Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. And that is before we get to the final debate?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want everyone who is watching us from Louisiana to know that without Mary Landrieu, we would not be having this debate. She makes a point when she says it is good to have this debate. It is really good to have debates. We have had debates before on war and on health care. I put them in a bit of a different category, but this is an important debate. I do want to cover a little ground here. First of all, it is important to note we Democrats are under a big umbrella. We have Senators who agree with the Big Oil philosophy. We have Senators who agree with the ``all of the above'' philosophy, and we have Senators who are pushing for clean energy. This is true about our caucus, and I am proud. Mary Landrieu and I worked hand-in-glove on Katrina. She asked me to do something for her in my capacity as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee that I had to say no to. She is a great Senator. The way I feel about Keystone is not the way she feels about it, and that is the beauty of our party. I want to make it clear for the Record, I met with Canadians who live near the extraction of the dirty tar sands oil, I have met with the people in Port Arthur, TX, who live near the refineries of the dirty tar sands oil, and I have talked to community activists who saw a Little League team that had to flee a field in Chicago because the petcoke--petroleum coke, which is so filled with particulates that you can't breathe around it--started to fly all over the Little League field. The Canadians I met with were not happy with their government. I am not here to pass judgment, but I will put in the Record: In October 2014, the Canadian Office of the Auditor General issued a scathing report detailing the Canadian Government's failure to adequately protect the environment during the tar sands development. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this summary printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. I can't get into how good Canada is on a daily basis, but I can tell you that when it comes to the tar sands, they don't have a good record. I have stood with doctors and nurses from America, and they all said: This is dangerous, dangerous stuff because it has heavy metals, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, carcinogens, and all of these things. So welcome, tar sands oil, to America to cut through our country and then be exported to other countries. I have to say that it leaves me in amazement. Senator Markey laid it out. We are going to see higher gas prices because of this bill. They will just unleash more of their oil and get it out of here because they get a higher price abroad than they do in America. When you stand with the people who live along the excavation route, when you stand with people who live right near the refineries, when you stand with people who had their kids playing Little League and soccer right near the petroleum coke, you have to say, what is in the national interest? Madam President, I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 1 minute.

Mrs. BOXER. I would add 1 minute to Senator Landrieu's time as well.

Mrs. BOXER. To me, all of these health reasons are reason enough to say let's not interrupt what the administration is going through now, which is careful study of whether this is safe for our people. Two million people sent in their comments. Don't shortcut that. Then there is the whole issue of the climate. We know this tar sands oil is far more carbon intensive and it is going to hurt our planet, and we want to have a planet that is habitable for our children and our grandchildren and generations to come. I embrace this debate. I think it is an important debate to have. But we really have to ask ourselves the question: Is it worth exposing our people to these risks, with whom I stood shoulder to shoulder, and is it worth exposing the planet to these risks when we can create millions of jobs in a clean energy economy as we are doing in my State? And we are going gangbusters. I thank my colleagues, and I say to the people from Louisiana, they could not have a better fighter. We are in the ring together and it is tough, but that is the beauty of the Democratic Party, that we are an inclusive party. I yield my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to make a point of personal privilege. We would have voted on this bill a long time ago if my Republican friends had not blocked the Shaheen-Portman bill from being part of the unanimous consent agreement. Let's stop the hypocrisy that is going on here. We would have had a vote, but it is only about Big Oil and the Koch brothers and all of that--fine. I am looking for this vote--win or lose--because we had to have it at some point. I was for having it a long time ago. If we want to grow this energy economy with good jobs, if we want to protect our families and protect our planet from devastating climate change, the vote is no on the Keystone XL Pipeline, which I call ``extra lethal.'' I will tell you, if the President vetoes this, I hope we will sustain the veto if it passes today. We should work together for the future of clean energy which will create far more jobs than the 50 permanent jobs even the CEO of the Keystone Pipeline says is the right number. That is how many permanent jobs will be created. I come from a State that is booming with hundreds of thousands of jobs, with balanced budgets, and clean energy future. I come from a State that embraced cleaning up the environment and building the economy and jobs. They go hand in hand. Anyone who tells you they don't really doesn't understand anything. I can tell my friend--he talks about polls. I want to talk to him about another poll he won't like. That poll says that huge majorities of Americans want the EPA to clean the air, clean the water. They want them to do the job. It is very popular even though some of my colleagues have tried to undermine the work of the EPA. So why don't we work together on a clean energy future, and if you want to know the way, come to my State. We