Keystone XL Pipeline Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are here this evening, after the conclusion of two cloture votes where we have failed to get the sufficient 60 votes that are required to cut off debate and move forward on this bill.

As the floor manager, I will be working with my counterpart on the energy committee, Senator Cantwell, to define a list of amendments and define the universe we are talking about. Perhaps we can work toward an agreement that will allow for additional amendments to be processed and ultimately allow us to get to passage of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

This measure, S. 1, is a bipartisan measure that will work to create jobs for this country and will not only help with our relationship with our friends and allies to the north but is also widely supported by the American public. I am hopeful that what we will be able to do tonight--by working with colleagues--is to again define how we will get to the final resolution of this very important bill.

Last week we saw this measure include several important energy efficiency bills--including the adoption of the measure of the Senator from Ohio--particularly the one provision that relates to water heaters, which is very time sensitive. We were also able to add two sense-of-the Senate provisions to S. 1. One provision relates to the oil spill liability trust fund and the other provision is related to the issue of climate change.

Here we are, more than 2 weeks into debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline, and we voted on a total of 24 amendments to the bill. We voted on more amendments last week than we did in all of 2014. In fact, Thursday was a long day for all of us. We moved out 15 amendments, and that was as many as we had voted on in all of 2014. In 2014, this Senate voted on 15 amendments. This past Thursday, we voted on 15 amendments in one day on this Keystone bill. We are now up to 24 amendments, and we have made some progress.

I am very aware that not everyone is fully happy with where we are right now. We hit our first bump in the road--back to regular order--but that is the way we have to roll with some things every now and again. I hope we are at the point where we will be able to get back on track, a track that will allow for again closure of this very important measure.

I wish to remind Senators that we are in this place where we had to vote on cloture because we got to a point last week where a unanimous consent request to vote on the then-pending 12 amendments was blocked. I will also remind colleagues that invoking cloture on a bill does not end all debate. We still have up to 30 hours of additional debate time left, and during that time amendments that are germane to the underlying bill can still be called up, considered, and voted on. We have quite a few of those left.

In fact, at last count the amendments that have been filed to date--there are 143 amendments that I have on my tally today that have been filed. I don't know if that is a current, up-to-the-minute accounting. We asked Members to have their amendments in by 3 this afternoon and second-degrees filed by 5 p.m. My point to colleagues is that there is still much to be done with this bill if your interest is voting on amendments.

I wish to repeat something that the majority leader commented on when we came into session just a little bit ago. We were on this bill just 2 months ago, and at that time there was a grand total of zero amendments that we voted on--zero. So now, as I mentioned, we have at least three that have been incorporated into the bill already--two sense of the Senate, one on climate, one on the oil spill liability trust fund, and one on energy efficiency. Again, there are some 140 to 150 amendments that have been filed.

I am glad we have this process going on. I am glad to see these amendments. For those who suggest that somehow or other the majority is closing down the opportunity for debate or to offer amendments, all we need to do is look where we were 2 months ago. Two months ago this bill had zero amendments. Fast forward to today, and we have had votes on 24 amendments to this bill. We have adopted at least 3 of those amendments, and again there are some 140-odd amendments that are out there.

I want us to get through this measure, and I wish to do so in a way that is respectful to the process, respectful to Members, and that dignifies this institution. We have a lot out there, and I recognize that.

I have had Members from both sides of the aisle ask me: How do I get my amendment pending? How do I get it to the point so it can considered? We will be working on that issue tonight and into the morning.

I thank my colleague from Washington because I do think we have truly been trying to work in good faith.

My colleague from North Dakota has a few words on the process, and then I would like to reclaim my time for just a few more moments, if I may.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership on this issue. He has been persistent, diligent, and very articulate as we have moved through the process, and I appreciate that a great deal.

I thought I was going to be spending the vast majority of my time this week going through each of these many amendments that Members have presented. As I mentioned, we have 140-plus amendments.

But my attention on Keystone and the issues in front of us was dramatically pulled away because of an announcement by the administration which I learned of late on Friday evening, and which was the first announcement today.

The fact is I am not in a very good mood right now. I am not in a very good mood, and I think it is probably true to say that most Alaskans are not in a very good mood, because folks back home woke up Sunday morning to the news that this President effectively declared war on our economic future in the State of Alaska.

