Keystone XL Pipeline Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am ready to go this morning. I have comfortable shoes on. I am ready for a good, long day and to process a bunch of amendments. I see the Senate doing its work. I know we have important business before the Senate. I know the Judiciary Committee is holding the hearing to listen to the comments from Loretta Lynch, who has been nominated to be Attorney General.
Obviously these are very important issues the committee is discussing today. Interspersed with all of that, we are going to be having a relatively long series of votes this afternoon, which makes it a little bit choppy and a little bit chaotic, but we have business to do in the Senate.
I am pleased we are at this point where I think we can honestly say we are looking at the final stretch in this discussion on the bipartisan, 60-sponsored bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline after more than 2,320 days of delay.
At this point we are past that last call for amendments on the bill. We have spent a lot of time over the past couple of days negotiating which of the roughly 200 first-degree amendments that have been filed would come up for votes. We have a pretty good list. Again, we have 18 of them that will be before us beginning this afternoon. There will be more we will be dealing with at a later point.
But I do think this is significant. I was reading the newspaper this morning, and there is no shortage of critics out there, folks who would say the Senate is broken and can't possibly be fixed.
There was an article from an opinion writer which stated: Within the midst of the Keystone debate, McConnell has had to retreat ``on his promise to allow freewheeling amendments.''
The article then goes on to state that yesterday not much of anything happened on the Senate floor where the pipeline debate had stalled.
In fairness, maybe the debate, in terms of processing amendments on the floor, had stalled out yesterday, but that did not mean there were not significant and serious negotiations going on between the majority and the minority about how we would proceed. Sometimes when someone tunes in and the Senate is in a quorum call, they think nothing is happening. They think the business of the Senate is not being conducted. I need to assure not only colleagues but those who watch this process on C-SPAN that in fact there is still good business being done.
I think that is what has resulted in our opportunity this afternoon to take up some 18 different amendments. There are amendments that are all across the board; 10 of the 18 pending amendments are from colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think we are certainly being very generous in terms of what is out there. We are trying to ensure that Members who want a vote can have them.
Again, keep in mind, with a couple hundred amendments that come forward, we are going to have a lot of duplication. We are going to have issues people may want to make a statement about but might not necessarily want to ask for a vote on. But those that we have in front of us today--everything from issues relating to solar energy to LNG exports, to further discussion about climate change, wilderness, wind tax credits, the Land and Water Conservation Fund--are truly all over the map.
When it is suggested that somehow or other Senator McConnell as the majority leader is moving back from his commitment to allow for an open amendment process, so-called freewheeling amendments, I don't think a whole picture of what is happening on the Senate floor is being painted. In fact it is a very open and considerable process.
I made mention last week that we broke the records. We blew the top off in terms of the number of amendments we were actually able to process on the Senate floor. We moved through 24 amendments on this bill since the time we started it. Twenty-four amendments is pretty considerable, considering that in all of 2014 there were just 15 amendments that were considered the entire year. In fact, on Thursday alone we processed 15. If we do 18, as is on the roster today, that is pretty significant. I feel good about the point we are at. It is not just because we are churning through amendments, it is because of what the ranking member and I have been able to do as the floor managers on this bill, kind of working back and forth. Yes, sometimes it is tedious. Yes, sometimes it is frustrating. Yes, sometimes Members wish they had more time to talk or there were more hours in our day to process all of this, but at some point in time I think we have to recognize when we spend 3 weeks on a bill, that is pretty considerable. When we are able to move 50 amendments--close to 50 amendments is where we may be at the end of this legislation and processing--that is of note.
What I appreciate is we are here this morning getting ready to kick off a long afternoon of votes and go back and forth with Members and disruption of their schedules and committee meetings and the inconvenience that causes. But again this is part of what happens around here. It is not a very tightly scheduled environment because we just have so much that is going on. But being able to move forward on this important legislation is good and necessary.