are looking at millions of jobs all across this nation in clean energy. Why vote against this pipeline? We know misery follows this pipeline. That is not rhetoric. Here is Port Arthur, where my friend says the mayor is all for this. Fine--I didn't meet with the mayor. My friend didn't understand. I met with the community leaders who live around here and breathe this stuff. Senators and mayors, with all due respect, don't live in these communities. What is in all of this black smoke that goes into your lungs if you happen to live there? It is huge amounts of pollution--more sulfur dioxide, far more nitrogen oxide, far more lead--and this is serious stuff. It is not rhetoric. It is fact. There is something called PAHs which are cancer-causing pollutants. That is proven. We put a peer-reviewed study into the record. I will show you a picture. This is what happens after you refine this tar sands oil. It goes to these holding areas. I will tell you what happened in this particular case in Chicago. There was a little league baseball game going on right near this petcoke. The wind came up. The petcoke blew around, and this is a direct quote from the newspaper: Kids that were playing ball just had to get the heck out of there because all this stuff was going into their eyes and their mouths. For what? Fifty jobs? Fifty jobs and a lot of profit in the pocket of the people who own the tar sands oil? What is in the national interest? I will just close with this. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds additional.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to show you a picture of a little girl. She has an oxygen mask on over her face. I am telling you, as sure as I am standing here, the nurses stood with me and the public health doctors stood with me and they said, you know what, let's be very careful here because this pipeline is going to unleash 45 percent more of the dirtiest, filthiest oil. That is why I call it the Keystone ``extra lethal'' Pipeline, and I hope we won't vote it up today. I hope we vote it down. I hope the President will veto it if it passes, and I will be on my feet because I came here to protect people like this. I yield floor.

Mrs. BOXER. As we get ready to have a vote here in a while, what makes me very sad about this debate is that if we would all actually embrace an ``all of the above'' energy future, we wouldn't have to have these arguments. But we cannot get any support over there for clean energy. We just cannot. Let's just call it what it is. It is sad because when I look at my home State, we are booming. We are booming because our State has always been an environmental leader and with it comes jobs and, as Jerry Brown has shown, balanced budgets. People are smiling. I don't want it to look like what it looks like in China. We have a photo here. This is what it looks like in China. I know you have been there. People are walking around with masks on their faces because they cannot breathe the air and you cannot see. Yet still we go down this path. The heaviest polluting oil is what the tar sands oil is--the heaviest polluting oil. I stood with doctors and nurses. They joined in my call for a health review. My colleagues say: Oh, well, this project has been studied up and down, up and down, and down and up. Well, I don't think so, neither does Senator Whitehouse and neither do the nurses who all joined with us. They are the most respected profession. So don't listen to me, because I am in one of the least respected professions, I am sad to say. Listen to the nurses. They say we need more studies on the health of the people. We don't want our people walking around like this. I remember the days in Los Angeles when the air looked like this. I don't want to go back to that. This is the filthiest, dirtiest oil. That is why I call XL ``extra lethal.'' The pipeline itself is a pipeline. It is what you are putting in it, it is what you are unleashing that is going to mean a 45-percent increase in the tar sands oil into our Nation, and there will be consequences. I've got news for you. Senators don't live near refineries. Take a look at what that looks like. Senators don't live near pipelines when there are spills. This is what it looks like--lovely, isn't it--in Port Arthur, TX. I stood with the community leaders. This is what it looks like. This is filthy, dirty oil with pollutants that kill, and that is the truth. Yet it is all: Oh, how many jobs? I will tell you how many jobs. The CEO of the pipeline company says it is 50 jobs.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. I will yield 1 more minute. So the CEO of the company itself said 50 jobs. This is why we are risking the health of our children? The fact that they have to run away from the playground because they cannot breathe--this is worth it? This is supposed to be in the national interest? And the kicker is, as Senator Markey pointed out, all of the oil is going to be exported. It is going to drive up the price of gasoline here at home. I know this is counterintuitive, but it is a fact. The oil is going to come in here, it is going to go straight out, and all of this stuff that is refined here is going to move out of this country and our gas prices are going to go up so that kids have to suffer this because oil companies want to make more profit? Not in my world. So I reserve the balance of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the 2014 World Series champions, the San Francisco Giants. By defeating the Kansas City Royals in a fiercely contested and exhilarating World Series, the Giants became the second team in the storied history of the National League to win three World Series in a five-season span. Led by manager Bruce Bochy and general manager Brian Sabean, this outstanding roster of all-stars, unflappable veterans, and exciting young talent showed great resolve, determination, and character as they battled a tough National League Western Division to emerge with 88 wins and a spot in the playoffs. The Giants began their title march by shutting out the Pittsburgh Pirates 8-to-0 in the one-game National League Wildcard game. In the National League Division Series, the Giants showed