I know those are pretty hard words. It has been suggested by some in the administration that perhaps I am overreacting. Let me tell my colleagues, when our economic opportunities as a State, which lie in our natural resources, are denied us as a State and the promises that were made when we entered the Union--the compact we made--we are now not able to see those promises, then there is nothing else. There is no other way to describe it than that it is a war on our economic future.

We have winter going on in Alaska right now. In my hometown where I went to high school, I think it was about 30 below this weekend. Up on the North Slope, temperatures are about 60 degrees below zero. It is pretty cold.

The President, in his video where he made his announcement that he is moving to put the Arctic Coastal Plain in de facto wilderness, described the area in the North Slope as fragile, that the wildlife is fragile. I will tell my colleagues, the area in the coastal plain, the area in ANWR is an amazing place. It is a special place, as are so many places in Alaska. It is an amazing place. I am blessed to call it home. But the President decided on Sunday that this was the perfect day to announce his unilateral decision to manage the Arctic Coastal Plain as de facto wilderness.

Now the coastal plain--and I don't have my maps, but we are going to be seeing a lot of maps of Alaska and ANWR coming up here. The coastal plain is the area on the very northern part of the State, and it is part of the nonwilderness portion of ANWR. People need to understand that ANWR is a huge area. It is 19.7 million acres. It is an area the size of the State of South Carolina. There are portions of ANWR that have been designated as wilderness and they were designated as wilderness back in 1980, along with other areas in the State of Alaska that were designated as wilderness. In fact, so much wilderness--close to 60 million acres of wilderness designated in 1980--so much so that there is actually a provision in the law, in ANILCA, that says, that is enough. Alaska has given enough, in the sense that more than half of the wilderness area in the United States of America is in Alaska. That is, Alaska has more than half of all of the other wilderness in all of the remaining 49 states. Alaska has more than half. So the sense was there will be no more wilderness declarations in Alaska. Yet, the President announces Sunday that, in addition to the coastal plain, effectively all of the balance of ANWR will be managed as wilderness.

So what does this mean to a State such as Alaska? Again, history is going to be important in this discussion going forward because the area in the coastal plain--the 1002 area--and it is designated as such because of a section in the law--the coastal plain was specifically set aside in 1980 for further study of its oil and gas potential. So a decision was made back in 1980 where we had more than 100 million acres in Alaska that were turned into Federal law, but it was recognized that this area--that 1.57 million acres--was unique because of its resource potential. It was identified in law as such. And it said, We are going to reserve this. We are going to study it for its oil and gas potential.

Then, in the 1980s, the Reagan administration did just that. They studied the coastal plain and they recommended that it be open to responsible energy development. Ever since then we have been seeking permission to open up just 2,000 acres on the coastal plain for that very purpose--for oil and gas exploration.

We are not talking about opening up the full coastal plain. We are not talking about touching any of the area that was designated as wilderness in 1980. We are talking about a development that would have an impact on an estimated surface area of 2,000 acres in a 1.57-million acre area that has been set aside specifically for this.

So when we think about what that means, we learn that 2,000 acres is .1 percent of the entire 1002 area. It is .01 percent of ANWR. When we put it into context, 99.9 percent of ANWR would remain untouched if all we were seeking to do was to access the 2,000 acres.

We also know that if we were able to access this small area within the coastal plain that we can gain access to an estimated 10.3 billion barrels of oil. If we produce oil at that rate of 1 million barrels a day, it will last almost 30 years.

Right now we have an oil pipeline in Alaska, the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline, which bisects the State 800 miles from the North Slope down to Valdez, and it has been doing a fine job of providing resource to the country in an environmentally sound and safe manner. It is an engineering miracle. It is fabulous. What it lacks right now is more oil in the pipe. We are less than half full. So the State of Alaska is being aggressive in looking for how we might not only fill up the pipe to help Alaska and to help the country and to bring about jobs and bring about revenues, but how we can do so in a responsible manner.

We think we have some pretty high standards in Alaska, and we need to. This is extreme environment. It is tough working there right now, let me tell my colleagues. They don't shut down because it is cold. In fact, this is the only time of the year they can explore out there, because the environmental safeguards are such that we can't take exploration rigs out on the tundra in the summer where it might leave a mark. No. We wait until it is the coldest, the darkest, and the ground is frozen as far as it possibly can. So this is the time of year that we are hoping to be able to do more.