I think we are setting the stage for the balance of this Congress--under the leadership of the Senator from Kentucky, the majority leader, a commitment to have wholesome debate--to have the opportunity for a process that is not only good for Republicans, it is good for Democrats. It is good for the Senate and for the United States.
AMENDMENT NO. 166
I want to quickly mention an amendment I will have up later this afternoon. This is amendment No. 166. I spoke very briefly to it yesterday when I called it up. But it would require wilderness study areas to be released if Congress has not officially designated them as wilderness within one calendar year. Right now what happens is that when a wilderness study area is designated, it can sit out there on the books almost indefinitely. There have been areas that have been sitting out there without congressional action for a couple of decades.
I don't think this was the point of the process. But I would suggest the amendment I have advanced is a critical one to our Western States, certainly to my State of Alaska.
Again, the news on Sunday of the President moving toward a wilderness designation of all of ANWR--with the exception of a very small slice but all of ANWR--all 19 million acres in addition to the 1002 area, the 1.57 million acres that have been specifically designated by Congress for further review and study.
Right now there are 528 wilderness study areas throughout Alaska and the other 11 Western States. Again, these designations have been made by over time by one administration or another. The next step forward in this process is that Congress needs to act, but Congress hasn't acted. We have had some of these that have been pending since the 1980s.
Again, as I suggested yesterday, if we have had something pending for 20, 30 years, I think that is plenty of time to say that Congress has had to review those areas. Even though we have not turned these into wilderness--in other words, even though Congress has not acted to designate these areas as wilderness, what happens to them?
They are treated and managed as if they are wilderness. Effectively, we have de facto wilderness. The law requires that only Congress determines whether an area is designated as wilderness. But what has happened is just kind of a lag, a lull, if you will, so they don't even need the congressional designation if in fact it is already being managed as wilderness.
We look at the intent behind this. It is clear it was never intended to be this way. We were never supposed to have millions of acres of de facto Agency-decided wilderness around the Western United States. We routinely pass public lands legislation into law. I would like to know we could do it a little more often. As recently as last month, it actually has included new wilderness. So we are not saying that in other areas these wilderness study areas don't get officially designated. There is that process, and we demonstrated that just during the lameduck here. But in the instances where Congress has decided not to act on wilderness study areas, agencies need to start looking at what that broader array of options is for managing the land, whatever that multiple use designation might be.
They need to be looking at this critically with the local people in the area and with the other stakeholders who are involved in the planning process, but clearly they are not doing that on their own.
So what my amendment would do is essentially provide a 1-year timeframe for wilderness designations to be made. I think, again, that is more than enough time for Congress to consider debate and approve legislation for any area with wide support for a wilderness designation, so we will see that amendment this afternoon.
I know the Senator from Washington was on her way, coming from a committee meeting this morning, and had intended to speak. I see Senator Udall is also on the floor.
I yield to the Senator from New Mexico if he wishes to speak at this time before Senator Cantwell comes to the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am glad the junior Senator from Alaska is in the Chair because I am going to be discussing things that are of great concern to Alaskans and really to those who care about the rule of law here and how it applies throughout all 50 States fairly and evenly. As I mentioned just a bit ago, I have offered an amendment that would deal with how wilderness study areas are treated. My proposal is one that would put a time limitation on these study areas.
I mentioned the amendment was precipitated by the President's announcement this weekend about additional areas of wilderness to be designated in Alaska. I have cited two. The 1980 lands bill, ANILCA--I think it is good for us to have a little bit of a refresher on what ANILCA actually did. In one fell swoop ANILCA designated nearly 60 million acres of wilderness in the State of Alaska. That is pretty substantial. It was more than any other President had ever designated at any other time prior to that.
What we have seen since then, with the designation of wilderness, is there has been this fight going back and forth. There have been areas that have been requested for wilderness study areas. But this administration has really taken it a major step forward. On Sunday the President recommended that an additional 12.3 million acres within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be designated as wilderness--so an additional 12.3 million acres on top of the 60 million acres that we already have as wilderness in Alaska after ANILCA.
