Keystone XL Pipeline Act -- Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to address my comments to the
Keystone XL Pipeline approval bill--the legislation currently before
the Senate--which is the motion to proceed to this legislation. The
cloture on the motion to proceed to this legislation was passed 63
votes in favor to 32 votes against last night. I thank my colleagues
for that tremendous bipartisan vote, and of course the good news is
that the vote advances us to the bill. We have to have another vote now
to actually move to the bill today, and we are working through an
agreement to hold that vote. Then we will be on the bill and in a
position where all Members of this body can offer amendments--
Republicans and Democrats alike.

We will have an open amendment process. We will have regular order.
We can have an energy debate. Members of this body are going to get to
do what they haven't been able to do in some time, which is offer their
amendments, bring forward their ideas, and let's have that energy
discussion, let's have these amendments brought forward and debated,
and if they can garner 60 votes, they will be passed and attached to
the legislation. This is how the Senate is supposed to work and I
encourage my colleagues to participate by offering their amendments to
have the debate and do the work of this body--the important work for
the people of this great Nation.

I would like to begin the discussion today in support of the Keystone
XL Pipeline, the Keystone XL approval legislation, which is the bill we
have in front of us, S. 1.

I note that my esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from Utah, is
here. He is a Senator who leads us on a variety of issues and has for
many years in our caucus, as the chairman of the Finance Committee. He
certainly understands tax policy and fiscal policy for this country.

This legislation we are considering is a jobs bill. It is about
energy. It is about jobs. It is about economic growth. It is about
national security.

The Senator from Utah is working on reforming our Tax Code and how we
can stimulate economic growth in this country. So I wish to turn to him
right at the outset and ask--as someone who truly understands how our
economy works and how we have to build a good business climate in this
country and how we have to empower the development of infrastructure,
roads, and rails, pipelines and transmission lines as part of building
an energy policy that will truly make this Nation energy secure--if he
would take a few minutes and address not only this project on the broad
basis of its merits, but particularly some of the economic aspects that
are so important when we are talking about growing our economy and
putting our people in this country to work in good jobs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator
from Utah for his leadership both today and over the past many years on
this floor. I would like to pick up on a point he emphasized and did so
very eloquently. He is in a unique position to comment on it, and that
is the importance of having this open amendment process; having regular
order on the Senate floor; allowing Senators, Republican and Democratic
alike, to come forward and bring their ideas forward, bring their
amendments forward, have this discussion, and do it in an open way.

The whole effort here is to produce good energy legislation that will
help this country move forward but also to foster bipartisanship--to
foster bipartisanship on this bill and other legislation so that we can
get the work done that this body needs to get done on behalf of the
American people. That is what this is all about. This is about getting
the work done for the American people on the important issues our
country faces.

That is why this bill is S. 1--not just because it is important
energy infrastructure legislation, not just because we need to have
this debate on energy, not just because we need to advance legislation
to help build our energy future, but because it is truly an effort to
get this body working in a bipartisan way on this and other important
issues for the American people. That is what the American people want.
They want us to get the job done.

Again, I thank the Senator from Utah for bringing out the important
fact and discussing why it is so important that we approach legislation
in that way.

I would like to turn to my good friend, the senior Senator from the
great State of Arkansas, somebody who I think really has a good
understanding of how our economy works and what needs to be done,
somebody who has good relationships on both sides of the aisle, which
is so important as we try to build support for this and other
legislation, and somebody whose State is directly affected by this
project. I know he will agree with me that it is very important on
behalf of the State of Arkansas that we move forward with the Keystone
XL Pipeline project. I think a very high percentage of the pipe that
goes into this project--about a 1,200-mile-long project--is actually
manufactured and made in Arkansas. So that is a clear benefit for the
manufacturing industry and workers in the State of Arkansas that
correlates directly to this project and to this legislation.

So I would like to turn to the senior Senator from Arkansas and ask
him about that and ask him to tell us about the importance of this
project in terms of what it means to the great State of Arkansas.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from
Arkansas and once again point out this is another State that will
benefit from this project. This is a State far removed from the route
of the project. As I pointed out in earlier debate on this floor, all
of the States on the route, from Montana to Texas, have approved the
project--all of them. They have all approved it. The only entity still
holding up the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline is the Federal
Government, the Obama administration.

All of the States have approved it. Those States on the route will
realize tremendous benefits from the construction--from the
construction jobs, from the hundreds of millions of dollars they will
receive in tax revenues, payment in lieu of taxes at the State and
local level. They will receive tremendous benefit from this project,
not to mention of course the benefit the whole country receives as we
become more energy independent by working with Canada to truly achieve
North American energy security.

But here is a State, Arkansas, far removed from the route of the
pipeline. I do not think the oil will--I do not know about refineries
in Arkansas. I do not think there are refineries there that it will go
to. It will go to refineries in States such as Louisiana and Texas and
so forth.

