Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call up Markey amendment No. 178.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, the subject matter of these two amendments is, No. 1, the Canadian oil company that wants to build a pipeline through our country right now is exempt from having to pay taxes into the oilspill liability trust fund. In other words, if there is an actual accident in the United States, if the oil pipe breaks or something happens, the Canadians will not have paid into the oilspill liability trust fund the way every American pipeline company has to do. So my first amendment would just say that they cannot be exempt from that, and the hundreds of millions of dollars which they are responsible for would have to be put into the trust fund. The second amendment is an extreme weather amendment. That amendment would call for a requirement and analysis of the impact that global warming would have from the tar sands pollution and would require that we have that scientific analysis just so that we can understand it and its impact on extreme weather events in the United States and across the planet. We would need both of those amendments to be debated in order to make sure we fully understand the implications of what is being debated here. Finally, I wish to say that I note Senator Cruz from Texas has an amendment which would almost automatically approve any natural gas exports that were going to any WTO country in the world. I think that is a very bad stance for the Senate to take. We have to debate what the impact of the exportation of natural gas on a mass basis is going to be on the price of natural gas here in the United States--the price that utilities are going to have to pay for natural gas to generate electricity, the speed with which we will be able to transform our automotive sector from oil over to natural gas, the impact on the petrochemical industry and other industries that are now increasingly using low-priced natural gas in our country. We also have to deal with the fact that the Energy Information Agency says that the already-approved export of natural gas will lead to a more than 50- percent increase in domestic natural gas prices for Americans at home. I understand why the natural gas industry wants to do it, but I think we have to have a big debate here in Congress over the impact that those natural gas imports are going to have, especially if they are approved automatically if they are heading to any WTO country in the world. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator from California.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator. I thank the Senator for taking the time to have this very important discussion in the Senate this afternoon. This past Thursday night the majority leader decided they would not allow for a debate on an amendment I was propounding that would have imposed a tax on the Canadian oil as it is being transported through this proposed pipeline. In the eventuality of an oilspill, the Canadians would have to have contributed to. The majority did not make it possible for me to speak for even 1 minute on ensuring that the Canadians had to pay the tax in the event there was an oilspill with their oil in the United States of America, while Americans would have to do so. This is the question I am going to propound to the Senator from California. Right now we know that there is increasing carbon pollution in the atmosphere, which stacks the decks, increasing the chances that our country, our planet would draw an extreme weather joker that would have catastrophic consequences for our country or for any other place in the world. We know that while no one storm can be attributed to climate change, scientists agree there is an increase in the intensity and the frequency of extreme weather events. In fact, in the 2013 consensus report bulletin of the American Meteorological Society said: ``The number of severe regional snowstorms that occurred since 1960 was more than twice the number that occurred during the preceding 60 years'' in the United States of America. So my question to the Senator from California is: Shouldn't we be debating this issue of increased frequency of snowstorms, of rain storms, of droughts, of extreme weather conditions? And isn't this something that Members should be allowed 1 minute, at least, to address, if not a full debate of these issues that have been triggered by the Republicans deciding they wanted to bring this bill onto the floor as their No. 1 priority for the year 2015? Is that not the subject we should be discussing and should it not be an open debate? That is the question I propound to the Senator from California.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 25.

