground. In North Dakota 90 percent of the land is privately owned, so our oil production is growing tremendously. As I said, we are at about 1.1 million barrels a day and on our way to 1.4 million barrels a day in a few more years.

In Alaska, on the other hand, production is going down because their land is 90 percent public land and a very small percentage is private land. They can't get the permits and they can't build the infrastructure, so the amount of oil they produce is declining. The Alaskan pipeline can carry 2 million barrels of oil a day. It is down to less than 600,000 and declining. This is at a time when we are still getting oil from the Middle East and we are dealing with entities like ISIL, with terrorism, and with instability. How can we continue to be dependent on getting oil from the Middle East when we can produce that oil right here in our country and in Canada? I would ask the good Senator from Oklahoma to comment for a moment on the technology that is enabling us to do so.

Hydraulic fracturing--I think the first well hydraulically fractured in this country was in about the 1950s in Oklahoma.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. I again thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Since 1948, with the first well hydraulically fractured--there have been no cases of contamination since 1948. We are now using this hydraulic fracturing with the latest new greatest technology where, on one pad, on one what we call eco-pad, we will now drill down as many as 18 wells. These wells will have--we go 2 miles underground, and then we drill laterals 3 miles long. Eighteen wells all on one site. Think of how much we have reduced the environmental footprint with that technology. Think of how much less ground disturbance there is. You are covering 1,280 acres. In the old days--and again maybe my friend from Oklahoma would like to think of how many wells they would have had to drill and how much infrastructure and well derricks and pumpers they would have to have all over the landscape, and now we do it on one pad covering 1,280 acres going out 3 miles in all directions from one eco-pad. So it is not just about energy,

I would say to my friend from Oklahoma, it is also better environmental stewardship.

Mr. INHOFE. It is also about technology. All of the environmentalists or extreme environmentalists who are trying to stop or fighting this war against fossil fuels, they ought to be rejoicing that we have this technology now.

When we talk about the number of wells, it it is now past 1 million wells that have been drilled using hydraulic fracturing. By their own admission, there has never been one documented case of groundwater contamination. So the answer is that there is no reason not to do it.

This is our opportunity to be independent. We could be independent in a matter of weeks if we had the opportunity to export.

It is not just private land, it is private and State land. All of the increase we have had, the 63 percent we talk about, is all private and State land. How is it possible that increase could take place on State land while on Federal land it goes down 6 percent? That tells the whole story.

Mr. HOEVEN. I have one more question for my friend from Oklahoma before I turn to my good friend from the State of Georgia.

Answer, please, if you would. As we produce this energy domestically--so we are producing energy here, we are creating jobs, we are creating economic activity, we are creating revenue without raising taxes from a growing economy. We are helping national security because we are not getting oil from the Middle East or Venezuela or places that are hostile to our interests. Now we are talking about environmental stewardship.

We are talking about minimizing the footprint with these new technologies. Why would we not want to move that product as safely as possible, with the latest, greatest type of pipeline, with the best technology and the most safeguards? Why isn't that an environmentally sound decision as well?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, who has been a leader in energy for so many years.

This morning we were addressed by the President of Ukraine. Look at their situation. Because they haven't developed their own energy resources and because they don't have their own infrastructure, they are now dependent--Ukraine is dependent, along with most of the European Union, on Russia for their energy.

They get more than one-third of their energy from Russia. So at the same time that Russia is invading Ukraine, the European Union is reluctant to stand with the United States and our other allies on strong sanctions to prevent that type of aggression. Why? Because they get their energy from Russia.

So when we talk about building the infrastructure we need in this country to work with our closest friend and ally, Canada, to make sure we are energy secure and that we do not need to get energy from places such as the Middle East or Venezuela or other places that may have interests that are antithetical to ours, think about how important it is for the security of our country with what is going on in the Middle East with ISIL, and see what is going on in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, and Russian aggression.

So I turn to our colleague from Georgia, who has also been a staunch supporter of this project, and ask him what is going on in terms of national security, the situation we face today, and why in the world would we not be building--not only producing our energy resources in this country but deploying these new technologies we are talking about that produce energy with better environmental stewardship and building the infrastructure to move it to our refineries and move it to our consumers.

Why are we waiting 6 years for a decision that would enable us to do that very thing on behalf of the American people?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his strong support and his clear understanding of why we need this project and for putting the focus on national security.

In poll after poll two-thirds of Americans support this project. I think in the final analysis the American people will make a decision here. If the President after 6 years refuses to make a decision, clearly his strategy is to defeat this project with endless delays, just defeat by delay. So here we are in year 6 of the application process.

I would turn to my colleague from Georgia and ask his thoughts on this body's ability to step up and make the decision and approve this project on behalf of the American people. What does the Senator foresee? We have 57 who have signed on now. I believe we will get to 60. What is the Senator's sense of our ability to get this done for the American people?

Mr. ISAKSON. If, before we left today and had a final vote on the CR, the majority leader would let a vote come to the floor to get 60 votes to go ahead and move forward on the Keystone Pipeline, in my belief it would happen. For all the reasons I stated and what the American people want and all the reasons the Senator stated, I quite frankly do not understand why one single person in this administration would hold back the Keystone Pipeline.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the State Department has five times approved it; is that not correct?

Mr. HOEVEN. That is absolutely correct. We have the dates of the approval of five different environmental impact statements right here, all finding no significant environmental impact.

Mr. ISAKSON. So that is No. 1.

No. 2, there is no question that being independent in energy makes us a stronger country in terms of our national defense and our foreign policy; is that not correct?

Mr. HOEVEN. That is correct.

Mr. ISAKSON. No. 3, we will have more jobs, more employment, less inflation, and a more vibrant economy if we were developing this petroleum; is that not correct?

Mr. HOEVEN. That is correct.

Mr. ISAKSON. Then I think, knowing the quality and the intellect of the 100 Members of the Senate, there is no doubt that if the leader would bring that vote to the floor today, we would get more than 60 votes to move America forward and say: This Congress is ready to act. We are not in professional malpractice; we in fact are doing good for the American people. We want energy and we want it now.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the good Senator from Georgia.

I understand that our time has expired. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to wrap up this colloquy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HOEVEN. On the facts and on the merits--which is how we have to make decisions for the American people--this is a project about energy, producing energy here at home so we don't have to get it from the Middle East. We know what is going on with the Middle East with ISIL and other organizations that are creating huge problems and that are a danger not only to this country but to the world.

It is about energy here at home and working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. It is about jobs. The State Department itself says more than 40,000 jobs are created with this project. It is about economic activity, a $5.3 billion project and not one penny of Federal spending, just private investment. It is about national security, as we have talked about.

But it is also about congestion on our rails. It is about making sure we don't try to move all this oil on rail so we have so much congestion, we have accidents, and we have seen that happen. It is about harvest and moving ag products from the heartland throughout the country. It is about using the latest, greatest technology to make sure we produce more energy more dependably and with better environmental stewardship than without the project.

Six years. It is time for this body to step forward on behalf of the American people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source