Keystone XL Pipeline Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to respond regarding the
legislation that is currently on the floor in several regards. I would
like to discuss some of the environmental arguments that have been
brought up. I wish to also reference the issue of export as well as
touch on some of the comments of the President relative to this project
and comments others have made regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline
approval bill, S. 1, being the first bill we brought up.

One of the things we hear is, well, this is a private investment, it
is $8 billion, but we should somehow be doing something else. The
reality is this is an $8 billion shovel-ready project, good to go. It
is vital energy infrastructure for this country. So it is important in
its own right. To compare it to the highway bill, which is all funded
by Federal tax dollars, whereas this is a private investment which is
going to generate revenues in addition to providing vital
infrastructure and providing jobs--that is not a fair comparison.

The point in bringing up this bill first was not only because this is
important energy infrastructure but also because we wanted to try to
get the Senate back to regular order, to an open amendment process. We
just spent the last session and even before where we couldn't get
amendments offered. Whether Republican or Democrat, we could not come
to the floor of this body--the most deliberative body in government--
and offer amendments, have the debate, and get a vote.

So understand that bringing up this legislation is important in its
own right, particularly as we consider how we best build the energy
future of the United States and have this important energy debate.

Look what is going on at the pump right now. We pull up to the pump
and gas is down more than a dollar. I think the national average price
of gasoline is $2.05, when it was up between $3 and in some cases $4 in
some markets. That is a huge savings. That is hundreds of billions of
dollars in consumers' pockets. That didn't just happen; that happened
because we are building the right energy future for this country.

We are working to create energy security for the United States by
producing more oil and gas in this country, along with other types of
energy, and working with Canada to produce more oil and gas so we don't
have to get it from OPEC, so OPEC doesn't get to dictate terms to
American consumers and American businesses. And why don't they get to
dictate terms? Because we are producing more energy. As we produce more
energy and we get more energy from Canada, our closest friend and ally
in the world, we become energy secure. That is more energy, that is
more jobs, that is economic growth, that is national security, and that
is what the American people want.

So when we talk about why this bill is up first, it is because we
want to build an energy plan that works for this country. We want our
Nation to be energy secure. This is how we do it. This kind of
infrastructure is a vital part of building that energy plan where we
produce more energy than we consume. So, together with Canada, we truly
have North American energy security. That means lower prices, that
means a stronger economy, and that means we don't have to depend on
OPEC for our energy.

Now look what is happening. OPEC is pushing back, aren't they? We are
now in this market fight, a fight for market share. So what do we do?
Do we continue to build our energy resources here in this country or do
we say: No, we are not going to build the infrastructure. We are not
going to continue to produce more oil and gas in this country. We are
not going to work with Canada. We are going to have Canada send that
oil to China because they want it.

Then we will go right back to where we were before, where our energy
shrinks back down and we don't work with Canada, and OPEC is right back
in business. That has to be music to OPEC's ears. They probably love it
when they hear that the President is going to block our efforts to
build vital energy infrastructure--and private investment, mind you,
not taxpayer dollars--that will create hundreds of millions of dollars
of revenue for all of these States as they collect property taxes and
payment in lieu of taxes. OPEC is doing great.

When we shrink our industry back down and Canada sends its energy to
China, who is back in business? Who is back in the driver's seat? OPEC
and the other petro-dependent countries, such as Russia. Russia
finances virtually 50 percent or more of their economy on what? Petro
dollars. Iran is a petro-dependent state. Do we want to be in the
driver's seat or do we want to keep them in the driver's seat? Do we
want to repeat history or do we want to take control of our own
destiny? That is why this is an important issue.

It is also an important issue because it is about getting this body
back to a regular order so we break the gridlock. We are offering
amendments. We are saying to Republicans and Democrats: Come down and offer amendments.

We voted on three amendments yesterday. We have six pending
amendments right now. We are looking for more. This is about breaking
the gridlock and getting the important work of the country done.

It is the difference between the President giving a speech wherein he
outlines all of his initiatives--OK, everybody, do it my way--and then
spends the second half of the speech talking about how if we do it his
way, somehow that is a compromise--that is not the case. That versus a
project he has talked about vetoing.

Let's take a look at whether this is a bipartisan project where
people have come together.