their championship pedigree by winning several tightly contested games against the Washington Nationals that included a thrilling 18-inning marathon, the longest in postseason history. In the National League Championship Series, the Giants captured the pennant by defeating the St. Louis Cardinals, four games to one. Driven by the historic performance of pitcher Madison Bumgarner, World Series MVP, and with contributions from every player on the roster, the Giants triumphed over the Kansas City Royals in a hard- fought, seven-game series. This team battled to win a game seven that came down to the last pitch of the ninth inning when third baseman Pablo Sandoval caught the final out--making the Giants the first team in 35 years to win game seven on the road. With a combination of excellent pitching, great defense and clutch hitting, the Giants are bringing the World Series trophy back to China Basin for the third time in five seasons. They have evolved from the 2010 championship team that was fondly described as ``a band of misfits'' to a team that has etched themselves into baseball history. With this eighth World Series title--their third in five seasons--the San Francisco Giants have taken their rightful place among the nation's greatest franchises and chief executive officer Larry Baer and the entire Giants organization should be very proud. I also want to congratulate the loyal San Francisco Giants fans, who have supported their team through good years and bad, and from the windy Candlestick Park to the picturesque AT&T Park. Whether it is nearly 42,000 fans turning the stadium into a sea of orange on an ``Orange Friday'' or wearing panda hats for Pablo Sandoval or bringing funny Hunter Pence signs, Giants fans have created an electric atmosphere at AT&T Park and provided its team with one of the most formidable home park advantages in all of baseball. As the San Francisco Giants and their fans celebrate the 2014 championship campaign, I congratulate them on their unforgettable season and look forward to their continued success in 2015 and beyond.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will be controlling the time in opposition, very strong opposition, to this legislation. Before I yield to the first debater on our side, who will be Chairman Leahy--and I am very honored that he will be--let me just say before Senator Landrieu leaves the floor that Senator Landrieu is the only reason we are debating this today. So anyone who wants to play games about this and name this bill the Cassidy bill, that kind of is a joke because I believe I am correct that he introduced it November 12 of this year and the Hoeven-Landrieu bill was introduced in May. But setting politics aside, let the Record be clear forever that this debate would not be before this body were it not for Senator Landrieu's insistence. I want that to be clear. Secondly, we will hear today, I think, a terrific debate because the people who support this think not only that this is a good thing for the country--to build the Keystone XL Pipeline--they think it is a great thing for this country. I have great respect for them. On the other side, we have those of us who think it is not a good thing for this country, it is not a good thing for jobs, it is not a good thing for energy independence because it will be exported, all that oil, and it is actually dangerous. In my case, I was thinking, what does ``XL'' stand for? They named it the Keystone XL. It has no meaning, but to me it is extra lethal. My debate will show why, as we analyze the tar sands oil that will be coming into this Nation, 45 percent more than we have now, the risky business that it has proven to be and what the health costs are for our people. That is not me speaking, those are nurses and doctors saying so. I haven't even gotten into climate and all the other issues. At this point I yield 5 minutes to my friend Senator Leahy.

Mrs. BOXER. I will yield to Senator Merkley, but before I do, I was so glad to hear a Republican say he wants to work on jobs. I would just say to my friend before he leaves, the CEO who runs the pipeline says there will be 35 permanent jobs. OK. I would like to suggest to my friend that if he truly wants to help the middle class, he ought to join with us first in raising the minimum wage, which is critical, and, secondly, embracing a clean energy future while we still use, where it is safe, domestic oil production, clean coal, things we can do that don't threaten the air our children breathe, pollute the water they drink, and destroy the planet. To hear a Republican stand and talk about jobs is music to my ears, but I would like to put into the Record a report I just got from my California people at home who say: California's climate policies are reducing carbon emissions, saving consumers at the pump, cutting oil use, and cleaning our air. California's economic recovery has outpaced the rest of the country since the so-called ``great recession,'' while our state has implemented the nation's strongest climate policies. . . . California can reduce greenhouse gas pollution while growing the economy; we have been doing it for the last 35 years. Innovative energy policies over the past three decades have saved Californians $56 billion on household energy costs and allowed them to reduce expenditures on imported fossil fuels and redirect spending to create 1.5 million full-time jobs. And they go on to talk about the fact that they are looking toward 1.5 million full-time jobs. I am just saying to my friend, if this is truly about jobs, let's pass a transportation bill. Let's make sure we do the things that help our people. I am going to hold up a picture of the air in China. This is what it looks like when you throw the environment under the bus. We know, because in California we had some bad air until a Republican President passed the Clean Air Act, signed it into law. You want to know public opinion. I will tell you. The public supports the EPA and they support clean air, clean water, safe drinking water. This tar sands isn't about the building of a pipeline, it is what is going into it--the filthiest, dirtiest oil, and we have put in the Record