Mr. MARKEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MARKEY. I ask that the amendment be put in order for debate.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 1 minute to speak on my amendment before it is voted upon.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. May I ask a parliamentary inquiry. It would be this. Is it possible for me to speak for 5 minutes, then reserve the remainder of my time and have the Senator from North Dakota speak, and then I can reclaim the remainder of my time?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, we are about to engage in a historic debate; that is, over whether the Canadians--a Canadian oil company-- should be allowed to take the dirtiest oil in the world, the Canadian tar sands oil, to have the United States accede to the construction of a pipeline, like a straw through our country, which would then go down to the Gulf of Mexico, with no promise from the Canadians that they will not export the oil from the United States. So the issue which is raised, of course, is what is in it for the United States, since there is a very small number of jobs for our country once the pipeline is completed? We understand why the Canadian company wants to do this. If they can get that oil out onto the global marketplace, using the United States as the conduit, they can get a dramatically higher price for that oil. We understand their motivation. But what is in it for the United States of America? Ultimately, we have to decide what is in our best interests. My amendment says that if this pipeline is constructed, the oil stays here, our country gets the benefit, and our consumers get the benefit. Otherwise, it is not about energy independence; it is not about North American energy independence. It is about a Canadian company exporting the oil, using the United States as a conduit, as a straw, as a pipeline. That is it. What is in it for us? The American people right now are enjoying historically low oil prices. They love it. It is like a tax cut to every American. If this Canadian oil gets exported, you better believe it is going to act as a spur to raise the price of oil. The more oil that is here, the better for us. The more oil that leaves our country, the worse for us. I will give you another number, if you want to know, because this is a Canadian export pipeline. The United States of America right now is the leading importing country for oil in the world. We are No. 1. We import net about 5 million barrels of oil a day. We are No. 1. We are the No. 1 importing country. Then comes China, then comes India, then Japan. Five million barrels a day--how can we be exporting oil when we are the leading importer of oil? What countries do we import the oil from today, 2015? We import the oil from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela, from Iraq, from Russia, from Nigeria. How can we be exporting our young men and women in uniform over to the Middle East in order to protect these ships coming in with oil in them and simultaneously be exporting oil out of the United States, while we are still importing 5 million barrels of oil a day? That is what this debate is all about. It does not make any sense. This is the dirtiest oil in the world. This oil is going to dangerously add to the warming of the planet. The Canadian--the American Petroleum Institute will not promise the oil stays here, even though their ads on TV say that it is all about North American energy independence. So we have a huge choice we have to make here. Do we want to help our economy? Do we want to help our national security, help our consumers, help our manufacturers by giving them this lower price of energy--which except for labor is the No. 1 component in industry in the United States--and keep that price low? The Markey amendment says: Yes, that oil stays here in the United States of America for our own strength, our own economy, our own consumers, our own job creation, and will not be sent off onto the world so the Canadian oil company can get a much higher price for that oil while we take all of the risk. We would not be Uncle Sam, we would be Uncle Sucker if we did not keep that oil here. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator very much. Year 2014 has just been reported by NASA as the single warmest year ever recorded in the history of the planet, going back to the earliest records. You do not have to be a detective to figure out what is going on. The world is dangerously warming. The United States can no longer preach temperance from a bar stool and tell the rest of the world they should be better while we continue to burn these fuels. But if they are going to build this pipeline, at least the American people should be the beneficiaries of the Canadian activity to sell all of this oil out onto the global market. What we are being told is: No, we do not want any restrictions. We do not want there to be any way in which we can keep that oil here, to keep prices at least low for the American consumer and for American job creation, to keep oil here so we can maybe back out the Saudi Arabian oil, maybe back out the Kuwaiti oil, maybe back out the Russian oil that we are importing right now as we sit here. But we are being told we cannot do that. We are being told the Republican leadership thinks that is a bad idea. When I asked the head of the TransCanada pipeline in the hearing if he agree to keep the oil in the United States, he just looked at me and said no. So this is what is going on. What happens for the American consumer? Well, I will tell you what happens. It is a very simple formula. Every time there is a $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, it knocks two-tenths of a point to three-tenths of a percentage point off of the growth rate of the American economy. When