But even still, Arkansas will benefit directly from this project
because they manufacture much of the pipe that goes into the project.
Those are good manufacturing jobs that not only benefit those workers,
but then you have the secondary impacts. Once again I thank the Senator
from Arkansas for coming down to the floor and taking a few minutes to
point that out.

We will continue over the next several weeks to talk about the
benefits in other States as well. I thank the good Senator from
Arkansas at this time. Even though I have floor time reserved until
about 11:15 or a little more, I would like to actually stop and allow
the Senator from Washington to talk about her views on it. I know she
is not--of course, I work with her on the energy committee. She is our
ranking member. I enjoy and appreciate working with her, but I
understand she shares different views in this case.

I ask unanimous consent that her time for the next 10 to 15 minutes,
as she needs, not be counted against my time. I would be willing to
defer so she can speak at this time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. I will take a couple of minutes to respond to the points
that my colleague on the energy committee just brought up with regard
to both the process and also in regard to the timeline for approval of
this project. Then I will turn to my cosponsor, the Senator from West
Virginia, and get some of his input on the project.

Now we are starting to get into the kind of debate that we have
wanted from day one. I had the good fortune to serve as Governor of my
great State of North Dakota, and the good Senator on the floor with me
from West Virginia was Governor at the same time of his State of West
Virginia. We worked together many times on issues. I am a Republican,
and he is a Democrat. We found common ground as Governors, and we found common ground in the Senate.

This is what this is all about. This is what we want to have happen
among our colleagues so we can get this and other important legislation
addressed, passed, and help our country.

But before I turn to my colleague from West Virginia, I wish to touch
briefly on a couple of points that the ranking member of our energy
committee brought up a moment ago. As she said, she opposes the
project. I understand and respect her views, but she talked about the
length of time the approval process takes.

What I have to point out is that we have been in this approval
process now for more than 6 years. So when she talks about needing more
time to get the project approved, it is hard to understand how we are
going to have a working, functioning economy, how we are going to get
the private sector to invest the billions of dollars it takes. This
project alone is the largest shovel-ready project that is ready to go--
just under $8 billion, $7.9 billion--and it has been held up for more
than 6 years.

America got into World War II and won the war in less than 6 years.
Building the Hoover Dam, I believe, took less than 6 years. If we are
going to create the kind of environment where we stimulate investment
by the private sector, get our economy growing and growing and get
people back to work, we can't hold private investment up.

Remember, not one penny of Federal spending--almost $8 billion,
almost all private investment that will help create jobs, help grow our
economy, create hundreds of millions in tax revenue, help us to build
our energy future, help us with national security by being energy
secure--all those things--and the Federal Government has held them up
for more than 6 years.

How can we argue that there is any process there that works in any
kind of a realistic or commonsense way when it has been up for more
than 6 years.

Specifically--as regards the State of Nebraska--in 2012 I put forward
legislation which we passed in this body attached to the payroll tax
holiday that required the President to make a decision.

We didn't tell them what decision to make. We just said: Hey, you
have to make a decision. At that point the project had been under
review for 4 years--long enough, Mr. President, to make a national
interest determination. That is what the legislation said that we
attached to the payroll tax holiday. It passed with 73 votes.

The President at that time said: No, I am not going to make a
decision on the project now because of what he perceived to be the
problem with the route in Nebraska.

Remember, this project goes through States from Montana to Texas.
Here it is. Remember, it is not carrying only Canadian crude. It
carries crude from my State of North Dakota and the State of Montana.
Light, sweet Bakken crude goes into this pipeline as well.

Everyone talks about the Canadian crude, but they forget that this
moves domestic crude as well. My State alone produces 1.2 million
barrels of oil a day, and we are moving 700,000 of barrels a day on
trains because we can't get enough pipelines. Here we want to put
100,000 barrels a day into this pipeline, and we have been waiting for
6 years putting more and more oil on rail cars, congestion on the
rails. We can't move our agriculture products, and we have been held up
for 6 years. But in 2012 we passed that bill.

This body passed it, then the House, and it went to the President.
Then he turned it down because he said the routing wasn't right in
Nebraska. There is an objection here. Here we see the pipeline goes
through Nebraska.

He said: No, I am not going to approve it at this point because they
have to square it away in Nebraska.

In Nebraska, the State legislature, the elected body of the people,
went to work with Governor Dave Heineman, a good friend of mine, and
the Senator from West Virginia as well. We served with Governor Dave
Heineman.

The elected body of the people, the legislature, went to work with
the Governor. They went through a long process. They rerouted the
pipeline to address any concerns regarding the Ogallala Aquifer and any
other concerns that had been brought--a long laborious process--and
approved it.

Every State on the route has approved the project. They have all
approved it. They have had 6 years to do it. So it wasn't like they had
to hurry, but they all approved it. Yet the Federal Government
continues to hold it up and say: Oh, well, we have concerns.

Now, my esteemed colleague from Washington, who opposes the project,
said that she was concerned about the supreme court decision.