all the elements, the pollutants, that are in this oil. You can laugh it away if you want. That is fine. But I have to tell you, when you hear about the health impact that is going on in Canada from this tar sands, when you go down to Port Arthur, TX, or meet with the people here as I did, what you will see there is a community suffering because this is the dirtiest oil. So, yes, jobs--that is where it is with this Senator. I come from a family which is first-generation American on my mother's side. We worked for everything we got. Education was key to it. Hey, how about joining with us on that? How about reducing interest rates on student loans? But to stand here and say this is the absolute job producer is phony. It is phony baloney. With that, I yield to my friend for 12 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Now when this petcoke started to blow all across the communities, residents felt they could not safely open the windows during the summer for fear the black clouds would trigger their children's asthma, and with good reason. We know this type of toxic air pollution can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis, or contribute to other diseases. Asthma. The Federal Government has said that asthma has become a national epidemic. This is a picture of a little girl who is having a hard time breathing. I say to my friend from Kansas, I have another 15 minutes, just for his information. This is a photo of a little girl who is having difficulty breathing because she has asthma. The Federal Government has said asthma has become ``a national epidemic''--which is that 1 out of every 12 people, or 26 million Americans, and 7 million of these are children. We don't need more asthma. American communities don't need more petcoke. My Republican friends are not going to talk to you about asthma. They are not going to quote the oil companies saying what a great job they are doing preventing it. Ultimately, the Keystone tar sands pipeline decision should be based on whether the project is in the national interest. Today I ask rhetorically of my colleagues: How are more Americans with asthma in the national interest? How are more Americans with cancer in the national interest? How is it in the national interest when kids playing baseball have to duck and cover from dangerous pollution? The health of our children and our families is at stake, and we have a right to know how tar sands oil will affect our health. Unfortunately, we don't have all the information we need to have. Senator Whitehouse and I wrote to Secretary John Kerry and asked for a comprehensive health impact study on the tar sands oil and how the Keystone Pipeline will impact the health of communities across the Nation. We don't have the studies. Again, Senator Whitehouse and I are not physicians. That is why we stood with the nurses and the doctors. A Gallup poll has found 12 years in a row that nursing is the most trusted profession. So National Nurses United, which is the Nation's largest professional association of registered nurses--185,000 strong-- has joined our call for a comprehensive health study. I ask unanimous consent to have their letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. The nurses concur with Senators Boxer and Whitehouse that what is known today about the health hazards associated with the expansion of tar sands is just a sampling. They believe the consequences of Keystone XL have been substantially ignored in the State Department's final EIS, and it needs to be addressed. The American Public Health Association wrote a letter, and I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record as well.

Mrs. BOXER. They say the same thing. There is an increasing recognition that the environments in which people live, work, and learn have a tremendous impact on their health. The administration will certainly benefit by having a better understanding of how the proposed Keystone Pipeline could impact the public health. They go on to say: The full spectrum of health considerations are often overlooked, and their omission can lead to policies and practices that are unnecessarily harmful to the public health. Maybe Senators feel they know more than doctors and nurses. Maybe they do. Good luck. They don't. We should listen to doctors and nurses just like we should listen to scientists when they talk to us about climate change. This whole thing of saying ``I am not a scientist,'' yes, that is right, you are not, Republicans. Listen to the scientists. This answer is perplexing to me. If you are not a scientist, then be humble and listen to the peer-reviewed scientists. If you are not a doctor or a nurse, be humble. They don't have a special interest; they have an interest in giving us information on which we should base our decisions. Now I am going to talk about the environment. This pipeline is going to go through the Ogallala Aquifer--one of the world's largest underground sources of freshwater. It provides water to farms in eight States, accounting for a quarter of the Nation's cropland as well as municipal drinking wells. Remember what I said before: When this oil gets into water, it is the most difficult oil to clean up because it is so heavy. Well, there are 2,537 wells within 1 mile of the proposed pipeline, including 39 public water supply wells, and 20 private wells within 100 feet of the pipeline right-of-way. If the pipeline were to leak near the aquifer, the tar sands oil would quickly seep into the sandy soil and contaminate the water supply for millions of people. I have already shown you a spill in Arkansas. These spills happen. If a spill occurred near any of these aquifers, it would be tragic. Local residents know the harm the pipeline could cause. I will show you pictures of locals objecting to the pipeline. In April, a group of ranchers, farmers, and tribal leaders gathered in Washington, DC, for a rally. They wanted to send a strong signal to Congress that they want their way of life protected--their farms, their tribal lands, and their ranches. You are going to hear from proponents of the tar sands who will say the Keystone Pipeline will be a safe alternative to rail shipment of