Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act -- Veto
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
I am here to discuss the Keystone Pipeline approval legislation and
the President's recent veto as well as our efforts today to override
that veto.
I will be joined in the colloquy with my distinguished colleague from
South Dakota. Also our colleague on the other side of the aisle from
West Virginia will be joining us shortly, as well as the chairman of
the energy committee, our colleague from Alaska. I want to make a
couple points upfront and then turn to my colleague from South Dakota.
What I have here and have shown before on the Senate floor is the
route the Keystone XL Pipeline would take from the oil sands in
Hardisty, Alberta, coming down through Montana where we pick up
domestic crude. Often people think of it as moving Canadian crude, but
it also picks up domestic crude in the Bakken region. Our country likes
sweet Bakken crude oil from Montana, and then it takes it on to
refineries throughout the country. So that is the project we are
talking about.
This chart shows the project itself, and it shows what is going to
happen if we don't approve it. You have to understand, this has been
going on now for over 6 years. The President has delayed this project
for more than 6 years, but if we don't build the pipeline to move our
domestic crude in the United States, then Canada will build pipelines
to the west coast and that oil will go to China by tanker ship and be
refined in China.
Again, we go through all these different discussions, but the reality
is the oil will be produced. The question is, Do we want to have that
oil here in our country or would we rather see it go to China?
Of course, if it goes to China, then not only does that affect our
ability to use the oil in our country because we don't have the
infrastructure to move it around safely and cost-effectively, but we
also then continue to import oil from the Middle East.
I will run through a couple more of these charts and bring us up-to-
date. It is not like we don't have pipelines. When the President takes
more than 6 years to make a decision--having such a hard time with this
pipeline--it is not that we don't have a few pipelines in the country.
We have millions of miles of pipeline. Of course, this is going to be
the latest, greatest state of the art with all the safety features--
something like 53 different safety features that are required as part
of the approval process that, as we say, has been going on for more
than 6 years.
The other point I want to make before we go into the latest status is
this is the finding of not one, not two, not three, not four, not five
reports by the administration, but in fact the Obama administration's
State Department has done five environmental impact statements, three
draft statements, two final statements--three draft statements and two
final environmental impact statements.
Here is what President Obama's report states after studying the
environmental impact: ``No significant environmental impact'' according
to the U.S. State Department environmental impact statements as a
result of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
So here we are today, after more than 6 years in the ``approval
process'' by the administration.
We passed this legislation with 62 votes in the Senate. It passed
through the House with about 270 votes in the House, a big bipartisan vote for this legislation.
Last Tuesday--last Tuesday we sent it to the President. We sent it to
him in the morning and he vetoed it the same day and had it back to us
that afternoon. So that was pretty efficient. We send it to him in the
morning and--bang--he has it back here in the afternoon.
His rationale for vetoing the project is he said it cut short his
review process. That is right out of his veto message. It cut short his
review process. So for somebody who figured out how to veto it in one
day who has been studying it for over 6 years--over 6 years--and he
vetoed it because we cut his review process short after more than 6
years.
Subsequent to that, the President was asked by the press: Mr.
President, if Congress is somehow cutting your process short, when are
you going to make a decision? His response to the press--I believe it
was last week or earlier this week--he said he is going to make a
decision either in a couple weeks or maybe in a couple months but
certainly by the end of his term.
My question is this, How can there be any process there? Where is the
process? What process are you talking about?
If he delays it for more than 6 years--a situation where TransCanada,
a company that has met every single requirement of the law and
regulations--they have met all the requirements for more than 6 years.
The six States on the route have all approved the project. All six
States on the route have approved the project. It wasn't tough; they
had 6 years to do it. The American people overwhelmingly support this
project in poll after poll, from 65 to 70 percent.
What process is he talking about that was cut short? There is no
process there. If you go on for 6 years, where a company has spent
millions of dollars, taking 6 years to try to build an $8 billion
project that would help us create energy security in this country,
working with our closest friend and ally, Canada, what process is he
talking about? When asked: When are you going to make a decision as to
your process, he said: I don't know, maybe a few weeks, maybe a few
months, by the end of my term, anyway. That is 8 years.
Isn't this a country of laws? How would you or anyone else feel--any
company, large or small, anybody who feels if they comply with the law
and they do everything they are supposed to do and they do it over and
over again and somebody who is elected to office says, yes, you know, I
just don't feel like it.
When did we cease to become a country of laws? When did we cease to
have a situation where we can rely on the laws and the regulations of
this State, whether it is an individual, a family, a community, a
company or anything else?
So when we look at a project such as this one, that is a question we
have to ask ourselves, because if it can happen in this situation,
can't it happen in any situation? When do we as a Congress step up and
say: We pass the laws. We pass the laws and those laws have to be
respected and enforced. Isn't that our job? Isn't that our obligation?
Isn't that why the people of this country sent us? I believe it is.
It is one thing to say: Well, it is that TransCanada company. They do
business in Canada. They do business here. What if it was you? What if
it was your company? What if it was 6-plus years of your life? What if
it was millions of your dollars? How would you feel about it?
Remember, America is the place people throughout history have come to
do business. This is where they come to do business because they can
count on our laws and they can count on our regulations and they can
count on the fact that if they made the investment, they would be able
to do business on a certain, dependable basis. What happened to that?
When we lose that, what happens to our economy?
With that, I would like to turn to my good friend from South Dakota.
This pipeline will run through his State, creating jobs and millions of
tax dollars for his State.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from South
Dakota, and turn to my colleague from West Virginia who has been a
champion on this project and other energy projects. As a Governor, he
has worked on energy. He understands job creation, and he understands
that we can make this country much stronger if we produce energy here
at home versus getting it abroad.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from West Virginia
for his tremendous leadership. I know that will continue. He is right.
If we don't win the battle today, we will win the war because we will
find another bill to attach this legislation to. But the thing is that
we ought to pass it on its merits, as the Senator so eloquently
explained.
I will now turn to the head of the energy committee, somebody who is
truly committed to an ``all of the above'' energy approach and
demonstrates that leadership on the ``all of the above'' approach every
day in this body and certainly in her leadership of our energy
committee. That is why she speaks on this issue in a way that should
have everyone listening to her. Whether she is speaking about fossil
fuels, traditional energy or renewables, this is a Senator who has
supported all of these and has great creditability on this issue.
I turn to my colleague from Alaska.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the majority leader and
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this
bipartisan legislation.
The Prime Minister of Israel was here yesterday and he spoke to
Congress. We have an opportunity to declare energy independence. We do
not need to rely on oil from the Middle East. I ask my colleagues to
join with us and vote yes to override the President's veto of this
legislation.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source