Americans pay less for American oil and we import less foreign oil, consumers have more money in their pockets from that discounted American oil. That is like a direct economic stimulus for middle-class families and small businesses across the country. Analysts say the drop in oil prices will give hundreds of billions back to consumers and other parts of our economy. Every penny reduction in gas prices translates into $1 billion in consumer savings. So when the polling is done on this issue and the American people are asked if they would support the exportation of American oil, by a 3-to- 1 margin people say, all across the country, regardless of party: No, do not export it. Keep that oil here to make America stronger here at home. That is not Democrat. That is not Republican. That is not Independent. That is all people being polled across the board. That is just common sense because they know the more oil we export, the higher the prices are going to be for consumers here because we have less oil. This is a simple debate. The planet is running a fever. There are no emergency rooms for planets. We have to engage in preventive care. The Republican leadership thinks they have the votes in order to pass this bill which will dangerously warm the planet. My amendment says if that is going to be the case--and I am not voting for that bill--at least let's keep the oil here, at least let's get the benefit for consumers so we keep prices low for gasoline, prices low for home heating oil, prices low for jet fuel, prices low for diesel. Let's keep the oil here, let's get the benefit in our economy, and let's not allow oil companies to set the agenda. The Republican leadership keeps saying it is all of the above. Ladies and gentlemen, this bill basically says: No. No, it is oil above all. That is what it is all about. It is not even oil that is necessarily going to stay in the United States, so it is a very simple argument I am making. We import 5 million barrels of oil a day. They come from the worst places in the world that we should be dependent upon--5 million barrels a day. We export young men and women over to the Middle East to protect that oil coming in. The least we owe to those young men and women is when we get a chance to reduce our dependence upon imported oil, we take that chance, that we send that message to the rest of the world that we understand our Achille's heel. We understand what makes us weak.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Markey amendment.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, this is a motion to table the Markey amendment, which is an amendment to have every Member of the Senate be put on record as to whether or not the oil coming through the Keystone Pipeline is then exported out of the United States. Each Member of the Senate should be recorded on that issue. We import 5 million barrels of oil per day into the United States. We should not allow the Canadians to use the United States as a straw to be able to then go down to the Gulf of Mexico and send that oil out of the country. We export young men and women over to the Middle East in order to protect oil coming in from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is a chance to keep oil in America so we don't have to export it. I do not believe the appropriate vote for Members is to support a tabling of the Markey amendment so that we don't actually reach the heart of this substantive issue, which is that we should be working to have energy independence in America. When we are importing 5 million barrels of oil a day from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, we are in no way independent. I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak.

Mr. MARKEY. To this amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, when the new Congress opens there is a choice as to which issues we should start to work on. Would it be infrastructure jobs, clean energy jobs, a minimum-wage increase for all of America? No, no. That is not what the new majority decides to bring up. No. Instead, it is a Canadian oil export pipeline. Next week I am going to offer an amendment that the Senate will consider to ask whether we will put Americans first or oil companies first, whether we will keep this oil and gasoline here for Americans or send it to foreign nations to help them instead. If my amendment is defeated, it will make clear this is not an energy plan that is ``all of the above,'' it is oil above all. My amendment says that if we build the Keystone Pipeline, we keep that oil here. We keep that gasoline here. We keep the diesel, the jet fuel, the heating oil. We keep it all here, because if we send it abroad, what are we doing? We are helping Canadian oil companies get a higher price for their oil. We are acting as the middlemen between dirty foreign oil and thirsty foreign markets. Without my amendment, there is nothing in the bill or U.S. law that would prevent this oil from being exported. Eighty percent of our refined fuel exports go out of the gulf coast, exactly where Keystone would end, and foreign crude oil--including crude oil from Canada--can be freely reexported. We know what TransCanada's plan is because I asked him at a congressional hearing--a senior TransCanada official--whether he would commit his company to keeping the oil and refined products from Keystone in the United States of America, and he said no. Why do the oil companies want to export this Canadian tar sands oil? Because they can get a higher price and make more profit. Tar sands crude in Canada trades for $13 less than the U.S. crude benchmark. The international prices are $3 higher than our prices. If we do all of this, if we build this pipeline and then we send this oil to foreign countries, then we have turned Uncle Sam into ``Uncle Sucker.'' Because, make