oil, but experience tells us otherwise. In 2010 that pipeline ruptured, spilled over 1 million gallons in Michigan. The local health department ordered the evacuation of 50 households, and approximately 100 families were advised not to drink water. One resident living near the Kalamazoo River had to abandon her home because the stench from the spill made her dizzy, nauseous, and sick--classic signs of acute exposure to tar sands. Another resident who was pregnant said she could not breathe. She said: My eyes were burning, and my nose was burning. It smelled like a diesel tanker had turned over in the front of my house. You will not hear this from the proponents. The Michigan spill was the largest inland spill in history, and more than 4 years and $1 billion later, it is not cleaned up. This summer parts of the Kalamazoo River were closed as dredging efforts continued to remove oil from the bottom of the river. Earlier I spoke about Arkansas. Residents were exposed to benzene--a known carcinogen--and hydrogen sulfide. People suffered from dizziness, nausea, headaches, respiratory problems--all classic symptoms of exposure to the chemicals found in the tar sands. There is a section of tar sands that has already been built in the gulf region, and it is already experiencing problems that could result in a pipeline spill, but you will not hear that from the proponents. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, found a systemic problem with substandard wells on a portion of the pipeline. In fact, during 1 week when the pipeline was being monitored, regulators found that over 70 percent of the wells were flawed and required repairs. Senators should pay attention to the facts. People are sick around the tar sands. When it spills, it threatens their way of life and physically harms them. All you have to look to is the evidence to see that ``XL'' stands for ``extra lethal'' and misery follows the tar sands. Now I am going to talk about the climate. I wish to explain that once we begin transporting the dirty tar sands oil through that pipeline, it will unleash more carbon pollution and harm our Nation's effort to address dangerous climate change. The State Department says a barrel of tar sands oil will create at least 17 percent more carbon pollution than domestic oil. The State Department says that compared to average crude oil, burning the amount of tar sands oil from the Keystone ``extra lethal'' Pipeline could add an additional 27.4 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year. That is a fact. You don't hear the proponents talk about that. (Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair). The Senator from Hawaii has now taken over the Chair. He already knows what climate change is doing to Hawaii. I was in the State, and I took a tour. I was at a conference that he organized, and we know we can't afford this. If we allow this to happen, we would see the carbon pollution that would come from adding 5.8 million new cars to the road. It would wipe out the carbon pollution reductions we gained from the first round of fuel economy improvements for heavy-duty trucks--wiped out. I believe this is a fact: If we do this, the damage to the environment will be the equivalent of eight new coal-fired plants, and those are dirty. That is the equivalent of what we would be getting here in terms of the carbon pollution every year. In August 2014 a study in the peer-reviewed journal ``Nature Climate Change'' estimated that the increase in oil consumption caused by Keystone XL could result in up to 110 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year. That is four times the State Department's high-end estimate. I already talked about the eight coal-fired plants. This peer- reviewed study says it is 29. We have two estimates. One says it is the equivalent of building 8 new, dirty coal-fired powerplants, and another peer-reviewed study said it would be equal to building 29 new coal- fired powerplants here in the United States--29. Think about it in your mind's eye. All you need to do is look at China to see what happens when you throw the environment under the bus. Is this the kind of world we want to see for our kids? Is this the future? This isn't hyperbole; this is a picture of the pollution in China. I was in China on a fantastic trade trip for 10 days, and I never saw the Sun except for one day when it sort of peaked out. The guide said: Isn't it a beautiful day? No, it was not at all a beautiful day. There was a semblance of a little Sun behind the cloud. Why do you think people love the Environmental Protection Agency in our country--70 percent strong? It is because they know this could be America. If you throw the environment under the bus, this is what it will look like here. Some of my colleagues say they don't want to the act on climate change--especially my Republican colleagues. I don't know of one who is ready. They say: Well, China is building coal-fired plants. Well, the President just came back, and the President did have an agreement with China to move forward because the Chinese people can't live like this anymore. The social unrest that is the big fear of Beijing that starts to bubble up has a lot to do with this. We have a breakthrough agreement. Is this the time, in the face of this progress, to approve this pipeline? I say it is ridiculous timing. It is ridiculous. I remember a time when saving the environment was bipartisan. I remember leaders such as John Chafee and John Warner. Now I don't see one Republican ready to step forward and say: It is time to put a price on this pollution and stop this pollution. My State has done it. My State is doing just great. We have new jobs, and I will put some information into the Record on that. Canada's Natural Resources Minister said: In order for crude oil production to grow, the North American pipeline network must be expanded. So we know this is just the start. Now climate. Everyone can say what they will: I am not a scientist; I don't know. Over the past few months we have seen everything from the hottest August, the hottest September on record, and the hottest October on record. We have seen historic droughts and extreme