This action by the President means that these 12.3 million acres will immediately be managed as wilderness. As I have mentioned, right now there is no deadline or expiration for this designation. Even if Congress fails to act--and I am going to make darn certain we do not act on this wilderness proposal the President has advanced--these acres are being managed as wilderness.
Let me just show colleagues what it means for us right now. The small map of Alaska is up there in the corner. It is kind of unfair because it needs to be a much bigger map to get the context. Effectively, what the President is proposing is that in addition to the 7.16 million acres of wilderness that currently exist in the ANWR area--and the ANWR area is a big refuge, a big designation. A little over 7 million acres have already been designated as wilderness. That was done back in 1980. But what he is proposing now is effectively taking the whole balance of the refuge area and making wilderness out of that as well--so 12.3 million acres.
Now, keep in mind this also includes the 1002 area up on the northern part of ANWR. That is the area right, which was specifically designated by Congress for further study of its oil and gas potential. Back in 1980, when the wilderness designation was made for the one area--7 million acres of it--it was determined that refuge status would be afforded the balance of the area, and then the 1002 would be reserved--reserved deliberately for study of its oil and gas potential.
That 1980 act was pretty clear in terms of the bargain that had taken place. I am going to read for the record the provision in the law that we refer to as the ``no more'' clause. It states:
This Act provides sufficient protection for the national interest in the scenic, natural, cultural and environmental values on the public lands in Alaska, and at the same time provides adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its people; accordingly, the designation and disposition of the public lands in Alaska pursuant to this Act are found to represent a proper balance between the reservation of national conservation system units and those public lands necessary and appropriate for more intensive use and disposition, and thus Congress believes that the need for future legislation designating new conservation system units, new national conservation areas, or new national recreation areas, has been obviated thereby.
The act goes on to state that ``no further studies of Federal lands in the State of Alaska for the single purpose of considering the establishment of a conservation system unit, national recreation area, national conservation area, or for related or similar purposes shall be conducted unless authorized by the Congress.''
So the President is basically choosing to ignore the law as set out in ANILCA--the agreement that Alaska has contributed mightily with its share of wilderness.
I remind my colleagues that more than one-half of the wilderness in the entire United States of America is in the State of Alaska. Thus we wrote the law back in 1980 that says no more out of Alaska. They found that balance. Well, this President is tipping that balance.
The coastal plain holds an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil. I mentioned yesterday that if we can tap into these resources, we could see 1 million barrels a day coming down our Trans-Alaska Pipeline for nearly 30 years.
Think about what that would mean, Mr. President--1 million barrels a day filling up that Trans-Alaska Pipeline that is now less than half full, an additional 1 million barrels a day coming into this country. Right now, Americans are enjoying the lower prices of oil. But the President said: Don't get used to these low prices because they may go up. Well, they do not have to go up if we can provide more. If we can increase production in this country, we can theoretically decrease that cost. But we have to be allowed to access that.
Think about the source of good-paying jobs, energy security, billions of dollars in new Federal revenues. The energy security part of it is keenly important, but let us also think about the positive national security implications of energy produced in the United States.
When we are producing more energy in this country and relying less on others, we are less vulnerable. We have greater ability to deal with hostile nations. Sanctions work better when we don't need to rely on that same oil that some of these nations would like to free up for other countries.
From a national security perspective, this is huge. This is where the intersection with the Keystone Pipeline is so interesting: that at the same time this administration has issued this wilderness study it is also fighting so hard to keep us from building the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would allow us to get crude from our friend and neighbor to the north and utilize it to our benefit. The President is saying: No, I don't want to do that.
I guess he would much rather receive it from Venezuela or wherever. He says he wants Brazil to be our big trading partner when it comes to oil.
Hello. Canada--they share a border. They are our friend. They are our closest friend, our strongest trading partner. Are we going to shut down such an opportunity as that?
And: Oh, by the way, that same week let's just go ahead and take off the table permanently one of the greatest reservoirs of crude we have here in the United States next. Let's just take that off the table, too.
