John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, that is fine. I will use 10 minutes at this point, and I will use more later.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to verify that I have 10 minutes before my time expires. Is that correct?

Mr. HOEVEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to respond regarding the legislation that is currently on the floor in several regards. I would like to discuss some of the environmental arguments that have been brought up. I wish to also reference the issue of export as well as touch on some of the comments of the President relative to this project and comments others have made regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline approval bill, S. 1, being the first bill we brought up. One of the things we hear is, well, this is a private investment, it is $8 billion, but we should somehow be doing something else. The reality is this is an $8 billion shovel-ready project, good to go. It is vital energy infrastructure for this country. So it is important in its own right. To compare it to the highway bill, which is all funded by Federal tax dollars, whereas this is a private investment which is going to generate revenues in addition to providing vital infrastructure and providing jobs--that is not a fair comparison. The point in bringing up this bill first was not only because this is important energy infrastructure but also because we wanted to try to get the Senate back to regular order, to an open amendment process. We just spent the last session and even before where we couldn't get amendments offered. Whether Republican or Democrat, we could not come to the floor of this body--the most deliberative body in government-- and offer amendments, have the debate, and get a vote. So understand that bringing up this legislation is important in its own right, particularly as we consider how we best build the energy future of the United States and have this important energy debate. Look what is going on at the pump right now. We pull up to the pump and gas is down more than a dollar. I think the national average price of gasoline is $2.05, when it was up between $3 and in some cases $4 in some markets. That is a huge savings. That is hundreds of billions of dollars in consumers' pockets. That didn't just happen; that happened because we are building the right energy future for this country. We are working to create energy security for the United States by producing more oil and gas in this country, along with other types of energy, and working with Canada to produce more oil and gas so we don't have to get it from OPEC, so OPEC doesn't get to dictate terms to American consumers and American businesses. And why don't they get to dictate terms? Because we are producing more energy. As we produce more energy and we get more energy from Canada, our closest friend and ally in the world, we become energy secure. That is more energy, that is more jobs, that is economic growth, that is national security, and that is what the American people want. So when we talk about why this bill is up first, it is because we want to build an energy plan that works for this country. We want our Nation to be energy secure. This is how we do it. This kind of infrastructure is a vital part of building that energy plan where we produce more energy than we consume. So, together with Canada, we truly have North American energy security. That means lower prices, that means a stronger economy, and that means we don't have to depend on OPEC for our energy. Now look what is happening. OPEC is pushing back, aren't they? We are now in this market fight, a fight for market share. So what do we do? Do we continue to build our energy resources here in this country or do we say: No, we are not going to build the infrastructure. We are not going to continue to produce more oil and gas in this country. We are not going to work with Canada. We are going to have Canada send that oil to China because they want it. Then we will go right back to where we were before, where our energy shrinks back down and we don't work with Canada, and OPEC is right back in business. That has to be music to OPEC's ears. They probably love it when they hear that the President is going to block our efforts to build vital energy infrastructure--and private investment, mind you, not taxpayer dollars--that will create hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue for all of these States as they collect property taxes and payment in lieu of taxes. OPEC is doing great. When we shrink our industry back down and Canada sends its energy to China, who is back in business? Who is back in the driver's seat? OPEC and the other petro-dependent countries, such as Russia. Russia finances virtually 50 percent or more of their economy on what? Petro dollars. Iran is a petro-dependent state. Do we want to be in the driver's seat or do we want to keep them in the driver's seat? Do we want to repeat history or do we want to take control of our own destiny? That is why this is an important issue. It is also an important issue because it is about getting this body back to a regular order so we break the gridlock. We are offering amendments. We are saying to Republicans and Democrats: Come down and offer amendments. We voted on three amendments yesterday. We have six pending amendments right now. We are looking for more. This is about breaking the gridlock and getting the important work of the country done. It is the difference between the President giving a speech wherein he outlines all of his initiatives--OK, everybody, do it my way--and then spends the second half of the speech talking about how if we do it his way, somehow that is a compromise--that is not the case. That versus a project he has talked about vetoing. Let's take a look at whether this is a bipartisan project where people have come together. No. 1, it has been reviewed by the administration for more than 6 years. How long