But what this President is doing is not only saying no to that 2,000 acres we are seeking to access that will be bringing us a million barrels a day, potentially, for 30 years and allowing for jobs and a resource--no to that 2,000 acres--he would say no forever. He would not only say no to oil and gas development, but no to anything else. No road, no airstrip, no nothing.

The President is saying the Congress has to make this decision, and in fairness, that is true. It is only the Congress that can make that decision to convert the coastal plain to permanent wilderness. But the reality is he has made this decision, and he has made it without us. What happens under this comprehensive conservation plan--this CCP--this area is now immediately treated as wilderness, with or without our approval. So that designation may not be there, but how is it being treated? It is being treated as wilderness.

I would assert this is in clear violation of the ``no more wilderness'' clause--the ``no more'' clause in ANILCA. It is so frustrating. It is so infuriating to think that we acknowledged that some 30 years ago, when ANILCA was passed, and that recognition--when so much of the State of Alaska was put off limits to any form of development, to place it in wilderness status and to have the Federal Government agree that we had done our part, that we had contributed enough of our lands.

The Presiding Officer is from a State that has wide open spaces. What do we do as a State if we have so much of our State--66 percent of the State of Alaska that is federally held? And we all know there are different aspects to Federal public lands. BLM lands mean something, Park Service means something, refuge status means something, and wilderness status means something else altogether. So when we acknowledged and the Federal Government acknowledged no more in Alaska, we thought that would be respected. We thought that might be respected. But, apparently, this President is going to choose to ignore it.

My colleagues can tell this is an argument and a debate I feel very strongly about, and I feel very strongly about it because I have been living with it my entire adult life. For as long as I can remember, we have been talking about how might it be possible to look into these extraordinary reserves and resources that we know are in the 1002 area. There have been highs and there have been lows. Back in 1995, when it was my father and Ted Stevens who were working this issue, they were able to successfully get it through the Congress only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. And then 10 years later, it was Senator Stevens and myself who were able to get it so close; we were one vote shy in the Senate. The House has passed ANWR, I believe Congressman Young told me today, on 12 separate occasions. Now we are back yet another 10 years later. So maybe this is an issue that keeps coming back every 10 years.

This wasn't the worst part of the news I was dealing with this weekend. At the same time I was given a heads-up that the administration was going to be releasing this CCP--this comprehensive conservation plan that will treat ANWR as wilderness--I was told that we are going to see the announcement of the administration's 5-year lease/sale plan. That is substantial for us. As folks know, we have been trying to advance the leases that have been sold in the Beaufort and in the Chukchi for some period of time, and it has been a tortured process, as many people know. But what we are told is that with the lease/sale that will be announced, portions of the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea will be indefinitely withdrawn from the next 5-year plan for the Outer Continental Shelf which, again, is due to be released.

I think it is important to know we have had deferrals off of our coasts in the Beaufort and the Chukchi, but these are no longer going to be deferrals. They are going to be withdrawals, which means that not only will they not be included in this lease sale from 2017 to 2022, but they will stay in place until such time--it is an indefinite withdrawal--as the next President, whoever he or she may be, should decide to change it. It is different than a withdrawal.

What it then says to us is, okay, no, we are going to lock up ANWR permanently so that the resources that may be available to you--as much as a million barrels a day coming down through your pipeline to supply this country--no, put that off limits, and, oh, the offshore you want to try to advance, we are going to make it a little more difficult because we are going to take these areas and we are not going to include them in this 5-year lease sale. In fact, we are going to indefinitely withdraw them.

This could have significant impact on our ability to access the estimated 23 billion barrels of oil of Alaska's North Slope. Again, when we are talking about how we are going to fill up that pipeline, we have been working toward those opportunities offshore. But there is a third gut punch to Alaska that is coming--a third.

Remember, all these were supposed to be unveiled this week. What a week.

First, close off ANWR permanently.

Second, make the offshore that much more difficult.

And third is in the area where all those who said no to wilderness, go over to the National Petroleum Reserve, that is where you should be accessing this oil. Well, okay, that is where folks are going. ConocoPhillips is trying to access some leases in the National Petroleum Reserve. These are leases that were awarded in 1998, so more than a few years to be working through all of the issues here.