Well, remember, the supreme court decision came up because after the
State of Nebraska approved the project, then opponents challenged it,
forced it into court, and it went to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The
Nebraska Supreme Court found in favor of the Governor and the
legislature for the State of Nebraska. They found in favor of the
route, and the State of Nebraska said that is as it should be--OK.

So that is all that was covered at great length by the elected
representatives of the State of Nebraska and the Nebraska Supreme
Court. I mean, how much more does this take? Furthermore, there is the
point that my colleague was making: Well, if we had rushed, somehow this would have been a problem.

We put it in the legislation in section 2, under the private property
savings clause, to make sure that if there is any issue such as that it
is addressed in this legislation. So the very concern that she has
raised is in the legislation.

The reason it is in there is because the good Senator from Montana--
which is also on the route--Mr. Tester, wanted this provision in the
bill. He is also a Democrat. In showing the bipartisanship of the bill,
he said: Well, let's make sure we take care of that. So we put language
in the bill to make sure that the language we just addressed on the
floor is addressed. It is very short, and I will read it--section 2,
subsection (e):

Private Property Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act
alters any Federal, State, or local process or condition in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is necessary
to secure access from an owner of private property to
construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities described
in section (a).

So we tried to make sure--and furthermore--let me also read judicial
review. That section is long, and I won't read it. But we also provided
for judicial review so that if any of those issues are a concern--in
addition to the language we put in to protect States rights--you also
have judicial review. I don't know how much more we can do to make sure
any and all concerns she just raised in regard to the process of the
individual States is protected.

Again, I make the case today that we have all gone through great
lengths to approve the project. The only entity blocking it now after
more than 6 years is the Federal Government.

There is one other point I would make briefly before turning to the
Senator from West Virginia. The good Senator from Washington talked
about alternative energy sources, renewable energy sources, other
energy resources, and how we need to develop them. They create jobs,
and that is great.

This is a note on which I will turn to my cosponsor, the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia. We are for ``all of the
above'' energy approach, but we have to get over the idea that somehow
they are mutually exclusive. We go forward and build important
infrastructure so that we can make sure that we don't have to import
oil from OPEC or from countries such as Venezuela or from other parts
of the world, to ensure that we can be secure in energy and that we can
produce as much or more oil than we consume--both domestic oil
production and in Canada. We need the infrastructure.

But that in no way precludes the development of any other sources of
energy. They are not mutually exclusive. So to say that we should be
doing one and not the other--how does that make sense? Let's do them
both.

On that note, I turn to my colleague. Ask anybody in this body,
particularly those coming to the Senate as a former Governor. He is
somebody who not only is very bipartisan in his approach to all of
these issues, somebody who has not only advocated for producing all of
the above in terms of energy, but somebody who has done it in his time
as Governor.

So I turn to my colleague and say: Can't we do both? Isn't approving
this part of doing it all?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. I just want to wrap up.

I want to thank the Senator from West Virginia. I am glad we are
engaged in this debate. I think we should debate all aspects of it, as
we are, and I look forward to that continuing effort.

I do, though, want to wrap up on a point as to the environmental
impact. We have talked about a number of different aspects of this
pipeline project. We are talking about taking great care in the
approval process to address all the issues at the State level. We have
talked about making sure we put provisions in the bill to respect that
State process. That has been going on for more than 6 years and,
obviously, it is now well past time for the Federal Government to move
forward and make its decision.

But again, back to that process. If the President continues to oppose
this legislation--and he has indicated he will veto it because he has a
process and he hasn't finished the process--then he needs to
demonstrate and finish the process. He indicated he was holding out for
the decision in Nebraska. Well, the decision in Nebraska has been
completed. So if there is a process, if there is a real process, then
he needs to make a decision and he needs to tell us when he is going to
make that decision. And if the President follows his process, he needs
to make a decision in favor of the project. Because as I am pretty sure
we are going to hear from some of the opponents of the project, they
will say: Oh, well, based on environmental issues, that is why he
should turn it down.

I understand and respect their views on some of the climate change
issues, and they are certainly entitled to those opinions, but based on
five studies--three draft environmental impact statements and two final
environmental impact statements done on this project--the Obama
administration's State Department in those environmental impact
statements found this will result: As a result of this project, ``no
significant environmental impact.''

I understand they are going to spend a lot of time talking about
their views on climate change, and that is fine. I understand that. But
there is a difference between opinion and that general discussion and
the science of this project. That is the finding by the Obama
administration.

We will have more discussion on this issue, in addition to the fact
that Canada is working to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from oil
production in their country and in the oil sands. Since 1990, on a per-
barrel basis, they have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by about 28
percent, and they are continuing to do more. So they are addressing the
environmental issue by doing what? Investing in technology that not
only produces more energy but does it with better environmental
stewardship.

So instead of empowering that investment, here we want to block it?
That is not the way to address better environmental stewardship. The
way to do it is by encouraging the investment that not only produces
more energy but does it with better environmental stewardship.

Again, I want to thank my colleague and fellow member of the energy
committee for deferring so I could wrap up, and I look forward to
continuing this debate and discussion on this important issue.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source