No. 1, it has been reviewed by the administration for more than 6
years. How long do we have to hold up private enterprise before we let
them build the vital energy infrastructure we need--infrastructure that
will not only move Canadian crude to our refineries but will move light
sweet Balkan crude from my State and from Montana to other refineries
as well. So it is moving domestic crude as well as Canadian crude. If
we can't move it on this pipeline, it will be 1,400 railcars a day. How
do we move our agriculture products and other goods when we have that
kind of congestion on our railroads?

The whole point is that the President talks about coming together on
issues that have broad bipartisan support. Let's think about it. We
have broad bipartisan support in the House. This bill has already
passed the House. We went through cloture in this body with 63 votes.
The last time I checked, 63 votes out of 100 is a pretty strong
majority. So we have bipartisan majority support in the Congress.

Second, in the polling over the 6 years that this project has been
under review and under study, the public has overwhelmingly supported
it. They said: Yes, we want to be energy independent in this country.
We don't want to get our oil from OPEC. We would rather get it from
Canada and produce it here at home, and we need the infrastructure to
move it around. So in the polls, 65, 70 percent of the people
consistently said: Build it. Build it.

By the way, all six States on the route, including Montana, South
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, have all approved it. It
wasn't as though they had to rush because they had 6 years to do it,
but they have all approved it. Is the U.S. Federal Government the only
entity that can make a good decision around here? All of these States,
their legislatures, their Governors--they don't know what they are
doing? The only one who can make a decision about whether this works or
not is the administration?

What are we saying to our friends in Canada? They are our largest
trading partner in the world. Think about our relationship with Canada.
What if the situation were reversed and Canada wanted to work with us
on a project of this importance to them and we said: No, go work with
China.

When we think about all of these things, it brings home the reality.
People can have their opinions on all kinds of issues, but those are
the facts as they relate to this project.

So now I just want to take a few minutes and reference a couple of
specific things, both on the environmental aspects that have been
brought up and then also on whether this oil will be exported or used
here at home. Again, this is an open-amendment process. So people can
come down and offer amendments on climate change or all those other
things. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and to advocate for
whatever they want to advocate for. But at the end of the day, we are
going to keep bringing them back to the facts on this project. Those
facts were laid out in not one but five reports, three draft environmental impact statements and two final impact statements done by
the Obama administration's Department of State.

When we come down and people want to use different discussions and
talk about their views on climate change and all these other things,
they can do that and we can vote on amendments in regard to those
things. They can come down and talk about their views on whether oil
should or shouldn't be exported and all of those kinds of things. They
can offer amendments on them, and that is the process. But at the end
of the day, we are going to work to bring them back to the facts. The
facts are this is the finding in the Obama administration's
environmental impact statements--three draft statements and two final
statements done over 5 years. The Keystone XL Pipeline will have no
significant environmental impact according to the U.S. Department of
State environmental impact statements.

There is one thing I want to add to that. I talked about the fact
that if we don't build a pipeline, if we are going to get the oil, it
is going to have 1,400 railcars coming in here on a daily basis. The
environmental impact statements point out that we get more greenhouse
gas without the pipeline than with it because without the pipeline we
are either going to move that by railcar or it is going to China. And
if it goes to China, it goes in tanker ships, and they produce more
greenhouse gas. It is refined in Chinese refineries, and they have
higher emissions than our refineries. And we still have to bring our
oil in from the Middle East. So now you have more greenhouse emissions
from those tankers. The environmental impact statement itself points
out that we have more emissions without the pipeline than if we
actually build it.

I also want to take a minute to talk about the effort going on in
Alberta for carbon capture and sequestration. In other words, one of
the things I have always talked about in terms of building the right
kind of energy plan for this country is that instead of holding up the
investment, we empower the investment. If we empower private
investment, we not only produce more energy here at home and with our
closest ally in the world, we not only produce more energy, we not only
get the infrastructure we need to move it--now understand, I am talking
about private investment, just getting the government out of the way
and letting the private sector do what they do. If we empower that
investment, we not only get the infrastructure we need to move energy
around, we not only get the new technologies that develop that energy
more cost-effectively and more efficiently, we get better environmental
stewardship.

