Keystone XL Pipeline Act -- Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here this morning to once again talk
about the Keystone XL Pipeline, the legislation we will be voting on
next week. We will be voting on cloture on the motion to proceed to the
legislation. Then, hopefully, we will be debating that bill and
offering amendments, which is exactly what we are supposed to be doing
in this Chamber.

On Thursday, yesterday, we had a hearing on the bill. In that hearing
we brought the bill forward. It is a bill I have authored. Joe Manchin
is the lead Democratic cosponsor. We have 60 cosponsors on the bill. So
we have strong bipartisan support. It is the Keystone approval bill.
Essentially, what it does is under the commerce clause of the
Constitution of the United States, which authorizes Congress to oversee
trade with foreign countries, we approve the Keystone XL Pipeline
crossing the border from Canada into the United States.

A lot of people do not realize the pipeline carries domestic oil from
places such as North Dakota and Montana--the Bakken region of our
country--to refineries, and it carries both Canadian and domestic crude. But part of the approval requires approval for crossing the border from Canada into the United States. Typically, that is done by a national interest determination by the President of the United States. But the President has been unwilling to do that now for more than 6 years.

The company that is trying to build this pipeline, TransCanada,
applied for approval to build this project pursuant to other pipelines
it had already built. The original Keystone had already been built.
This is the Keystone XL sister pipeline. But in September 2008 they
applied for approval to build the Keystone XL Pipeline and to get a
cross-border permit determination by the President that, in fact, this
vital energy infrastructure is in the national interest.

Well, more than 6 years have elapsed, obviously, since September
2008. The President has still not rendered a final decision, arguing
that somehow the process has not been completed after more than 6
years. Of course, America was able to fight and win World War II in
less than 6 years. But our President feels that somehow that process
still has not been completed after more than 6 years on this project.

So, of course, the purpose of the bill is, in essence, to say: All
right, Mr. President, if you will not approve this project, Congress
will--under the commerce clause of the Constitution--which we have the
authority to do. Earlier we passed legislation. As a matter of fact, I
had written a bill in 2011, which we passed in 2012. We attached it to
the payroll tax holiday, a bill that got 73 votes, as I recall, which
required the President to make a decision. At that time the decision he
made was no, on the basis of the route in Nebraska.

So what happened then in 2012 is that the good citizens of Nebraska
went to work on a new route in Nebraska. The legislature, the Governor
dealt with that new route, came up with a new route, and approved it
overwhelmingly.

It was then subsequently challenged by opponents of the project. Some
of the extreme environmentalists have continued to oppose the project,
and so that decision went to the supreme court.

We learned today the supreme court has now decided in favor of
TransCanada. The news came out this morning that yet another obstacle,
after more than 6 years of obstacles, today has been taken care of. The
problem is solved.

The Nebraska State Legislature ruled in favor of the Governor--
Governor Dave Heineman, whom I know very well, the former Governor of
Nebraska--and the legislature, and it said the way they sited this
pipeline is, in fact, proper and upheld their decision. I will talk
about that decision in a few minutes.

But the other thing I wish to talk about in terms of the Keystone
Pipeline is the discussion we had yesterday in the energy committee
because it was an opportunity to begin the debate we are going to have
on the floor next week. The proponents had an opportunity to state
their positions and why, and the opponents had their opportunity to
state their positions and why. So for several hours we began that
debate. We then voted on the legislation and moved it out, without
amendment, on a 13-to-9 vote. It was a bipartisan vote, 13 to 9, and we
will have that bill for a vote on the floor Monday.

I wish to address some of the arguments the opponents put forward in
opposition to this project. I will start with the Nebraska court
decision because that was one of the issues brought up at our energy
hearing yesterday. Some of the opponents of the project said: Well, you
know what. The process hasn't been concluded--even though it has been
going on for more than 6 years. I will put a diagram up here that shows
the route of the pipeline.

As I mentioned, the original Keystone pipeline has already been
built. That is the red. That has already been built. It was permitted.
It took 2 years to permit and 2 years to build. I was actually Governor
of North Dakota at that time. We can see it goes right through our
State.

It seems to me that application was submitted by TransCanada in 2006.
It was during the Bush administration, obviously. It was approved
within 2 years, and the project was constructed within 2 years.

