Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 50, which was submitted earlier today.

I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 51, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., tomorrow, Thursday, January 29. I ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that the Senate then be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the Democrats controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; and that following morning business, the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1 under the previous order.

Tomorrow there will be two stacks of votes on the Keystone bill. Senators should expect up to seven votes shortly after 11 a.m., and then an additional four or five votes at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the legislation before this body, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act. I wish to address three issues that have been brought up as we have continued this discussion.

I start out by thanking the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Washington who are leading this effort to bring forward amendments from both sides of the aisle. I think they are doing great work. They are heavily engaged in trying to make sure the people's amendments are brought forward and that we have a vote. So I thank them for that and again encourage everyone to work with both these bill managers who I believe all of us feel are doing an excellent job. So let's get going. Let's get voting on these amendments. Let's make them pending and have that vote.

This is again, after all, an effort not only to advance this legislation but also to reestablish regular order in this body and move to an open amendment process--which is so important again not just in terms of people being heard on this legislation, having votes on amendments, but for other legislation that Senators want to bring forward for the good of this country, to have the debate, to offer their ideas, to get a vote, and to get things done for the American people. That is what it is all about. We have to keep that in mind and not lose track of that. This is truly about not just this legislation but getting to regular order, which I think is so important for the work we do, to accomplish the work we need to do on behalf of the American people.

Let me touch on three aspects of the current legislation that have been brought up. One is that it is a bill for Canada rather than for the United States. It is something that is very much in the interest of the United States, so I want to address that. I also want to talk about some of the environmental aspects from the standpoint that there are hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in new technologies by major companies in the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, that are going to help deploy and develop things

such as carbon capture and storage, which can be used not only to reduce the environmental footprint and the greenhouse emissions of oil produced in the Canadian oil sands, but that is technology then that will get adopted in this country and around the world because it enables us to produce more energy more cost-effectively, more dependably, and with environmental stewardship. So that is a win on both counts, and here is a place where it is being developed. So let's empower that investment that produces more energy with better environmental stewardship as we go forward into the future.

Then the third area I want to touch on for just a minute is pipeline safety because some of the recent spills have been brought up. It is so important that we have the new infrastructure to replace older infrastructure.

For example, the pipeline spill in Poplar, MO, near Glendive, MO, has been brought up. It is a pipeline that I think was originally built and put in place in the 1950s. So we are talking about a 50-year-old pipeline with 50-year-old technology. Whether it is roads or bridges or pipelines or transmission lines or any kind of infrastructure--we need infrastructure for this country, but we have to update it. Think about building a road 50 years ago and then not putting in a new one to replace and update it with the new technologies that have been developed to make it better.

When we talk about trying to get these new infrastructure projects going--again, paid for 100 percent with private dollars--this generates revenue for the taxpayer. This doesn't take one penny of taxpayer money. This is an $8 billion state-of-the-art pipeline. It is important for all the reasons we have talked about, but it also is the kind of thing that will replace some of the older technologies and give us that updated new infrastructure we need.

So I think when we hear about a spill, wherever it may occur, we want to make sure it is taken care of and fully remediated and take precautions so it doesn't happen again. But we have to understand we have to put the new infrastructure in place if we want to reduce the number of spills we have as we continue to rely on infrastructure that is 50 years old--when we don't make or allow these new investments to be made.

So I will touch on all those for just a few minutes.

Again, I know the bill managers are hard at work. They are having great dialogue. If they come out and are ready to go, I will yield the floor right away to do that. Again, the priority is to keep the process moving and get amendments up and have them voted on.

The first issue: It is a Canadian project somehow, not a U.S. project. The first point I would make, on its face, is it is going to move domestically produced crude as well as Canadian crude. Everybody talks about the fact that it starts up in Hardisty and says it is going to move Canadian oil, and then they stop there. But it is not only going to move Canadian oil, it is going to move oil from North Dakota, Montana--light, sweet Bakken shale oil--out of this region of our country. So it is going to move both domestic crude as well as Canadian crude. So when somebody says it is just a Canadian project, that is not true. That would be akin to somebody saying it is only a U.S. project because it is moving U.S. oil.