no mistake, without my amendment this bill will not do anything to help people at the pump. It will just serve to pump up the profits for oil companies. We shouldn't export in oil, even as we are forced to send young men and women to defend oil interests in the most dangerous parts of the world. Let us have that debate. As we import--still--oil from the Middle East, coming into the United States on tankers, this proposal we are debating next week will actually export oil that is already in the United States. We still import millions of barrels of oil every single day. What we hear from the Canadians, what we hear from the oil industry is that this is all about energy independence. Energy independence cannot, by definition, include the exportation of oil while the United States of America is still importing millions of barrels of oil per day. That is heading us away from, rather than toward, the goal of energy independence. That, ladies and gentlemen, is at the heart of the issue of what it is that we must understand about this Keystone Pipeline debate. We want lower prices for consumers, lower prices at the gasoline pump, lower prices for home heating oil, lower prices for diesel, and lower prices all across America. It is akin to a tax break that is going into the pockets of every single American, giving them more spending money because they are paying much less for oil in all of its forms in the United States of America right now, and it is giving an incredible incentive for economic growth in America. What makes America great? What makes America strong? What makes us strong is when we are strong at home. What makes us strong at home is our economy, because the stronger our economy, the stronger the United States is in projecting power across this planet. That is why on this debate the exportation of oil is so central. It goes right to the heart of what we must be discussing and debating in our country. This is an incredible opportunity for our country. Let's take it to the next step. The next step includes what is the taxation on the Canadian oil. There is a loophole, believe it or not, in the American Tax Code that allows tar sands oil from Canada--such as that that would flow through the Keystone Pipeline--to not pay into the Federal trust fund to respond to oilspills in the United States-- understand that? Canadian oil, the dirtiest in the world, coming through the pipeline that the Canadians want to build through the United States, in the event of an oilspill, will not have paid into the oilspill liability fund for oilspill accidents in the United States. I wrote to the Treasury Department in 2012 urging them to close this loophole through executive action, but their response indicated that they do not believe they have the authority to close this loophole on their own, and they need legislation to do so. Yet there is nothing in this bill that would close this tax loophole for Keystone tar sands oil. Tar sands oil can be more difficult to clean up than regular crude but receives a ``get out of Canada tax- free'' card. That makes absolutely no sense. We are already importing more than 1.2 million barrels per day of tar sands oil into the United States. But oil companies don't have to pay into our cleanup fund to import that dirty oil. There are roughly 30 oil companies importing tar sands crude into the United States. If you are one of those 30 companies, you are getting a great deal. But if you are one of the hundreds of other oil companies out there that do pay into the oilspill trust fund, you should hate this loophole, and the American people should hate that loophole as well because the Canadians and their oil companies are not paying their fair share of the dues to be able to participate in our great American society. They want to build a pipeline like a straw right through the middle of the United States, send the dirtiest oil right down that straw, and if that straw breaks, if there is a spill, the Canadians have not contributed to the oilspill liability trust fund. Does that make any sense? Does that make any sense? Of course it doesn't. That is why this debate is so important. The Congressional Budget Office says this is going to cost the United States of America hundreds of millions of dollars because the Canadians escape their responsibility of paying for the accidents. That is why Senator Wyden and I are working here to make sure we have an ability to close this loophole, and we are working with Senator Cantwell, the ranking member on the committee. Along with Senator Cantwell, we are going to make sure we have this important debate on the Senate floor. I know Senator Cantwell was out here earlier today raising this issue, highlighting this issue, pointing out how unfair and unjust it is that the Canadians escape their responsibility to pay and that it is just another giveaway to the oil industry that ensures this is nothing more than a giveaway to those Canadian companies. I say this on a day when it is being reported there are now 140,000 people in America employed in the solar industry--140,000. There is another 50,000 employed in the wind industry--nearly 200,000 people employed in industries that, for the most part, didn't really even exist in a meaningful way 7 years ago. That is how quickly our own domestic wind and solar industries have been developed--creating jobs here in the United States, creating growth here in the United States, creating opportunity here in the United States. So this, colleagues, is really what we should be debating. But once again, when the Republicans are in control, we do not debate all of the above. We don't debate wind and solar and biomass and energy efficiency and oil and gas and nuclear. The Republicans always make it one subject, and that is oil above all, not all of the above. So I am looking forward to this debate. It goes right to the heart of the security of our country, the economy of our country, and the environment of our country. This is the dirtiest oil in the world. This oil is going to contribute dangerously to the warming of the planet. Last year--2014--was the single warmest year ever recorded in the history of the planet--2014. You don't have to be Dick Tracy to figure out this is a problem that we are passing on to the next generations without the debate this issue must have if we are going to discharge our responsibilities to those next generations. The Keystone Pipeline is the central opportunity we are going to have to raise this issue of global warming, of the national security of our country, of making our economy stronger, and of ensuring we discharge our responsibility to the next generation. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I rise for recognition to speak on this issue.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Presiding Officer very much and I thank the Senator from Washington for her great leadership on this issue. We are having the beginning of an historic debate here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We are debating whether the dirtiest oil in the world, the tar sands from Canada, is going to be brought through the United States in a pipeline, like a straw, and brought right down to Port Arthur, TX, to a tax-free export zone so that it can be exported out of the United States. What is in it for our country? Well, when you think about it, we are going to take the environmental risk, but the benefits flow to the Canadian companies. The benefits flow to the oil companies. This whole argument that it deals with American energy independence is false, and the way in which we are going to ensure that we are protected is that we are going to bring an amendment out here on to the Senate floor to debate whether this oil should stay in the United States. We export young men and women overseas to protect these ships coming back from the Middle East with oil. Why should we export the oil that is already in the United States when it can reduce our dependence? That is our challenge, and we must deal with that. As well, the Canadians under existing law are exempt from paying a tax into an oilspill liability fund. That can no longer continue as well. That is upwards of $2 billion over 10 years to deal with oilspills in the United States created by Canadian oil, and they are exempt. That is wrong. That is just plain wrong. So this is a very important debate, but it goes right to the heart--let's admit it--of energy independence in the United States. That oil should not come to our country, go right through it and out. We have a responsibility to the young men and women we send around the world to not provide any false advertising about this oil and where it is going to go. Net Neutrality Secondly, I want to talk a little bit about net neutrality. We are coming up to the first anniversary of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the rules the Federal Communications Commission had put on the books to protect the Internet, to ensure that it is open, that it is entrepreneurial. Network neutrality is just a fancy word for nondiscrimination, just a fancy word for saying that it is open, that entrepreneurs, that smaller voices have access, so they cannot be blocked by communications behemoths. This is an issue that goes right to the heart of job creation in the United States of America. Consider this. In 2013, 60 percent of all of the venture capital funds invested in the United States of America went toward Internet- specific and software companies. That is all you have to know. That is 60 percent of all venture capital money. That is why 4 million people have registered with the Federal Communications Commission their views that net neutrality is central to this entrepreneurial activity in our country. The FCC is going to promulgate or announce the beginning of the promulgation of new regulations in February. We are on the first anniversary right now of the rules having been struck down. There are none. From my perspective, this goes right to the heart of the new generation of companies. Yes, we have Google and eBay and Amazon and YouTube and all rest of these first-generation companies, but there are new companies like Dwolla and Etsy that are at the heart of the new job creation, and we have to make sure they and others like them are not denied access. So, in both of these issues, net neutrality and on the pipeline issue coming down from Canada, it is all about job creation. It is all about making sure that if America is going to take the risk, America should get the benefit. And it is not going to on the pipeline issue. It is not. This is the dirtiest oil in the world. This is going to contribute to dangerous global warming. Yet the oil companies are going to be able to sell it out on the open market. And why? Because the price of a barrel of oil on the open market is $17 higher than it is in Canada. You don't have to go to a business school to figure out this model. Get it out and onto the open seas, sell it to China, sell it to Latin America, sell it to other countries around the world. That is what this is all about. That is what is at the heart of this entire Keystone Pipeline agenda. It is wrong for us to be short-circuiting a process that will guarantee that the environment of our country, the environment of our planet is, in fact, protected by the President and by the process that has been put in place. I am so glad we are finally having this debate to make sure we put all of the facts out on the table. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I seek recognition, pursuant to the consent agreement, to call up amendment No. 13.