So from start to conclusion, 4 years to build this pipeline, which I
think carries about 640,000 barrels of oil a day. It brings it down to
Cushing so that oil can go into our oil refineries in the gulf. It also
goes over here to Patoka, IL, so it can go to our refineries in the
East.

Based on that project, there are 640,000 barrels a day. TransCanada
wanted to build a second pipeline. This one is 830,000 barrels a day. I
think it is about a $7.9 billion project in all.

Not only does this project carry crude from Canada, our closest
friend and ally, but it also brings oil out of this Bakken region in
North Dakota and Montana. We put oil on it as well. So both Canadian
and domestic crude are going to our refineries.

Again, it is just basic infrastructure that we need to move energy
from where we produce it to where we refine it and consume it. We can't
build an energy plan for this country without the necessary
infrastructure. We have to have pipelines, roads, rail, and electric
transmission lines to move electricity.

We cannot build what we want, which is either--some people refer to
it as energy independence. I call it energy security. But, net, we
produce more energy than we consume.

When we produce more energy than we consume, we get jobs, we get
economic growth, we get national security because we don't have to
depend on places such as the Middle East or Venezuela or Russia--as
does so much of Europe. Western Europe and Eastern Europe is dependent
on Russia for their oil and gas. What a terrible situation for them.
The people of this country don't want to depend on OPEC for their oil.

So we produce it here. We are doing that. You know what else. We are
working with our closest friend and ally Canada, and already that is
happening. We are already moving toward a situation--we already produce
more natural gas, but soon, if we keep it up, we will produce more oil.
Working together with Canada, we will get a little bit from Mexico, and
we will produce more oil and gas than we consume.

Some call it energy independence--not really, because it is a global
market for energy. But it is certainly energy security. We don't have
to depend on anyone else for our energy because we have it right here.

Not only does that create jobs directly, but energy is a foundational
industry for all of the other industry sectors. Think about it. If you
are in manufacturing, high-tech--just name it--or if you are in
farming, agriculture, you depend on energy. If you have lower costs and
abundant, available energy, you are more competitive in the global
economy, aren't you? So it is a foundational industry as well, and that
is why we have to have this vital infrastructure as part of the energy
building plan for our country.

It is working. Don't take my word for it. Drive to the gas station.
Go on over there. Fill up your car. Look at the bill when you are done.
It is a lot lower than it was a few years ago, right? Check it out.

Every consumer is benefiting at the pump. Small businesses are
benefiting across the board. All the industry sectors benefit from
lower oil and gas prices.

Why did that happen? OPEC decided to give us a Christmas present; is
that what it is? I don't think so.

Russia decided: Oh, gee, to our friends in America, we better send
them some oil to reduce the price at the pump. I don't think so.

It is because we are producing so much more oil and gas--not only in
the Bakken and in the Eagle Ford formation in Texas, which are shale,
clays for oil, but also natural gas in the Marcellus, other areas of
our country--in the eastern part--and by working with our closest
friend and ally, Canada. We are getting millions of barrels of oil from
Canada.

So the oil we produce at home and the oil we get from Canada we don't
have to get from Venezuela, we don't have to get from OPEC, we don't
have to get from Russia, and we don't have to get from countries in
Africa. When we send those dollars over to other countries, how are
they using those dollars? Look at what is going on in Paris today.

How many of those petro dollars fund terrorist activities? Isn't it
better, ifwe are not going to produce that energy at home, that we get it from Canada? And isn't it better that we produce that energy at home?

How are we going to produce that energy at home if we don't have the
infrastructure to move it from where it is produced to where it is
consumed? Gee, then somebody will say: Well, yeah, that is just common
sense, of course, right?

I mean, that is just basic common sense. Why aren't we doing it? Yet
here we are in a process for more than 6 years still waiting to produce
it because the extreme environmental interests have decided: Well, we
just don't want to produce more oil. We don't want more oil produced in
this country, and we don't want more oil produced in Canada.

Of course, you say: Well, then what? We keep buying it from Russia or
we keep buying it from OPEC? Oh, no, no, no, we will just keep
developing all these alternatives. I am all for developing all kinds of
energy. I would say go ahead. Let's do it.

We worked hard in our State. We have not only oil and gas--we are now
the second largest oil-producing State, second only to Texas, but we
also produce natural gas. We have coal fired, we have solar, we have
wind, we have biofuels. We have all of them. I am for all of them.