What does that say? What does that say to other countries? That we don't care about our own energy security? I care about our energy security, and I care about our national security.
Again, it stuns me to think that what the President is proposing here is a measure that would take off limits permanently our ability as a nation to access the 1002 area to safely develop this enormous potential.
Keep in mind, we are not talking about accessing the full 1.5 million acres in the 1002. The legislation that has been before this Senate, back in 1995 and 2005, asked to open up 2,000 acres--2,000 acres--out of 19.5 million acres in the whole refuge.
The Presiding Officer knows Alaskans can do this safely. We have set and met the highest environmental standards in the world. We do it every day. Our pipeline, our amazing 800-mile pipeline, has a decades-long record of responsible production. It has carried nearly 17 billion barrels of oil safely across our State, over 2 mountain ranges, multiple rivers, in areas where we are known to have a few earthquakes. It is an engineering marvel. It has served our State and our country well.
But instead of recognizing this unparalleled opportunity that we have, we are now facing a mounting lockdown of our resource potential. And the Presiding Officer knows the worst part is, it is not just ANWR we are talking about. Our offshore oil reserves are now also going to be restricted.
Just yesterday the President announced he was indefinitely withdrawing 9.8 million acres in the Beaufort and the Chukchi Seas from leasing. So now ANWR is going to be locked up, as well as the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. I don't have a map of these areas that have been taken off limits, but I can tell you that it is an area of roughly 9.8 million acres. There is some real question that I have in my mind. After reading the Interior's press release, I don't have any real comfort that the two sales that are being proposed--one in the Beaufort and one in the Chukchi--will actually stay on schedule.
The Secretary of the Interior is quoted saying that: Interior will continue to consider oil and gas exploration in the Arctic. It is not a very firm commitment, as far as I can see.
But when we look at it altogether--between the ANWR wilderness designation and the Arctic offshore withdrawal--Alaska has lost more than 22 million acres of land and water where energy could be produced for the good of this country, and it has happened in less than 1 week. It has happened over a span of 3 days--22 million acres.
So what is 22 million acres? It is an area about 563 times larger than where we are here in the District of Columbia. It is about 28 Rhode Islands. I know Rhode Island is a small State by comparison, but 28 of them adds up. It is about 4.5 times the size of the State of Massachusetts. Again, this is just to give you an idea of what was taken off limits, indefinitely, by this administration since Sunday.
My reaction to all this has been pretty strong. I think it is pretty obvious to anybody who would take a moment to think about it, but I am amazed our President can look at Alaska and think, this is what we need most right now.
We are facing a pretty significant budget shortfall. I know our Governor has spoken to the President and the Secretary of Interior about Alaska's situation. Then this is what he gets as a ``we will work with you''? I don't think so. This is not an indication of a Federal Government that wants to work with the State to develop its resources.
The Governor asked the Secretary of the Interior for an address, because he said he needed to send an invoice for the lack of any economy Alaska would be able to generate with these actions.
The one thing--the one thing more than anything else that could help our State--is to be able to access our Federal lands and our waters so that we can fill up the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, so that we can not only help Alaska but we can help the rest of the country. But that seems to be the one thing this President is intent on denying, whether it is in ANWR, whether it is in our offshore, or whether it is in our National Petroleum Reserve, where this President basically unilaterally took off about half of that in terms of availability of access.
I noted that when the President made his announcement on Sunday, the video that went out showed beautiful pictures of the refuge area. Again, this is a big area. This whole refuge is about the size of the State of South Carolina. It is big and there are some amazing spaces--I am the first one to admit it, amazing spaces--just as there are all over Alaska.
But I watched that video as he was flying in his airplane to go to India, and I thought to myself: The President hasn't been to Alaska, even though he says he only has three States left to see and Alaska is not included. So I actually asked my staff to find out. By my count, the President has been to Alaska three times during his administration. And he told me, before he was President, he had never been to Alaska. So three times during his administration. All three times were basically to get fuel. And granted, to give him credit, on one of those times he did meet with the troops at Elmendorf, but he never went off the base. The other two times were in the middle of the night for as long as it took to get fuel.