do we have to hold up private enterprise before we let them build the vital energy infrastructure we need--infrastructure that will not only move Canadian crude to our refineries but will move light sweet Balkan crude from my State and from Montana to other refineries as well. So it is moving domestic crude as well as Canadian crude. If we can't move it on this pipeline, it will be 1,400 railcars a day. How do we move our agriculture products and other goods when we have that kind of congestion on our railroads? The whole point is that the President talks about coming together on issues that have broad bipartisan support. Let's think about it. We have broad bipartisan support in the House. This bill has already passed the House. We went through cloture in this body with 63 votes. The last time I checked, 63 votes out of 100 is a pretty strong majority. So we have bipartisan majority support in the Congress. Second, in the polling over the 6 years that this project has been under review and under study, the public has overwhelmingly supported it. They said: Yes, we want to be energy independent in this country. We don't want to get our oil from OPEC. We would rather get it from Canada and produce it here at home, and we need the infrastructure to move it around. So in the polls, 65, 70 percent of the people consistently said: Build it. Build it. By the way, all six States on the route, including Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, have all approved it. It wasn't as though they had to rush because they had 6 years to do it, but they have all approved it. Is the U.S. Federal Government the only entity that can make a good decision around here? All of these States, their legislatures, their Governors--they don't know what they are doing? The only one who can make a decision about whether this works or not is the administration? What are we saying to our friends in Canada? They are our largest trading partner in the world. Think about our relationship with Canada. What if the situation were reversed and Canada wanted to work with us on a project of this importance to them and we said: No, go work with China. When we think about all of these things, it brings home the reality. People can have their opinions on all kinds of issues, but those are the facts as they relate to this project. So now I just want to take a few minutes and reference a couple of specific things, both on the environmental aspects that have been brought up and then also on whether this oil will be exported or used here at home. Again, this is an open-amendment process. So people can come down and offer amendments on climate change or all those other things. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and to advocate for whatever they want to advocate for. But at the end of the day, we are going to keep bringing them back to the facts on this project. Those facts were laid out in not one but five reports, three draft environmental impact statements and two final impact statements done by the Obama administration's Department of State. When we come down and people want to use different discussions and talk about their views on climate change and all these other things, they can do that and we can vote on amendments in regard to those things. They can come down and talk about their views on whether oil should or shouldn't be exported and all of those kinds of things. They can offer amendments on them, and that is the process. But at the end of the day, we are going to work to bring them back to the facts. The facts are this is the finding in the Obama administration's environmental impact statements--three draft statements and two final statements done over 5 years. The Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant environmental impact according to the U.S. Department of State environmental impact statements. There is one thing I want to add to that. I talked about the fact that if we don't build a pipeline, if we are going to get the oil, it is going to have 1,400 railcars coming in here on a daily basis. The environmental impact statements point out that we get more greenhouse gas without the pipeline than with it because without the pipeline we are either going to move that by railcar or it is going to China. And if it goes to China, it goes in tanker ships, and they produce more greenhouse gas. It is refined in Chinese refineries, and they have higher emissions than our refineries. And we still have to bring our oil in from the Middle East. So now you have more greenhouse emissions from those tankers. The environmental impact statement itself points out that we have more emissions without the pipeline than if we actually build it. I also want to take a minute to talk about the effort going on in Alberta for carbon capture and sequestration. In other words, one of the things I have always talked about in terms of building the right kind of energy plan for this country is that instead of holding up the investment, we empower the investment. If we empower private investment, we not only produce more energy here at home and with our closest ally in the world, we not only produce more energy, we not only get the infrastructure we need to move it--now understand, I am talking about private investment, just getting the government out of the way and letting the private sector do what they do. If we empower that investment, we not only get the infrastructure we need to move energy around, we not only get the new technologies that develop that energy more cost-effectively and more efficiently, we get better environmental stewardship. New technologies produce better environmental stewardship. We are seeing that over and over. Take directional drilling in my State of North Dakota. We now drill down 2 miles off one ECO-Pad. We can put as many as 16 wells on one ECO-Pad. We drill down 2 miles, and we go out 3 miles and more in all different directions underground. Whereas before we would have seen