wildfires. I have seen them in my State. We have seen vanishing wildlife habitat in Alaska, toxic algae out of control and contaminating drinking water supplies in Toledo, OH, because the water is getting hot and the algae that couldn't survive in the colder waters survives in the warmer waters. We see these wake-up calls every day. But instead of confronting that crisis, we have the party of no saying: No, I am not a scientist and, no, I will not listen to them, and we do nothing. This project does the opposite. It makes matters worse. There is a lot of talk about how we need this oil to become energy independent. Let me tell my colleagues, we are going to see gas prices go up if this goes forward, and I will explain why. This is from economists, not from me. This is not a win for America. Big Oil will be the winner. We have to know that U.S. gasoline demand is on the decline, and economists say it will continue to be through 2040. Since 2011, the United States has exported more gasoline, diesel, and other fuels than it imported. So Big Oil will be the big winner now if this project moves forward, not American workers or families filling up at the gas pump. The reality is Keystone ``extra lethal'' will increase the price Americans pay for gas at the pump. It is cheaper to buy gas in the Midwest today than it would be if the pipeline were built. That is because moving tar sand oil to the gulf coast gives it access to international markets, which will increase the price Canadians can charge for it. So right now that oil stays in America. Now it is going to be pumped out, they can get higher prices, and our prices are going to go up. The exports will reduce the supply of gasoline right here in America and drive up the price. As Bloomberg reported earlier this year, three separate studies have shown Keystone XL Pipeline could raise domestic prices by 20 to 40 cents because it would divert Canadian oil away from refineries in the Midwest where it is easier to export. Gulf coast refiners plan to process the cheap Canadian tar sands crude that would be supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export. During a congressional hearing at the end of 2011, my Senate colleague, then-Congressman Ed Markey, who is now a member of our environment committee--Senator Markey--asked TransCanada's pipeline head if the company would commit to keeping the Canadian oil and refine products in the United States ``so that this country realizes all of the energy security benefits your company had promised.'' Mr. Pourbaix said, No, I can't do that. So the head of TransCanada is not promising to keep the oil here or the products here. We know that. So all of this talk of energy independence--let me tell my colleagues how we get energy independence. We produce what we can here, and we have been doing that where it is appropriate, and we also utilize the Sun and the wind and the geothermal and the clean energies of the future that, believe me, when we embrace that clean energy agenda, we have far more jobs. We don't have pollution. We have safer communities. One refinery in Port Arthur owned by Valero is expected to be a major customer for crude oil. Let's show that picture of Port Arthur. Because that refinery is in a foreign trade zone, Valero can operate tax free. In the fist 9 months of this year, Valero has reported a net income of $2.475 billion. Today we will also hear from tar sands advocates that the tar sands oil will just be shipped by rail even if the tar sands pipeline is not built. It is very expensive to ship it by rail, and the truth is it is not a clear-cut case. In fact, both the rail companies and tar sands producers that pioneered transporting Canadian tar sands oil by rail are on the verge of insolvency because of the high transportation costs. So don't buy into the argument that if we don't build the pipeline, we will just ship it by rail. Then they say it is safer, and we know it is not safer. We just heard the operator of the pipeline say it is 35 permanent jobs. I don't belittle the 1,900 construction jobs for 2 years we would have. I don't belittle that. But I can truly tell my colleagues that coming from my State--and later I will talk about the successes--we can dwarf that by the hundreds of thousands if we truly embrace a clean energy economy. The materials needed for the pipeline--that is not a domestic boon. A 2011 analysis found 50 percent or more of the steel pipe would be manufactured outside of the United States. We need clean energy policies. As we know, it is appropriate to drill for oil in our country where it is safe, where it is appropriate, and if we can get to clean coal, it is appropriate, and it is appropriate if we can get to safe nuclear. The fact is this pipeline is going to bring filthy, dirty oil. It is going to bring misery all across the country. Let's look at the wind industry which supports over 560 manufacturing facilities and supported over 50,000 full-time jobs in 2013 alone. So 50,000 full-time jobs compared to 35 full-time jobs for the pipeline? Come on. The solar industry in 2013 employed 142,000 Americans, an increase of 24,000 additional jobs just last year. This is the future, not the misery that follows the tar sands, not communities that have to suffer with the filthiest of oils, dirtiest of oils, and not having this petcoke stored all over the Midwest where it blows on kids so kids get asthma. Here is the spill in Arkansas. They still can't clean it up. It happened in 2013. This photograph isn't what we want the future to look like--not this, having to wear masks. We want the air to be clean and the water to be clean. This is China. This is what happens when we ignore our people who are telling us they are having increased asthma attacks, increased respiratory disease. We are not going to hear a word about it from my colleagues. They are going to make a jobs argument that falls flat on its face. Look. We know climate change is real. Whether someone says they are not a scientist--we all know you are not a scientist. I am not a scientist. Climate change is real. Unleashing this filthy, dirty oil unleashes far more carbon and makes the problem worse. We are