In my mind, that is not visiting Alaska. That is not trying to understand who we are. We have some pretty beautiful, wide-open skies. But when you are flying at 35,000, 45,000 feet looking down, that is not how you get a view of Alaska.
So outside of this short meet-and-greet, outside of a bargaining chip to gain support from national constituencies, he is basically viewing Alaska as a refueling stop--which is no shortage of irony here in the fact that he is happy to refuel Air Force One in Alaska, but he doesn't seem to want fuel produced in Alaska.
I can get pretty frustrated and upset about this. Part of it is because so much of this comes without consultation with us, without listening to the vast majority of Alaskans--as if, once again, we are nothing but a territory and the promises that were made to us at statehood mean nothing.
I was born in the territory. It was not that long ago that Alaskans knew what it meant to be kind of kicked around by folks on the outside. We didn't have a voice. We thought statehood was going to change that. We thought that statehood compact--the promises made that Alaska would be able to deliver to its citizens based on the amazing resource wealth that we had--we thought that was going to count for something. Apparently, not enough.
I was a little bit surprised to read that the White House counselor, Mr. Podesta, thinks I have overreacted to these announcements and to others that I have been told may be coming--more to come--and he suggested my reaction is not warranted.
I would ask any one of the other 99 Senators here: Think about how you would respond if the citizens of your State woke up to a message that we are going to take 12 million acres away from you and your potential to develop in your State; and then on Tuesday, we are going to take away 9.8 million acres. But don't worry, we are the Federal Government, we are here to help. Alaskans want to help themselves. We want to be able to exercise that independence, that free spirit that so many of us in Alaska identify with. We want to help our neighbors, help our families. But this kind of help we don't need. Don't lock us up. Don't shut us out.
It was suggested in Mr. Podesta's comments, and I saw it in other press reports, that somehow or other the Interior Department felt compelled to move forward with the timing of these announcements because we were ratcheting up on ANWR. They suggested I had introduced a bill. I haven't introduced a bill. I do intend to introduce a bill. But to somehow suggest this was precipitated because the delegation is making a charge on ANWR is, at this time, unwarranted.
It did kind of make me wonder, maybe the White House isn't aware of how Alaskans feel about this. So in the few minutes I want to take this morning I want to read a few of the quotes from our State leaders who have come out against this decision since they were announced, particularly as they relate to ANWR.
We have a new, Independent Governor. As I mentioned, he has already had the opportunity to meet with the President and talk about Alaska's issues. Again, he has also met with the Secretary of Interior to talk similarly. Governor Walker says he is ``angry, very angry, that this is happening.''
Our State senate president, Kevin Meyer, said the following:
The impact of this decision, if allowed to stand, will harm the future of our Great State and will deal a devastating blow to our economy.
I spoke with our house speaker, a gentleman by the name of Mike Chenault from the Kenai Peninsula, an area where we have oil and gas potential in the Cook Inlet. They know about oil and gas. The speaker said:
The president just doesn't get it, or he does get it and doesn't care about the will and voice of Alaskans. That's beyond offensive.
In response to the President's ANWR announcement, Speaker Chenault also had some pretty choice words. He said:
Alaska's not a territory anymore and it's high time our federal overlords stopped trying to treat us like one.
The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, whose shareholders, people who actually live on the North Slope, issued a press release stating that:
We are staunchly opposed to this relentless and coordinated effort to designate the Coastal Plain of ANWR as Wilderness. This administration has deliberately ignored the input provided by the most affected people within ANWR.
Colleagues, remember that when this President is suggesting that this area needs to be named or designated as wilderness, the 1002 area, people live there. People live their lives there--children go to school and people work there.