What we learned was that the terms and conditions of the mitigation that are going to be required by the Department of the Interior to allow Conoco to proceed with the alternative that would allow for a short road to access the pad, those mitigation costs and other requirements are going to be so much that the project will no longer be economic.

Think about it. Years in the process and the permitting and the cost that goes into it, years to get there.

I don't think most people know--do you realize how much oil is produced on Federal lands in Alaska? It is a real easy answer because it is a big fat zero. There is none. There is no oil that is produced on Federal lands. We have been trying to make it happen.

We have been going to the National Petroleum Reserve because we have been put off limits with ANWR. It hasn't been made permanent wilderness. We haven't been able to access it because that too takes permission from Congress. So the whole area where our State has these resources--these reserves, ANWR to the east, Beaufort, Chukchi offshore, National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska--what this administration is doing is saying this ``all of the above'' strategy for an energy plan for America, we are starting to think in Alaska that means everybody but Alaska.

I just can't articulate the anger, the frustration. As I tried to convey my thoughts to the Secretary, I said, I am just not sure if this administration doesn't care about Alaska and its people at all or whether you even think of us. But I have come to the conclusion that they still view us as a territory, a place where you could come in and do what you will because you are a territory. Well, we are not a territory. We are 1 of the 50 States. We are one of those stars on that flag. Last time I checked, we had just as many rights as any other star on that flag.

What is coming at my State and the arrogance with which this administration is treating us is unacceptable, and it will not stand. Everybody wants to know, what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do about it? I am going to make sure that people understand who we are, that people understand that there are human beings who live in the 1002 area. You are going to take an area and declare it wilderness. People live there. Children go to school there. Yes, we actually have a polar bear watch to make sure the kids don't leave their homes early in the morning to go to school when it is still dark, and there might be a polar bear out there.

Things are different in Alaska, but we still live there. We still want a quality of life for the people that is not unlike what we would have here. We don't want to have communities where we still have no sanitation facilities, where people are hauling their human waste in a bucket in the corner of the house and dumping it in a lagoon. We don't want to be in that situation. But you know what, it seems as though we have to get permission to do anything, and that permission is routinely denied. Or if it is denied, they delay it indefinitely so that it adds to your cost.

We pay more for our energy. We pay more to keep warm in the State of Alaska than you do anywhere else. You might say, of course, it is colder up there. You know, back here it is going to be cold in New York. There is nobody in New York who is paying $10 a gallon for fuel like the people in Kobuk are paying. There is nobody in Massachusetts who is going to get hit by this storm and it is going to be cold and is paying $7.50 for fuel like the people in Fort Yukon are paying.

We live there because we want to live in Alaska. It is an amazing place. We make a lot of sacrifices. But one of the sacrifices that we won't make, one of the things we will not give up, is to be treated like some second-class citizens, to be treated like a territory that has no rights. So when we are full participants and we say there are special places in Alaska that should be wilderness--and we signed off on that in 1980--then negotiate with us. Talk to us about what happens next.

But I made the statement--again, it is harsh words, but I have suggested that this administration is one that is willing to negotiate with Iran, but they are not willing to negotiate with Alaskans. Those days are over. Those days are over.

We have some issues to deal with in front of us right now as we move through the legislation in front of us. We have been focused on energy for a good couple of weeks-plus now. I am glad of that. I am glad we are going to be able to work through a process where we can move through some of these amendments. But know that the words I have spoken tonight on the floor are words that come from my heart as an Alaskan.

This is not about politics. This is not about me being able to wield some muscle because I have the gavel in the interior appropriations committee. This is about Alaska as a State and our rights as a State. This is about a compact that was made with the State of Alaska, about how we would be able to use and access our lands, how we would be able to care for the people who call Alaska home. This is pure passion that drives my comments, and my comments will be echoed not only by the full Alaska delegation, as small as we are, but by our Governor, by our legislature, by our elected officials, by people who live all around the State, including the people who live in the coastal plain in ANWR.

This is serious, and Alaskans are going to take this very seriously. You will be hearing a lot more from us.

With that, I thank my colleagues for the indulgence of time.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source