What I don't understand is how developing our oil and gas resources,
building the vital infrastructure--how does that prevent us from
developing any other type of energy? How does it prevent that? It
doesn't.

It just makes sure that as we work on anything else, we don't have to
continue to be dependent on OPEC or somebody else for our oil and gas.
That is all we are doing.

So let's not sit here and pick winners and losers and do that kind of
thing. Let's create the best business climate we can. Let's develop the
vital infrastructure we need to move energy around our country, and
let's truly become energy secure. That is what this project represents.

Make no mistake. At the end of the day, that is what this project is
about. It has been held up for more than 6 years with hurdle after
hurdle. Somebody says: Oh, well, gee, that is TransCanada. That is one
company. Who cares about that?

Think about it. If you are going to build a pipeline or move energy
around this country, if you are going to try to develop oil and gas--
whether it is for Canada or anyone else--and you see a company that
wants to build a simple pipeline--something that has been done, I
think, 19 times before--and they have to spend billions of dollars and
take years and years and years, and they still don't have it, are you
still going to rush out and do that? Are you going to rush out and
build a lot more infrastructure? Probably not.

So isn't this really about trying to shut her down? Isn't this the
opponent saying: No, we are going to shut down developing the energy
resources in this country. We are not going to work with Canada to do
it.

And then what do we end up doing? We say: Well, we will have all
these other things.

Maybe we will, maybe we won't or maybe we will go right back to what
has been happening--history tends to repeats itself--and we will go
back to remaining dependent on OPEC oil, back to remaining dependent on
OPEC. It has to be music to these guys' ears.

I wish to take a couple of minutes--I know the chairman of our energy
committee will be coming to the floor and speaking on this issue as
well--and work to rebut some of the other arguments that have been
brought up on this issue, and some of these were brought up yesterday
at our energy committee.

The first one, as I say, was: Well, look, the process isn't done
because the decision in Nebraska hasn't been made.

Well, in fact, the decision in Nebraska has been made several times.
Now the Nebraska Supreme Court put out a ruling today saying that it is
fine. All the work the legislature in Nebraska did, all the work the
Governor in Nebraska did--the rerouting in Nebraska is upheld.

That is done. That excuse is gone. As the House works to pass this
bill today, and as we work to pass it next week, that argument is off
the table. That has been taken care of.

The biggest argument is the environmental argument. The opponents
say: Oh, well, it will produce greenhouse gas emissions. They are
opposed to oil development because it produces greenhouse gas
emissions.

Yet the environmental impact statement--I should say the multiple
environmental impact statements done by the State Department--this is
what they say. Understand there have been five different reports--three
draft reports and two final reports--over a 6-year timeframe. The State
Department has done this not once, not twice, but three times in draft
form and two times in final form. They have gone in, and they have
analyzed the environmental impact of this project.

When you read the report, do you know what it says? ``No significant
environmental impact'' is what it says. That is the Obama
administration's State Department environmental impact statement, after
6 years of study--not once, not twice, but five times between three
draft statements and two final statements--``No significant
environmental impact.'' That is what it says.

It just stands to reason because if we don't build the pipeline, they
pointed out, then what happens? Well, if you don't have this pipeline,
the environmental impact statement pointed out that it will take 1,400
railcars a day to move that oil. So instead of moving that oil from
Canada, not even counting--I mean, we have to move our oil too. If we
don't have the pipeline to move that oil in the safest, most cost-
effective and efficient way, then it has to be moved by rail. If you
don't have a pipeline, you have to move it by rail. Now you have 1,400
railcars a day creating congestion on the rail.

That creates more greenhouse gas, that creates more congestion, more
difficulty in moving our ag products and other products.
We are already seeing that. We already have congestion on our rail
that is backing up the shipment of other goods. We had a tremendous
problem moving our ag goods this year. So are we going to have another
1,400 railcars on a railroad system that is already overloaded? It
doesn't make much sense.

You know what. It creates more greenhouse gas. So by not having the
pipeline, you increase the greenhouse gas emissions. I suppose Canada
could say--although it is unlikely because they are already moving it
by rail.

In my home State of North Dakota we are already moving 700,000
barrels a day by railcar because we can't get enough pipeline, and we
are producing more oil. We are up to 1.2 million barrels a day, moving
700,000 barrels by railcars because we can't move it by pipeline,
benefiting the rest of our country--light, sweet Bakken crude.