wells all over the terrain, now we see one spot where there is a well for miles, and it is producing for miles around. Think how much you reduced that environmental footprint, right? It is the same with carbon capture sequestration. People talk about clean coal technology. They talk about carbon capture sequestration. There are other fossil fuels such as oil and gas. The only way we are going to get to that is by stimulating private investment and encouraging not only the research and development that creates those technologies but actually getting them to deploy those technologies. That is exactly what is happening right now in the oil sands up in the Province of Alberta. Since 1990 the greenhouse gas footprint of oil produced in the oil sands has gone down 28 percent. Because of better drilling techniques, because of cogeneration, because of other processes that have been put in place, the greenhouse gas emissions on a per-barrel basis for the oil producing oil sands has gone down by almost a third, 28 percent. Right now major companies are continuing not only to produce more oil in the oil sands but to find ways to reduce the greenhouse gas and do what is called carbon capture and sequestration--carbon capture and storage. I will just touch on two of those for a minute and then relinquish the floor to the good Senator from Vermont, because there is more that I will pick up on related to this environmental aspect as we debate this legislation, as well as this whole issue of making sure that we get our country to energy security. But let me just touch for a minute on two projects. Exxon is one of the companies that produces oil up in the oil sands region, and they are investing on the order of $10 billion in that oil development and production. Their Kearl project, which is a huge part of it, will use cogeneration for steam and low- energy extraction processes to recover oil and heat integration between the extraction and the treatment facilities to minimize energy consumption. As a result, oil produced from Kearl will have about the same life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions as many other crude oils refined in the United States as a result of technologies which significantly enhance environmental performance. Other environmental innovations for Kearl include onsite water storage to eliminate river withdrawals and low-flow periods and progressive land reclamation which will return the land to the boreal forest. The plan is this. They are developing these new technologies so the environmental footprint is the same as conventional drilling. That is what they are working to develop. How else are we going to develop this technology to reduce the carbon footprint if we continue to block these investments? That is what we have heard from opponents of the project is: Oh, well, gee, we don't want to have oil from Canada if it has higher greenhouse gas emissions or a higher environmental footprint. Yet we pointed out that oil produced in California, oil that produced in Venezuela right now has the same level of carbon emissions, and we have huge projects going on up here to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop that technology that will not only reduce the environmental footprint up here and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions up here but technology that we can use in the United States and around the globe. That is how we get better environmental stewardship, by developing those technologies that help us do it. And who better to accomplish it, who better than the ingenuity of American companies and Americans-- American entrepreneurs. That is how we make it happen. So the reality is--another one is the Quest project that Shell is undertaking. They are working right now with the Provincial government in Alberta on carbon capture and storage. So the Province of Alberta actually has a program where they work with these companies on carbon capture and storage. This is a tremendous opportunity to develop those technologies we hear talked about on this floor so often if we are willing to work with these companies and allow them to make the investments to do it. My question to opponents or critics to the project is: How in the world are we going to develop these new technologies to improve environmental stewardship if we block the very projects that are trying to do it? I see the Senator from Vermont is here, and so I want to provide him with his time to introduce his amendment, as well as the Senator from Louisiana. I will stop at this point. We will continue this debate, but I want to end on this very important subject by saying, again, the environmental impact shows we will have higher greenhouse gases without this project versus with it. Again, I understand people can come down and talk about their opinions, but that is what the reports determine-- five reports done over 6 years. Furthermore, what I am pointing out is that doesn't even take into account the kind of carbon capture and other projects that are being done in a huge way up here to develop really the technologies that are not only going to help us in terms of reducing emissions and the environmental impacts of energy production in the oil sands but will help us in the United States and technology that can be adopted in other countries around the globe. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to call up my amendment, as modified.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I certainly would welcome that opportunity and look forward to joining the Senator from Illinois in that dialogue.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, the characterizations of petcoke are from the EPA and from the Congressional Research Service.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 20, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 20, 2015, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Perspectives on the Strategic Necessity of Iran Sanctions.''

