To Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to take 5 minutes to respond to some of the comments the Senator from California made in regard to the environmental impacts.

First, if we look at the environmental impact statements--actually, there were five environmental impact statements done.

And what they found and said very clearly is that the Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant environmental impact. Let me repeat that--no significant environmental impact. That is from the environmental study done by the Obama administration.

Again, that is not me saying it. That is the State Department for the Obama administration saying no significant environmental impact, according to the environmental impact statement.

In addition, I would point out that if we don't build the Keystone XL Pipeline, this 830,000 barrels of oil a day moves by railroad. Now think of that.

What is going to produce more greenhouse gas emissions? Moving all this oil by rail--which by the way takes 1,400 railcars a day--or moving it in tankers across the ocean to China where it will be refined in refineries that have much higher emissions or you putting it in the pipeline? So again, just common sense, what is going to produce more greenhouse gas emissions, having the pipeline or 1,400 railcars per day or sending it in tankers to China to be refined in their refineries that have much higher emissions? Not to mention the fact that what are Americans going to think about that we are going to make Canada send their oil to China so we in America can import oil from the Middle East. That is a pretty tough sell. Again, with the pipeline you have lower greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the heavy crude we import from Venezuela now has higher emissions than the oil that will be provided by the Keystone. I am not even including the fact that it is not just Canadian crude that comes in. It is also light sweet Bakken crude from my home State of North Dakota and our neighbor to the west, Montana. We are not just moving Canadian. We our moving our own crude, and if we don't, we are going to continue to get that oil from Venezuela, which has as high or higher greenhouse gas emissions. As a matter of fact, the heavy crude in California, the good Senator's own State, has greenhouse gas emissions that are equal to or higher than the crude that would come through the pipeline. That is produced in California.

The final point I would like to make on the environmental aspects is that 80 percent of the new production in Canada--in the Canadian oil sands--80 percent of the new production is being done by what they call in situ drilling. So instead of excavating, which is what is being done now with much of the production at the oil sands, they are drilling. They would drill down similarly to the way they would drill for oil with conventional drilling and then put steam down in the hole and have that bring up the oil. So the carbon footprint is reduced using this in situ method, and 80 percent of the production in Canada will be with this in situ method. That will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and the footprint, similar to conventional drilling in the United States.

When you look at the environmental track record in Canada, the Canadians care about their environment too. We all want to find ways to produce energy and do it with good environmental stewardship. I submit to you that the way to do that is to empower and enable the deployment of new technologies that not only produce that energy more cost-effectively, more independently but also do it with better environmental stewardship because you are using the latest, greatest technologies. Instead of moving the product through railcars, you are moving it through the latest pipeline with the latest safeguards. So I wanted to take 5 minutes to respond to some of those environmental issues, and I thank the Senator from California and turn the floor now back to her.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Sure. That is fine.

Madam President, I am going to go through a series of charts here. They are actually getting a little worn because I have used them now for a number of years. I am very hopeful that after today, or certainly after the first part of the next year, I can retire these charts, because it is long past time to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

This is an effort that started in September of 2008. The TransCanada company applied for a Keystone XL Pipeline permit. They started this process in September of 2008. I wasn't in the Senate then. I was Governor of North Dakota at that time. I worked on it for 2 years as Governor, and now I have worked on it for almost 4 years here in the Senate--not building the project, but trying to get approval for this project. The irony is--one of the many ironies--is that the TransCanada company actually built the Keystone Pipeline. A lot of people say, what? What do you mean? I thought that is what we are talking about. No, what we are talking about is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline has already been built.

In 2006, the company applied for a permit to build a pipeline from Hardisty, which is in Alberta, down to Patoka, IL, for the Keystone Pipeline. They applied in 2006. They were granted a permit in 2008. By 2010 they had the pipeline built and operating, bringing about 640,000 barrels a day, going down from Canada, through my State, through South Dakota, through Nebraska, and over to Patoka, IL. Permitted in 2 years, built it in 2 years, and 4 years from start to finish, all done. That is the Keystone Pipeline.

What we are talking about here now is the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is a sister project, and the company has been trying for 6 years to get a permit.

Here we see the route. It is very similar, but it also goes down to Cushing and to the Gulf of Mexico. It is hard to believe it has been 6 years in the making.

We passed legislation to try to get a decision out of the administration. Not only is this not the first pipeline, which is the Keystone XL Pipeline, after we already built the Keystone Pipeline, but this is not the first bill to approve it. In fact, we have passed other bills to approve it.

As a matter of fact, in 2011 I introduced a bill which we passed in 2012 attached to the payroll tax holiday so the President wouldn't veto it, and what that bill said is: Mr. President, you need to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline. If we are going to have an energy plan for this country, if we are going to make this country energy secure, energy independent, we have to have the infrastructure to move that energy to market. We have to have this vital infrastructure. So all that bill said in 2012 is: Mr. President, make a decision. It has been years in the permitting process. Make a decision. And he did. He turned it down. He turned it down because he didn't like the route in Nebraska. So what did we do? We went to work with the good people of Nebraska and set up a different route. We addressed the concerns the President said he had. We rerouted the pipeline and we came back. Still no decision. Still no decision, making it very clear--the President won't turn down the project. We have to ask, why isn't he turning it down? Because it is about jobs and energy and economic growth. It is about energy security, therefore national security, and the American people overwhelmingly want this project--60, 70 percent every time it is polled. That is why he doesn't want to turn it down, because the American people want it but he won't approve it. So what is his strategy? His strategy is defeat through delay. Defeat through delay. Don't take my word for it. Actions speak louder than words. We are now in year 6 of the permitting process.