New technologies produce better environmental stewardship. We are
seeing that over and over. Take directional drilling in my State of
North Dakota. We now drill down 2 miles off one ECO-Pad. We can put as
many as 16 wells on one ECO-Pad. We drill down 2 miles, and we go out 3
miles and more in all different directions underground. Whereas before
we would have seen wells all over the terrain, now we see one spot
where there is a well for miles, and it is producing for miles around.

Think how much you reduced that environmental footprint, right? It is
the same with carbon capture sequestration. People talk about clean
coal technology. They talk about carbon capture sequestration. There
are other fossil fuels such as oil and gas. The only way we are going
to get to that is by stimulating private investment and encouraging not
only the research and development that creates those technologies but
actually getting them to deploy those technologies. That is exactly
what is happening right now in the oil sands up in the Province of
Alberta.

Since 1990 the greenhouse gas footprint of oil produced in the oil
sands has gone down 28 percent. Because of better drilling techniques,
because of cogeneration, because of other processes that have been put
in place, the greenhouse gas emissions on a per-barrel basis for the
oil producing oil sands has gone down by almost a third, 28 percent.
Right now major companies are continuing not only to produce more oil
in the oil sands but to find ways to reduce the greenhouse gas and do
what is called carbon capture and sequestration--carbon capture and
storage.

I will just touch on two of those for a minute and then relinquish
the floor to the good Senator from Vermont, because there is more that
I will pick up on related to this environmental aspect as we debate
this legislation, as well as this whole issue of making sure that we
get our country to energy security. But let me just touch for a minute
on two projects. Exxon is one of the companies that produces oil up in
the oil sands region, and they are investing on the order of $10
billion in that oil development and production. Their Kearl project,
which is a huge part of it, will use cogeneration for steam and low-
energy extraction processes to recover oil and heat integration between
the extraction and the treatment facilities to minimize energy
consumption. As a result, oil produced from Kearl will have about the
same life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions as many other crude oils
refined in the United States as a result of technologies which
significantly enhance environmental performance.

Other environmental innovations for Kearl include onsite water
storage to eliminate river withdrawals and low-flow periods and progressive land reclamation which will return the land to the boreal forest.

The plan is this. They are developing these new technologies so the
environmental footprint is the same as conventional drilling. That is
what they are working to develop. How else are we going to develop this
technology to reduce the carbon footprint if we continue to block these
investments? That is what we have heard from opponents of the project
is: Oh, well, gee, we don't want to have oil from Canada if it has
higher greenhouse gas emissions or a higher environmental footprint.

Yet we pointed out that oil produced in California, oil that produced
in Venezuela right now has the same level of carbon emissions, and we
have huge projects going on up here to actually reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and develop that technology that will not only reduce the
environmental footprint up here and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions
up here but technology that we can use in the United States and around
the globe.

That is how we get better environmental stewardship, by developing
those technologies that help us do it. And who better to accomplish it,
who better than the ingenuity of American companies and Americans--
American entrepreneurs. That is how we make it happen. So the reality
is--another one is the Quest project that Shell is undertaking. They
are working right now with the Provincial government in Alberta on
carbon capture and storage. So the Province of Alberta actually has a
program where they work with these companies on carbon capture and
storage. This is a tremendous opportunity to develop those technologies
we hear talked about on this floor so often if we are willing to work
with these companies and allow them to make the investments to do it.

My question to opponents or critics to the project is: How in the
world are we going to develop these new technologies to improve
environmental stewardship if we block the very projects that are trying
to do it?

I see the Senator from Vermont is here, and so I want to provide him
with his time to introduce his amendment, as well as the Senator from
Louisiana. I will stop at this point. We will continue this debate, but
I want to end on this very important subject by saying, again, the
environmental impact shows we will have higher greenhouse gases without
this project versus with it. Again, I understand people can come down
and talk about their opinions, but that is what the reports determine--
five reports done over 6 years. Furthermore, what I am pointing out is
that doesn't even take into account the kind of carbon capture and
other projects that are being done in a huge way up here to develop
really the technologies that are not only going to help us in terms of
reducing emissions and the environmental impacts of energy production
in the oil sands but will help us in the United States and technology
that can be adopted in other countries around the globe.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source