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 20, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I have no objection.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to engage in a discussion with my colleague from Massachusetts on the important issues. He has raised several issues in regard to oil export and then also in regard to the environmental aspects. If I could take a minute to address both of those, for starters, I would point out that it is interesting that the Senator, my good friend from Massachusetts, is opposed to this pipeline project and talks about our need to import oil, and therefore we should not allow any exports, because we need to import oil. Yet he is opposed to a project that would not only bring Canadian oil to our country, 830,000 barrels a day, but also would help us move 100,000 barrels of oil a day from my State of North Dakota and my neighboring State of Montana--light sweet Bakken crude. So he objects to that, and he talks about our need to import oil. The irony here is that if he is successful and he and the other critics or opponents of this pipeline and the infrastructure are successful, then what Canada will do is they will build a pipeline to the west coast of Canada, and they will export that oil to China--100 percent of it. So it appears that his argument is that because some portion of this oil may be exported if we build the pipeline, somehow it is better to force Canada to export 100 percent of it to China. Now, I do not begin to understand that argument. So if we cannot have 100 percent--every single drop--stay here, then we are better off to send all 100 percent to China. That is my opponent's argument. I do not understand it. It does not make sense to me. The second point I would like to make is if he goes to the environmental impact statement issued by the Obama State Department, the environmental impact statement says that the oil would be used in the United States. If he looks at the Obama administration's Department of Energy report, he will see that the report also indicates that this oil is going to be used in the United States. Now, that does not mean that we use every drop of it. I will give you some statistics. The United States retains 99 percent of all crude oil within the country that we produce. The United States uses 97 percent of the gasoline that we refine in this country. So, remember, this oil comes to refineries in Patoka, IL, and to the gulf coast. It goes to Cushing, and it gets refined. The statistics are that we use 97 percent of that gasoline from oil that is refined in our country. The other thing I would point out is that the oil that comes in on this pipeline, along with the crude that comes from the Bakken, is both Canadian and domestic oil. That cannot be exported without approval from the Secretary of Commerce of the Obama administration. So here again, my good friend from Massachusetts is putting forth an amendment that absolutely no oil in this one pipeline can be exported at any time to anywhere from the country, yet they already have provisions in law that it cannot be exported without the Secretary of Commerce's approval. The Secretary of Commerce is appointed by President Obama. So, again, if you look at the administration's own reports, and they have been done over more than 6 years that this project has been pending--the administration now has had 6 years to review this project, has done so, and has produced five environmental impact statements. The conclusion of those environmental impact statements is ``no significant environmental impact.'' That is the administration's own environmental impact statements produced by the State Department. But after 6 years, they have come out and said: This oil will be used here, and to be exported, it would have to be approved by the Secretary of Commerce, as other oil exports are handled in this country. Furthermore, if we do not build the pipeline, it is either all going to be sent to China--so then we would not get any of it--or we are going to have to move it via railcars--1,400 railcars a day, creating more congestion on our railways. So at this point, I would inquire as to how much time I have used of my 10 minutes.