The other thing with Canada is they say: If we can't bring the
pipeline down and work with our closest friend and ally, the United
States, if they would rather work with--I don't know--OPEC than
Canada--we can't figure that one out. I am sure Prime Minister Harper
is saying: Oh, boy, that is unbelievable. But OK, then I guess what we
will have to do is we will build these pipelines--and they are already
in the process of doing so--to the west coast of Canada. We will load
that oil on tankers, and we will send it all to China because China
wants it. They are not only willing to buy the oil, but they are trying
to buy the source of the oil.

So then it gets on the pipeline, and then it goes on tankers over to
China. Well, those tankers produce greenhouse gas emissions as they
haul that oil to China. In China the refineries have much higher
greenhouse gas emissions. They are much less efficient. They are much
less environmentally sound than our refineries in this country. So what
do we end up with? We end up with much higher greenhouse gas emissions
because we didn't have the pipeline.

Oh, and by the way, instead of us then refining it, tankers have to
bring that petroleum to us from OPEC, from Russia, heavy crude from
Venezuela, creating some more greenhouse gas. So the net effect is we
have increased the environmental impacts by not allowing the pipeline.
It increases it. It doesn't reduce it, it increases it.

Furthermore, Canada's laws, in terms of environmental stewardship,
are tougher than ours, but they are continuing to move to what is
called in situ development in the oil sands. What is in situ development? In situ development is drilling and then the use of steam to bring up the oil rather than excavating, which is the traditional way they produce oil up here. So the greenhouse gas footprint is very similar to drilling in the United States. In fact, it has a lower footprint than the heavy crude that comes out of California--a very environmentally conscious State.

Again, when we talk about the environmental impact, let's talk about
the facts. Let's talk about reality, and those are the facts. That is
what it is truly about.

Safety is another thing they brought up. Something could happen with
the pipeline. That is true, and we always have to work on safety. It is
very important we always address safety in whatever we do. The best way
to have a safe infrastructure system to move energy around this country
is to have the right mix of pipelines and roads and rail--the right mix
along with transmission lines--so we move all types of energy as safely
and as effectively as possible.

This graph reflects the pipeline system in our country. Oil and gas
are moving through millions and millions of miles of pipelines in our
country. This pipeline is going to be the newest, with the latest and
the best technology. Oh, by the way, if we don't have the pipeline, as
I mentioned just a minute ago, we are adding 1,400 railcars a day.
Everyone can do their own calculation, but do we think we are safer and
more likely to have less accidents with another pipeline--with the
latest, greatest technologies and safeguards--or would we rather have
1,400 railcars a day going through our communities loaded with oil?
Common sense again, and the statistics support it.

There is more. They brought up more concerns, but I am nearing the
end of my time, in terms of floor time right now, and I know our
chairman is coming down, so I will have to wrap this up. I went a
little longer on some of these issues they brought up, and they brought
up others, but here is the good news. We are going to vote on a cloture
motion to proceed to the bill on Monday. I am hopeful, with our 60
sponsors on this legislation--we will have 60, maybe 63 votes based on
what people have indicated to me as to how they will vote right now--
that after the vote on Monday we will be on the bill.

Unlike the past several years in the Senate, once we are on the bill,
we will be open for business, and we are welcoming amendments. We are
saying to Republicans and Democrats alike: Bring them on. Bring on your
amendments. If you have a good idea, come on down. If you have a good
idea, come on down and let's talk about your amendment. Let's debate
your amendment, and you know what. You are going to get a vote, and if
you get 60 votes in support of your amendment, then we will make it
part of this legislation.

We are hopeful that in allowing amendments, we can improve the
legislation, we can make it more bipartisan, and we can get more
supporters, so if in fact the President does decide to veto it, we will
have 67 votes instead of 60 or 63 votes. That is how the process is
supposed to work. We are supposed to be able to have that debate, offer
those amendments, and produce the best product we can. That is what we
are hoping to do with this legislation.

We are also hoping that will not only generate more bipartisan
support on this issue, on this legislation, but on other energy
legislation and other legislation of all types so we can get the
important work of the American people done in this body. That is what
it is all about: finding a way to get things done--get the job done for
the American people.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source