not going to hear any of that. We are going to hear claims that just aren't true. We are going to hear about all of these jobs--35 permanent jobs compared to tens of thousands in clean energy. We are going to hear about how this is the greatest project. We are going to hear, Oh, it is better to transport it by pipeline than by rail, when in fact that is not a fact in evidence that they would do that because it is so expensive. They are not going to talk to us about the spills, as shown in this photograph. We have a very important process to go through before this pipeline is approved. This legislation derails that process, and that process was established by an executive order and was updated by President George W. Bush. Before a finding is made as to whether this should go forward, the President must consult with experts in many Federal agencies to determine whether this pipeline is in the national interest. This includes the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies before a permit is granted. This bill before the Senate short circuits this review. It cuts off expert opinions of our military leaders and others when determining whether the pipeline is safe. Is it in the interests of the country? Is it going to be another target? We need to know, and we don't have the answers on the full public health implications. What is also interesting is the tar sands supporters gloss over the fact that this bill tramples States rights--the rights of citizens in South Dakota to have a say in their State's ongoing proceedings concerning construction of the pipeline. How about this fact. Here we see it. These voices have to be heard. I will tell my colleagues, 2 million people submitted comments on the tar sands project, and passing this bill now does not allow those comments to be given due consideration by our country. I am very surprised at this, given my colleagues who speak of States rights, public comments, local viewpoints. They want to bypass all of this because they have decided they know better than 2 million people, many of whom have to live side by side with this pipeline and many of whom would have to breathe the kind of air they are breathing in Port Arthur, TX, right now. I will guarantee my colleagues this: Not one Senator in this Chamber will live next to a refinery that refines this filthy, dirty oil--not one. If I have not spoken the truth, please correct the Record. Tell me. I will apologize. We don't live near refineries here. I will tell my colleagues who does: a lot of kids who get asthma, just ask the nurses. If I told people that if we embrace a clean energy agenda we could create far more jobs, be far more healthy, and save this planet, wouldn't people say yes? I think people would. But, no, not in this Chamber. They listen to Big Oil and the Koch brothers, and these are the people who will profit. They are not going to live next to the Port Arthur refinery. Their children aren't going to live there. Their grandchildren aren't going to live there. They brush aside that this is filthy, dirty oil--the dirtiest--with the most dangerous pollutants, including lead, including sulfur. When we meet with the citizens of Port Arthur, TX, as I have done, and the activists there who want to protect the kids, they say: Please, we have enough of this stuff; we don't want any more. Misery follows the tar sands, and that is why I call this pipeline the Keystone XL ``extra lethal'' Pipeline. The evidence is clear. The Keystone tar sands pipeline will be harmful to our family's health. It will hurt the environment. It will worsen the impact on climate change. It will raise the price of gas. These statements are not made by me. I respect economists, and this is clearly the economists' view. It is just plain dangerous because it will transport the dirtiest oil on the planet. Forcing the approval of the Keystone when so many concerns remain does not allow for the kind of review our affected communities deserve. I hope enough of my colleagues will vote no on this. I see the handwriting on the wall. I do. I know what happens in this Chamber. I know the votes will eventually be there. This is an issue which impacts the health and safety of our families and our planet, so if it means I will have to stand up here time and time again to tell the story of the Keystone ``extra lethal'' Pipeline, I will do it. I will do it for as long as it takes. If I didn't think it was important, I wouldn't do it. I just hope that if this body does pass this pipeline today, the President will veto this dangerous legislation. I feel so strongly that the way to a prosperous job-producing future is the embracing of clean energy. Yes, we will continue with our coal and make it as clean as we can. We will continue with our drilling here. Yes, we will have an ``all of the above'' where it is safe to do. We don't need a project that is so harmful to our families and to our communities. I talked to the people in Canada who live near there. You won't hear that from my friends. It is all in the Record. I hope they read the articles I placed in the Record about the kinds of cancers we are seeing around this stuff. I don't want to see a trail of misery extending from one end of the country that I love to another, so I hope we will vote no on this-- enough of us will. But if we can't stop it today, then I hope the President will veto this and tell the story of why this trail of misery should not be put upon the American people. One of the biggest shocks I think I had when meeting those Canadians who have been putting up with this and then meeting the Americans who live around these refineries and hearing from them what happened and hearing from my friends from Chicago who remember that story--we will close with this--of these kids sitting around getting ready to play Little League Baseball when all of this petroleum coke that is stored all over the Midwest just blew, and it got into the mouths of these kids and it got on their clothes. They ran away. How can anyone believe this is what the future should look like when I can show you case after case on the Record, substantiated by the numbers, that clean energy produces far more jobs--far