Mr. MARKEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MARKEY. If I may speak briefly on the amendment, I thank the chair of the energy committee. I thank her for her courtesy and the Senator from Ohio as well. While we will not be having the full debate at this time on the Senate floor, we are in fact beginning with a critical issue, an issue that relates to climate change, American energy independence, the impact that legislation can have upon consumers--drivers in our country in terms of how much they are paying at the pump. It deals with actually the mission of young men and women in our country who go overseas in order to protect tankers of oil that are brought back to our country. So the first question that will be asked in this debate is whether the oil, which is going to be delivered through this pipeline from Canada, is going to stay in the United States of America. The Canadian tar sands oil is the dirtiest oil in the world. The pipeline, similar to a straw, is going to be built through the United States down to Port Arthur, TX, a tax-free export zone. You don't have to have an MBA from business school to figure out what this 3-by-5 card looks like. It is something that basically says, since the price of a barrel of oil on the global market is $17 higher than what the Canadians can get for the tar sands oil--that they want to get it out of the country, which is why it is going to end in Port Arthur, TX, an export zone. What the amendment I am going to be making on the floor of the Senate says is that if the oil is drilled for in Canada, put through a pipeline in the United States, that oil cannot be exported, that oil stays in the United States, and that the promise of energy independence in our country is in fact what this agenda is all about. Because otherwise the United States is taking all of these environmental risks, the planet is taking all of these environmental risks, but the economic benefits are not flowing to consumers, drivers in the United States who finally feel some relief at the pump--that they are not feeling--that they are being tipped upside down and having money shaken out of their pockets on a daily basis. The oil companies have made many claims about this pipeline. They have said it was for North American energy security, but it is about exporting oil. They have said it is about reducing prices, but it is about getting the highest profits. They said it would not harm the environment but it in fact will worsen climate change and risk dangerous oilspills. They have been trying for 6 years to get this pipeline built, even when it is clear that we do not need it. So this is the Keystone ``export'' pipeline--the KXL. So this first amendment that we will be debating is one that says: No, you cannot export it. We must keep that oil in the United States. We must ensure that it is in fact something that benefits the American people. Otherwise, the Canadians are just ripping this oil, this dirty oil from their soil in Canada and putting it into a pipeline that then will be exported, which will only ensure that the planet gets hotter, that it becomes more dangerous for future generations. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very important debate. The planet is running a fever. There are no emergency rooms for planets. We have to engage in preventive care. If this action takes place, and all we are doing is allowing Canadian oil to go through our country and out the other end, then we haven't done anything for the American consumer or for the planet. I look forward to a more complete debate on this issue, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the issue we are going to be debating over the next 2 weeks in the United States is really a story about two gasoline stations. In July of 2008, the average price of gasoline in America was $4.11 a gallon. In January of 2015 in the United States of America the price is $2.21 a gallon. That is great for every driver across our country, and that is great for Americans who buy home heating oil. They are saving a lot of money this winter and the predictions are that it will continue throughout the rest of this year. That is great. However, it is not great for the oil companies. It is not great for the Canadians. It is not great for Wall Street. They are not happy with this incredible benefit that is now flowing to Americans all across our country who now have a gasoline station that has $2.21, on average, as to what people will pay. What does the Keystone XL Pipeline truly stand for? It truly stands for the Keystone ``export'' pipeline. That is right. What the Canadians want to do is to basically construct a straw through the United States of America, bring that straw down to Port Arthur, TX, which is a tax- free export zone, and then export the oil out of the United States. Why would they want to do that since they advertise that it is all about North American energy independence? There is a simple reason. The price of tar sands oil in Canada right now is getting $13 less per barrel than it would get in the United States, but it is $17 less than if they can get it into ships and send it around the world. That is the very simple economic strategy of the Canadians. How do I know this? Because during a hearing in the House of Representatives I asked the head of the pipeline for TransCanada: Would you accept an amendment to keep all of the oil here in the United States of America? He said: No. By the way, I asked the same question of the head of the American Petroleum Institute. He said: No. There is a lot of false advertising going on here. On one hand they say this is great for American energy independence. On the other hand, when we say let's have an amendment on the floor of the Senate that will keep the Keystone oil here in the United States, they say: Oh, no. They are absolutely opposed to that. Logically, we have to reach the conclusion that their goal is to get the extra $17 per barrel which they will get if they can start selling it to China, Latin America, and other parts of the