They fly in and out. They have a little grocery store. They try to make an honest living there. They subsist, absolutely; but people live there. To quote from the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the corporation's shareholders who live there say, ``this administration has deliberately ignored the input provided by the most affected people within ANWR.''
I think the reason they have ignored it is because they forget people actually live there. How can people live in a wilderness?
Democratic State Representative Ben Nageak of Barrow, who is an Inupiat and born in Kaktovik, who lives in the affected area, wrote this:
President Barack Obama and his lieutenants at the Interior Department will permanently harm our people and all Alaskans with his colonial attitude and decision making ..... It's terrifying to see the extent by which our pleas for time and a fair hearing of our views fall on deaf ears 5,000 miles away.
That is a State representative born and raised in this area, an Inupiat, who is saying 5,000 miles from here you are making decisions without listening to us, without listening to our people.
Our North Slope Borough Mayor Charlotte Brower didn't mince any words, either. She said that ``these types of paternalistic, executive fiats seem to be more appropriate for Andrew Jackson's administration than Barack Obama's.''
Pretty tough words. I am starting to think my words were pretty mild based on what I read from the mayor of the North Slope Borough and the Democratic State representative from Barrow.
Mayor Brower has invited President Obama and Secretary Jewell to visit the North Slope, and she asked them to meet with the people who actually live there before proposing these types of sweeping land designations. If the President and the Secretary actually accept that invitation, Mayor Brower concluded:
They might learn that the Inupiat people who have lived on and cared for these lands for millennia have no interest in living like relics in a giant open air museum. Rather, they hope to have the same rights and privileges enjoyed by people across the rest of the country.
That seems like a pretty fair request to me.
Even the New York Times interviewed a few Alaskans who didn't hide their feelings. One woman who said she had voted for the President twice said, ``He has just alienated an entire state.'' She described herself as being ``on the fence'' about ANWR before the proposal, but she added, ``without talking to any of us, just doing it by fiat--that's not how you lead.''
I think she summed it up pretty well. What the President has done, the way he has done it--it is unfair, uncalled for, and it is unwarranted. So for it to be suggested by the counselor from the White House that my response is somehow overreacting or unwarranted, I think they should start listening to all of the people of Alaska. The presiding officer and myself were sent here to represent them and I think we are expressing pretty clearly where Alaskans are coming from on this.
This is wrong. It should not be tolerated. And we will not just sit back while this administration locks up our State and the potential of our people.
We have a lot more we will be discussing about this. Again, I mentioned on Monday that there was a trifecta with what we see coming out of this administration. I have been told by the Secretary that we would see his ANWR designation and that we would then see the 5-year lease sale that would take areas that had been in deferred status and completely withdraw them for an indefinite period of time, and that there would be a third announcement coming relating to the National Petroleum Reserve--the area where folks who said don't go to ANWR, go to NPRA, go to the National Petroleum Reserve. So the first company that tried to do so is trying to make it happen. What this administration is doing with the mitigation costs they are laying in front of them, the company will determine whether it is going to be economic. But my fear is that will be the third kick to Alaska.
So it has been a bad week, a bad week for Alaska. But you know what, we are not people who are deterred by bad news, by bad weather. We have a way to roll with it.
I was looking at the front page of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner yesterday. They had a little recap of what is going on with the weather. It is about 52 below zero in Fort Yukon and 51 below in Fort Greely where we base our ground-based missile defense system. We are pretty proud of what we do. We can still provide for the defense and protection of this country and do it in some pretty cold weather.
In Fairbanks, where I went to high school, I think the weather this morning was 47 degrees below zero, but the kids still go to school in this kind of weather. We are doing what we do up north. It is not easy, but it is an amazing place and the people there are pretty resilient. We have been kicked this week, but that doesn't mean we are down. It means we are just getting started.
With that, I will have more to say about the process in front of us this afternoon, where we are with Keystone; but again, I am pleased that we have a good series of votes to keep us busy this afternoon, and I appreciate the indulgence of colleagues as we go through a process that can be very disruptive as they are trying to meet with constituents and pursue committee business. But I think we recognize that we want to be on a path toward completion of this bill, and I thank them for their cooperation.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would urge colleagues to oppose the Cardin amendment.