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I appreciate this debate. It is an important debate to have. Clearly, the Senator from Massachusetts and I have very different ideas about how this should be addressed, but this is the debate we should have. This is about the energy future we are building for this country. I am pleased we are engaged in this debate. Let's work to build the kind of energy plan that is going to truly make our country energy secure. To do that, we not only need to produce energy domestically, we need to work with our closest friend and ally, Canada. At the same time, as we produce that energy, we need the infrastructure to move it to our markets rather than sending it overseas. So it is ironic on the one hand the Senator is proposing an amendment saying: Oh, no. If we get any of this oil, we have to have all of it. He is making an argument that doesn't work in a global economy, where he is saying if we can't have 100 percent of it every single day--not one drop leaves--then export all of it. I want 100 percent or nothing. That doesn't make sense. The whole point is we have just finished showing that the oil will be used here, and for any of it to be exported we need the Secretary of Commerce's approval. But we have to talk about it in a larger context because this debate we are having isn't only about the Keystone Pipeline, it is about the future of energy security for our country. Are we going to work to produce oil and gas domestically? Are we going to work with Canada to bring their oil and gas that they produce as well to us, rather than having them export it to China, so we are energy secure? What I mean by that is we produce more oil and gas in North America than we consume. When we do that we become energy secure. As far as this argument about any kind of other source of energy or renewable, that this somehow precludes it, it doesn't. Let's produce all those other energy sources as well. They are not mutually exclusive. Preventing us from producing more oil and gas and working with Canada to produce more oil and gas so we don't have to get it from OPEC in no way excludes any other type of energy development. They are not mutually exclusive. So, yes, let's do it all but don't block this effort to make us energy secure in oil and gas so we don't have to depend upon OPEC. That is the real issue underlying this debate. That is why we have to build this vital infrastructure. Right now when Americans go to the pump, they are paying--I think I saw today the national average is about $2.05 for gasoline. Why is that? As I have said before on this floor, it is not because OPEC decided to give us a Christmas present. When OPEC can, they will try to push those gas prices right back up. The reason gas prices at the pump are down now for all our consumers and for all our small businesses is because we are producing more oil and gas at home and we are getting more from Canada. The United States uses about 18 million barrels per day of oil. Right now we produce about 11 million barrels in the United States. We import another 3 million from Canada. That gets us up to about 14 million, so we are down to only importing about 4 million a day. If we continue to work with Canada and develop our own energy resources, pretty soon we will be at that point where we produce more energy than we consume, but we have to have this discussion about needing the infrastructure and also our ability to operate in global markets. I will talk more about that, because if we produce more oil and gas, it puts downward pressure on oil prices on the world market. Most of those world markets are priced off of Brent crude. As we produce more oil, we not only help ourselves, we help our allies. So we have to understand what it takes to build an energy plan and do it the right way rather than blocking the very infrastructure and doing the very things that have led to incredible benefits today for our consumers at the pump. If that were a tax cut, that reduction of more than $1 in the gas prices is $100 billion in our consumers' pockets. That is the impact. So it is about jobs. It is about energy, it is about jobs, it is about growing our economy, it is about national security--but not by blocking these efforts that are benefitting our consumers, making our country stronger, safer, and helping our allies but by continuing to move forward with them. I look forward to discussing that more and the environmental impact. One more statistic before I turn to my good colleague from Nebraska. Since 1990, the greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands-produced oil have gone down 28 percent, almost one-third, because in Alberta they are taking huge steps to continue to improve the environmental stewardship of this production.

Mr. HOEVEN. At this point, I would yield back to my good friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. HOEVEN. I look forward to discussing that further. I think I have control of the floor time until 12:30.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, my inquiry would be: How much time does the Senator from Massachusetts need? I would be willing to defer my time until later, as long as I know I would have approximately 10 minutes before the hard break of 12:30 p.m.

Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to make a couple of points. One is that in regard to this amendment, to my knowledge, they are talking about situations where a project is publicly funded, funded with taxpayer dollars. In this case, I would point out by way of closing that this is roughly an $8 billion project, but it is privately financed. This isn't a publicly funded project; it is financed by private companies and, in fact, will create hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue--State, local, and Federal Government level--to provide dollars back to the taxpayers, with absolutely no tax increase. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent that we turn to my colleague from Nebraska, and I would be willing to confer, as far as time, to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HOEVEN. All right. Under prior agreement, I turn to my colleague from Nebraska.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I am very pleased to join my colleague this morning, the chairman of our energy committee. The Senator from Alaska is doing a fantastic job leading our energy committee. I so appreciate her leadership on the committee, her knowledge of energy. Her words this morning--very well spoken--I think really go to the heart of what we are trying to do with this legislation: not only pass important energy legislation for the country but have this open process, open dialogue, have a real energy debate, and not just a debate but give people the opportunity to vote. Republican and Democrat alike, we are saying, come on down here, bring your amendments, and let's have a serious discussion about energy and about building the energy future of this country. Offer your amendments, make your case, and then let's vote. If you can get 60 people to support your amendment, if you can get 60 votes, that gets attached to the legislation. That is the way it is supposed to work around here. So we are encouraging our colleagues to join with us and get the work done that the American people want done. So I thank our energy chairman for setting that in motion. That is the right way to do business. That is what we are elected to do. We are going to get something done for the American people, who sent us here for that very reason. When you look at what is going on in energy today, you have to feel pretty good about it. If not, drive over to the gas station to fill your car. Gas prices at the pump are about a dollar lower than they were this time a year ago. If you equated that savings our consumers are receiving at the pump to a tax cut, it would be more than a $100 billion tax cut for hard-working Americans. That is pretty exciting. That did not just happen. It certainly did not happen because OPEC or anyone else--Venezuela or Russia or anybody--decided they wanted to cut us a break, cut hard-working Americans, hard-working taxpayers, consumers, small businesses across this country a break. It happened because we are producing more energy in this country and we are working with our closest friend and ally in the world--Canada--to produce more energy. On a daily basis we consume about 18 million barrels of oil a day-- oil and oil equivalents--and produce about 11 million of those barrels here domestically. We are up to about 3 million, so of the 7 million we import, about 3 million comes from Canada. So we are down to only importing about 4 million barrels a day from other sources. If we stay on this track, if we build the necessary energy infrastructure--such as the Keystone XL Pipeline--and we continue to build good business climates and get our companies to invest, to create jobs, and produce more energy, we can get to a point where we truly have North American energy security, meaning we produce more energy here at home and with Canada than we consume. Boy, then we will be in the driver's seat--not OPEC; America will be in the driver's seat. If we don't do it, if we block projects like we are debating right now, then we will put OPEC back in the driver's seat. So when they hear our President say he is going to continue to block this project, to veto this legislation if we are able to pass it with a strong bipartisan majority, that is music to OPEC's ears because that puts them right back in the saddle. That is what they want. But we work for America. That is why we need to continue to move forward and build this exciting energy future for our country that we are building. It is energy. It is jobs. It is economic growth. This project will create hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue--State, local, and Federal revenue to help reduce the debt and deficit. That is a huge and important impact of the project. Of course it is about national security with energy security. So I want to emphasize that again because that is doing the work the American people sent us here to do. For the opponents--there are a couple of things that I heard this morning and that I hear on an ongoing basis. One is that, oh, gee, we should be doing renewable energy instead of fossil fuels. Why not do all of it? Why are they mutually exclusive? How does doing this project in any way prevent us from doing any renewable project we ought to do? Let's do those renewable projects. In my home State we use steam from coal plants to produce biofuels, power biofuels plants. We use the wastewater from some of our communities in those biofuels plants. We have wind energy. We have geothermal, ethanol, biodiesel. We are now the second largest oil- producing State in the country. We produce 1.2 million barrels a day-- second only to Texas. They are not mutually exclusive. Let's do it all. How does holding up one enable us to do the other? It does not. So when I hear the argument that ``Well, we ought to do all of those other things,'' good--let's do them. But doing this project helps us. It provides more energy. Heck, let's do the others too. So arguing that we should