world. That is the plan. There are no two ways about it. By the way, that should be their plan. That is what their responsibility is--it is to the shareholders of their companies. What is the strategy for the American driver? That is whom we have a responsibility to. We need to make sure they get the lowest possible price. My goodness. They have been tipped upside down and had their money shaken out of their pockets at gas stations all across our country for years, and finally the day of deliverance has arrived and they have $2.21, on average, for the price of a gallon of gas, and now we are told the price of oil is too low. We have to get it back up again. Of course, the best way of accomplishing that is to start exporting oil because the less there is in North America, the higher the price will be for American drivers and for American home heating oil consumers. It is a very simple plan. It is not about helping Americans at the pump. It is about pumping up the prices so oil companies will have new profits. It is very simple. If it is not that, then just accept an amendment that keeps all the oil here. It is a simple thing to do, and then the rhetoric matches with the reality of what is going to happen. The oil should stay here, but they will not accept that, and they have made that clear. This is all part of a wish list we are going to see on the Senate floor for the rest of this year. This is the Big Oil wish list of 2015. We start with the Keystone ``extra large export'' Pipeline to take oil and send it out of the country. Then they want to lift the ban on the exportation of U.S. crude oil, which is now on the books--a ban on U.S. crude oil. This is Canadian oil. There are no laws against that. Then they want to begin exporting our natural gas, even as consumers and businesses and natural gas vehicle firms are enjoying record-low prices, which in turn is transforming the American manufacturing sector and our relationship with natural gas in America. They essentially want to declare war on the Environmental Protection Agency and their authority to protect Americans against pollution and to make sure the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive continue to rise and rise. Honestly, if we want to tell OPEC we are serious and keep them awake at night, then we should keep the oil here so the prices will drop, and we also need to increase the fuel economy standards and consume and import less oil. But that is not going to be the agenda that comes out here on the Senate floor from the majority. It is going to be just the opposite. In a way, that is why this first debate is actually a preview of coming attractions of what will be happening out here on the floor of the Senate throughout the course of this entire year. There is kind of a Keystone kabuki theater that is debuting this afternoon on the Senate floor. The reality is this bill will never become law. The President is going to veto this bill. There are not enough votes to override the veto. So instead what we have is just a preview of this entire agenda, notwithstanding the fact that they are not going to be supporting a national renewable electricity standard or dramatically increasing the energy efficiency laws in our country or making sure the Canadians finally have to pay their taxes for the oil liability trust fund which they are now exempt from. American oil companies have to have a trust fund--in the event there is an oil spill in the pipeline--but the Canadians don't have to have a trust fund. Over 10 years, that is $2 billion that American companies have to pay, which Canadians don't have to pay, to make sure that something is done to protect against oilspills. Back when the Democrats took over the House and Senate in 2007, we worked together to put together a comprehensive energy bill. What was in it? Dramatically increasing the fuel economy standards of the vehicles in our country, having a new biofuels law to expand that production, and making sure that energy efficiency in America was enhanced dramatically. We worked on a bipartisan basis, and President Bush, a Republican, signed that bill because it was done in a bipartisan, ``all of the above'' approach. That is not what this is all about. This is not ``all of the above''; this is ``oil above all.'' That is the strategy the Keystone Pipeline embodies--shouts. It is not balanced. It is not where we should be as a country. So I say let's have an amendment to the bill that keeps the oil here in the United States. Let's have this debate here on the floor. Let's match up the rhetoric of the oil stays here with protection of the American economy and the American driver within the reality that we voted for that to keep it here. Let's have that debate. I think it is important because otherwise the Canadians and the American Petroleum Institute will continue to engage in false advertising about where this oil is going to be used. So from my perspective, this is the dirtiest oil in the world that is going to contribute mightily to an expansion of global warming. We know that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded in history-- notwithstanding the fact that it snowed here in Washington, DC, yesterday--the warmest year in history. That is what I think the green generation out there knows as they look at this issue. What are we going to do to make sure we avoid the catastrophic consequences of a dangerously warming planet? We have to engage in preventive care of this planet. There are no emergency rooms for planets. We have to engage in preventive care to make sure we do not pass on this ever-increasing danger to future generations. We are going to get a chance here to debate this. The Keystone Pipeline is a good example of how there is not, in fact, a balanced policy. I asked for an amendment on the floor so that we can debate whether the oil goes through a pipeline from Canada--the dirtiest oil in the world--like a straw, potentially causing environmental catastrophes across our country, and then gets exported around the rest of the planet.