In review, it appears that it is designed to halt the construction of this pipeline before it even begins. The amendment tells the President to provide this analysis of the potential risks to public health and environment from a leak or rupture and to provide that to every municipality and every county along the route, as well as to the Governors. Then the Governor can petition the President to effectively locate the pipeline somewhere else, at which point, again, construction could never commence.
The Governors of Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska have already approved the pipeline route through their States. So this amendment is an effort, I think, to build that opposition over contamination fears and in turn, pressure those Governors to reverse their positions and halt the pipeline's construction.
I think it is important for colleagues to understand the risks to the water supplies along the pipeline path were examined by the State Department's final SEIS. They were found to be not significant. Again, I will vote no on this amendment and strongly encourage my colleagues to join me with this.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am not entirely certain I like this amendment. This is the first I have heard PHMSA may not have the resources to do its job. It does seem fair to have PHMSA come tell us if they do not have adequate resources.
What I most strongly oppose with this amendment is its attempt to tie the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline to an unrelated pipeline in a different State. There is no limit for the PHMSA study and certification included here, so we could be looking, in addition to the already 2,300-some-odd days this delay has been in place, at further delays.
If my colleagues from Michigan are interested in a PHMSA study, I recommend they introduce their effort as a stand-alone bill so it can be considered by the committee of jurisdiction. If it is needed, we can move it through the regular order and certainly consider it in the future.
I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I remind colleagues that we are on 10-minute votes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the sponsor of this bill knows that I, too, am a supporter of solar, and I think we all are, but it is important to recognize what this measure would do. When we are talking about the benefits to this country and how much it will cost, it is important to understand this.
When this was first introduced in the 110th Congress, the goal of 10 million solar roofs legislation was too costly, but we have since seen decreased costs and growth in the solar industry that have made this Federal assistance unnecessary. We have seen the residential solar market grow, we have seen the costs drop. The cost of the solar systems have dropped about 60 percent in the last 4 years. Despite these trends, we are not close to reaching that 1 million mark let alone the 10 million installations. So the real question is, How much is this going to cost us to achieve?
The proposed rebate per system is the lesser of 15 percent of the initial capital cost. This puts the Federal Government on the hook for up to $100 billion to pay for these installations.
We can debate the merits of jobs and job creation, but I again urge my colleagues to oppose the Sanders amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have had an opportunity to speak on this amendment several different times. Effectively, what we are doing is releasing wilderness study areas if within 1 year of receiving the recommendation Congress has not yet designated the study area as wilderness.
Effectively, what is happening is designations will come from the administration. Congress is the entity that is to approve them. But in the interim these areas are managed as de facto wilderness. In fact, many areas have been managed as de facto wilderness for decades because the Congress has not acted.
So simply, what we do in this amendment is to put a time period. Until the Congress makes a final determination on the wilderness study area, these areas will be determined not to be wilderness and not managed as such. But they are putting a time parameter on that so that they are not managed as wilderness areas indefinitely.
I would urge a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, claiming the 1 minute in opposition. As the Senator from New York has described, this would apply to the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act to underground ejection of natural gas. Currently the Safe Drinking Water Act expressly prohibits this application.
This amendment to add the requirements to the Safe Drinking Water Act is beyond the scope of the immediate Keystone debate. We are debating the approval of a pipeline that is going to carry oil, not gas. If the Senator from New York wants to debate the issues of fracking--most certainly those issues are before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the Safe Drinking Water Act--I would welcome a stand-alone bill. We will have those discussions, but on this measure I would oppose and encourage Members to vote against the Gillibrand amendment.
I would remind Members we are so close to wrapping up this series of amendments. If we can ask the folks to stick around for these final few and keep to the 10-minute line. I know Senator Feinstein is looking to encourage the women of the Senate to gather for a meal later on, and that would be important for us.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source