more jobs--and will lead us in the right direction in terms of our health. People don't want to become like China. They don't want to look like this. They don't want to have their air look like this. I come from a State where before the Clean Air Act--by the way, it was done by a Republican President; thank you, Richard Nixon--we had dirty, filthy air. You couldn't see a foot in front of you. We cleaned it up because we stood up to the polluters and said: You know what, we know we want to work with you, and we want to have your product. Do it in a clean manner. Do it in a safe manner. The EPA--again, created by Republicans--came in there and cleaned up the air, along with the local people in our State. We have rebounded in California from the recession, with clean energy jobs leading the way. We are so proud of it. And our people can still see the sky. I will tell you, I am not going to go in this direction, if I have to stand on my feet until they hurt. As you know, I have to wear heels because I am very little, but I don't care--I am not going to let us go in this direction. No way. I hope we defeat this today. If we don't, I hope the President will veto it, and I hope we can move to a positive, bipartisan clean-energy agenda that is really the future of this Nation and this planet. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mrs. BOXER. I am about to yield to Senator Cardin. A point I want to make is this is an interesting debate. The proponents have said for years: Build the pipeline because we need the oil here. Then confronted with the fact that the oil will not stay here--it is going to go elsewhere--they say: Oh, what is the difference. It is going elsewhere, but what is the difference. The difference was your argument was to make us self-sufficient. You can't have it both ways. The fact is this oil is going to be exported. With that I yield 12 minutes to my colleague, a great leader on the environment, Mr. Cardin.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank Majority Leader Reid for his remarks. Sometimes it does feel the world is falling apart and we have to speak out, as we are doing every time these terrorists rear their heads. I know we have some time over here by Senator Barrasso, but I just wanted to make a point on the environmental impact statements, although it is hard to get back. As I understand it, in the Hoeven- Landrieu bill, the EIS is approved. So if the Nebraska bureaucracy determines there is a new route--and I think this is what my friend from Maryland was getting at--it doesn't matter what the new route is, the EIS is deemed approved. I have to say I don't think that is right. I think the people who live along that new route have a right to have a new EIS if in fact now the pipeline is being moved in a different direction. I understand the bill calls for property rights to be respected, and that is called eminent domain. I know a lot of my friends on the other side hate eminent domain, usually, but now they are embracing it because that is what is in this bill. But the fact is, if as a result of a court case brought by property owners the route changes, it is our counsel's understanding the EIS is still automatically approved. I wanted to get that on the record because my friend was in fact questioned, and I think he was right. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, we yield back all time on this side.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Geoffrey ``Craig'' Hunt, a 13-year veteran pilot with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL FIRE. Craig was an exceptional firefighting pilot, a loyal friend, and most of all a devoted family man who was tragically killed in the line of duty fighting the Dog Rock Fire near Yosemite National Park on October 7, 2014. Craig Hunt was born in Richmond, IN, and dedicated his life to serving his country, first as a U.S. Navy P-3 pilot from 1975 to 1984 and then in the Naval Reserve for 20 years after leaving active duty. Craig was also an enthusiastic and accomplished scholar who received a master's degree in business from the University of Southern California. A lifelong interest in science and the natural world led him to also earn a master's degree in biochemistry from the University of California at Santa Cruz. His passion for learning led him to teaching. In the winter months, when the fire season was over, he worked at UC Santa Cruz as a course assistant teaching general chemistry and organic chemistry labs. Always at home in the cockpit of a plane, Craig loved his job as a pilot with CAL FIRE. For 13 years he valiantly answered the call to protect public safety and the environment by piloting aircraft during emergencies. He had a vast knowledge about wild land fires and was skilled in pinpointing aerial attacks in places that were difficult for ground crews to reach. Colleagues remember Craig as an experienced and respected pilot who loved his job. He was happy and outgoing, quick with a smile, and had a fantastic sense of humor. A friend and neighbor recalled that Craig would ``drop anything in a heartbeat if you needed help or assistance.'' When he was not on duty, Craig was an avid outdoorsman with a passion for golfing, fly fishing, hiking, bird watching, and scuba diving. Standing beside him through it all was his beloved wife Sally, whom he met in college and married in 1975. Craig was also a devoted father to his two daughters, Sarah and Nancy. His daughter Sarah said about him, ``My dad died a hero. There was not a day that went by that I didn't talk to my dad. He was my best friend.'' Craig Hunt dedicated his life to his family, his community, and his country, and his courageous service will be forever remembered. On behalf of the people of California, whom he served so bravely, I extend my gratitude and deepest sympathies to his family, friends, and colleagues. He will be deeply missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 18, 2014, at 11 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Tax Audits of Large Partnerships.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2014.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2014, at 2:15 p.m.