What does this bill do, Senate bill 2280? We have 56 sponsors on this bill--56. It is a bipartisan bill. We already have a majority of the Senate. Now we just need to get to 60. What does it do? If the President won't make a decision, then Congress needs to. What this bill does is that under the commerce clause of the Constitution, Congress has the authority to oversee trade with foreign powers. We have the authority and the responsibility to oversee trade with foreign countries. So we have the authority to approve the cross-border approval for this pipeline. We have that authority under the commerce clause. So this bill simply says, all right, Congress approves the cross-border authority for this pipeline. That is it. The States still have their right to the route and the oversight in their respective States. We honor, we respect, and we protect. We protect property rights. We are just saying under the commerce clause of the Constitution that we can bring this pipeline across the border, just like the many other pipelines that have come across the border. This pipeline will have the latest, greatest technology, and it will be part of the more than--the millions of miles of pipelines that we already have, except this one will be newer with safety features the other ones don't even have.

That is what this bill is about, and that is what we are working on today. It really comes down to a very simple decision. Do we make a decision for the American people, or do we make a decision for special interest groups that oppose the project?

I wish to thank my colleagues for this very vigorous debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline today. It is very appropriate that we debate it. And it is very appropriate that we vote on it. I had not anticipated getting to a vote until the new Congress, but I am pleased to get a vote today. It is certainly past time that we approve the Keystone XL Pipeline--as I say, 6 years. Six years in the permitting process. How in the world are we going to build an energy plan for this country that truly makes us energy secure and energy independent if we can't build the infrastructure to move that energy around the country--to move the energy we produce and that our closest friend and ally Canada produces from where we produce it to the refineries and to the markets around the country? We can't build an energy plan for this country if we don't approve and build the infrastructure to make it work.

A lot has been written and a lot has been said over these 6 years. But I go back to the most important point, and that is let's make this decision on the merits and let's make this decision on the facts. It is about energy, jobs, and economic growth, and it is about national security through energy security.

On the environmental issues, after five environmental impact statements, the Department of State says there is no significant environmental impact. Look, this isn't me saying it. Read the environmental impact statement. It is not as though we just did it once. It is not as though we just did it twice or even three times. Five of them. Five environmental impact statements. Think about it. Where is the common sense here? Five environmental impact statements. Verdict: No significant environmental impact.

On the jobs issues, the Department of State, again, in the environmental impact statement, says 42,000 jobs. Some say, those aren't good jobs, those are construction jobs. Really? If they are not good jobs, why are all the major national unions strongly supporting the project? Ask them if these are good jobs.

Furthermore, energy is a foundational industry. Low-cost, dependable energy helps all of the other industry sectors in our economy go and makes us more competitive in a global economy.

On the export issue, I think we have heard our President say, oh, it is just all going to be exported. Well, that is interesting, because his Department of Energy says otherwise. If we look at the report from the Department of Energy, it says we are going to use that oil here in the United States. We are going to refine it and use it here in the United States. Interestingly enough, in order for the oil to be exported, we have to get approval from the Department of Commerce--from the Obama administration's Department of Commerce.

One other interesting point: It is not just oil from Canada, it is oil from my great State of North Dakota and oil from Montana--light, sweet Bakken crude that we have to find a way to get to our refineries in the United States. Right now North Dakota produces almost 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, and it is going up. The only State that produces more oil than North Dakota is Texas. Of that almost 1.2 million barrels of oil a day that we produce, 700,000 right now is moving on rail--700,000 barrels a day. That is a problem. This pipeline alone will take 1,400 railcars of oil--1,400 railcars to move that amount of oil. So if we don't have Keystone, we are going to have 1,400 railcars a day moving that product. We already have a problem. We already have our agriculture products backlogged in the Midwest because we are trying to move all of this oil.

Look, we need infrastructure in the right balance. We need pipelines, we need rail, and we need roads. Without it, we have more congestion on the rail as well as more risks for accidents.

For all these reasons and more, as I said a minute ago, the American people have spoken clearly. They have said that it is time to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. I hope that today that is exactly what we do.

We are here now, and we agreed to have a vote at 5:45 p.m. I know that my colleagues from Louisiana----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. HOEVEN. I have 2 minutes remaining to start the final portion of the debate prior to the vote. So without objection----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HOEVEN. So I turn to my colleague from California and my colleague from Louisiana. The time has come to vote. We have had the vigorous debate. I would go back to what I said on this floor repeatedly and will continue to say until we get this project approved. This is about what the American people want. We work for the American people.

I have gone through the merits. I have gone through the arguments. I laid out how the bill works. I talked about the history. But at the end of the day, this is about our job representing the people of this great country and listening to them and doing what they want us to do. The American people overwhelmingly support this project and want it approved. So I ask for an affirmative vote today to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source