do renewables is not an argument against this project. Fine. Let's do it. Let's do them both. The other argument that I heard this morning and that I hear, of course, a lot from the critics is the environmental argument. Again, I say look at the facts. Go back to the science. The report itself says ``no significant environmental impact.'' That is the report done by the Obama administration, the environmental impact statement that was designed to look specifically at the environmental impacts. That has been done over the course of 6 years; not one, not two, not three, but five reports--three draft reports, two final reports. The results are right in the report: The Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant environmental impact. In fact, we will have higher greenhouse emissions without the pipeline than we will with it because it would take 1,400 railcars a day to move all of that crude into our country, which is what will happen. If somehow the critics manage to block that, then it would go to China. We would have pipelines built to the west coast of Canada. The oil would go to China in tanker ships and be refined in refineries that have higher emissions. So however you slice it, without the pipeline, we would have higher greenhouse gas emissions. But here is what I want to touch on for just a few minutes today. I will talk about it more next week. Canada is working aggressively to get investment in the oil sands to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. Exxon has a major project up there. Shell has a major project up there. The Exxon project is the Kearl project. The Shell project is the Quest project. In both cases they are bringing down the greenhouse gas emissions of the oil sands buy investing in new technologies, in cogeneration, and in carbon capture and storage. Hundreds of millions-- billions of dollars are being invested along with the Canadian Government in carbon reduction technologies. Not only does that reduce the carbon footprint of the oil sands, but think about it--as that technology is developed, what happens? It is adopted in other places. It is adopted here in this country. It might be adopted in China and other places around the world. So the advances they make in technology in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in reducing the footprint of this oil production and finding better ways, more cost-effective, more efficient ways, more environmentally friendly ways to produce that energy, that technology then is adopted around the world. In other words, they are finding solutions to some of the concerns that are being raised on the environmental front by the very critics of this project. So instead of stopping that investment and that advancement, why don't we find ways to continue to develop that, which is not only a benefit in the oil sands in Alberta, but it is a benefit that we can utilize to produce energy in this country and other places around the world. That is true for oil. That is true for gas. That is true for all fossil fuel energy. See, that is how America has always worked. We create that business climate. We encourage the investment. We get American ingenuity. We get American companies to use their entrepreneurial genius to make those investments to not only create good jobs but to produce more energy, giving us energy security, and deploy the very technologies that give us the better environmental stewardship that we want. But when we block these projects, when we prevent the investment, when we will not let them build the infrastructure, we bring all of that to a grinding stop. Why would we do that? It does not make sense. There is not one penny of U.S. taxpayer money going into this $8 billion project. It is private investment. Why would we not want the private investment that helps build the infrastructure and develop and deploy the technology that gives us better environmental stewardship? Isn't that what it is all about? Isn't that why our powerplants and our energy production in this country are light-years ahead of what they are doing in countries around the world, where in many cases they are still using third world-type energy approaches? Let's lead the way forward in technology. Let's empower that to happen. Because I note that the time is wrapping up here, I will come back to the floor next week. But I am going to talk about the hundreds of millions that are being invested in the Kearl project--Exxon is doing that project--and also in the Quest project, and Shell is doing that project. They are working with the provincial government in Alberta to develop carbon capture and storage. That is something we talk all the time about wanting to do. Here we have private companies working to put hundreds of millions into developing that very technology. Since 1990 the greenhouse gas emissions for the production of oil in the oil sands has come down 28 percent--been reduced almost by one- third. They are continuing to find ways to improve the environmental stewardship and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. Isn't that what we want versus continuing, for example, to import oil from Venezuela that has as high or a higher footprint, and you do not have that kind of investment in new technologies, that kind of investment in better environmental stewardship. So as we talk about this issue, let's talk about it in a way where we advance the ball and we do it the right way; where we get the energy, the jobs, the economic growth; where we build our relationship with Canada rather than saying: No, we are not going to work with you guys. At the same time, we will get better environmental stewardship. We can do it. Let's do it. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

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.

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.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to an hour to discuss the Keystone XL Pipeline.