For beginners, it is important that people understand it is not just Canadian oil, it is oil we produce in our country that needs to get to refineries as cost-effectively and safely as possible.

What is happening is because we are being blocked from getting these kind of pipelines developed because they can't get through the regulatory process, the oil production we are producing in our part of the country, in North Dakota, Montana, and the Bakken area, as well as other areas of the country is all having to move by rail.

For example, right now my State of North Dakota produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, second only to Texas, and that number has been growing. That growth I think will slow down right now because the price of oil has come down so much. But the point is we are having to move 700,000 barrels a day by rail because we don't have the pipelines, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, approved.

That creates other problems as well. We produce a tremendous number of ag commodities and ag products. We actually are the leader of 14 different major ag commodities in the country--things such as wheat, for example, and many other farm commodities as well. All of those things get backed up on the rail system because we are trying to move so much oil on the rail that we can't handle all the congestion.

So it is not just an issue in terms of energy for our country, but it is affecting our other commerce, our farmers, and other goods that are trying to be shipped. It is not just goods that originate from our part of the country but all the goods that go back and forth and are trying to go through that bottleneck.

But the biggest reason it is very much a U.S. project is because it is about getting to energy security and energy independence.

Right now the United States consumes about 18 million barrels of oil a day. We produce about 11 million barrels a day--which is up tremendously in recent years because of production on private and State lands in places such as North Dakota. That means we still import about 7 million barrels a day. We use 18 million barrels of oil a day. We produce 11 million barrels a day. We import 7 million. The amount of oil we get from Canada is increasing. We are up to more than 3 million barrels a day that we import from Canada. So if we take the 11 million we produce plus the 3 million we get from Canada, that is 14. That leaves us 4 million short of what we use on a daily basis. We get that from places such as OPEC, Venezuela, and other parts of the world that have very different interests in many cases than our own.

I think the American people very much want to get to a position where we don't have to rely on OPEC anymore for the oil we use. In fact, we are getting there. We are getting there. As I say, we are at the point now between ourselves and Canada where we have 14 million of the 18 million a day we use covered.

If we can continue to develop our energy resources and work with Canada, we can truly have North American energy security--meaning we don't have to rely on OPEC anymore for our oil. That is a national security issue. It is an energy issue. It is a jobs issue. It is an economic growth issue. It is a national security issue. Look at what is going on in the Middle East. Americans do not want to rely on OPEC for their oil anymore.

Look at the benefit. As we produce more energy in this country and work with Canada, look at what is happening at the pump. Oil prices are down more than $1 from 1 year ago because we are producing so much more. Basic economics: More supply helps bring prices down. So it is not just about energy independence and energy security for our country, it is about lower energy costs for consumers, for small business. It is not only good for our hard-working Americans as they pull up to the pump and benefit every day from those lower gas prices, but it helps make our economy grow because energy is a foundational industry.

When we have low-cost energy produced in this country that we know we can rely on, that makes us competitive in every other industry sector in a global economy.

So when somebody says: This is just about a pipeline or it is just about a Canadian issue, it is not the case. This is very much about our energy future in this country and how we are going to build it, both to be energy secure and to make our economy go when we have to compete globally.

The second issue--and I often show this chart because it makes the second part of that energy security point. If we don't work with Canada so that this oil comes to us and we control that oil and control our energy future, Canada is going to make other arrangements. They are going to build pipelines to their west coast, and that oil is going to China and we will continue to import oil from OPEC. That is how life works. We either take advantage of this opportunity with our closest friend and ally in the world or somebody else will.

The next one I want to touch on for just a minute is the environmental. We hear about this so much, the environmental aspects of this project. I have

been on the floor and I have talked about various aspects of the project based on the science and based on the fact that there have actually been five environmental impact statements produced. The environmental impact statements produced by the Obama administration say there will be less greenhouse gas emissions with the pipeline than without it because we will be able to move that 830,000 barrels a day of oil by pipeline, rather than moving it by either 1,400 rail cars or sending it to China where the refineries have higher emissions than ours do.

But I would like to go beyond that and talk for a minute in a broader sense about our energy future and how we not only produce more energy more cost-effectively from all sources, from all kinds of energy, but how we can do it with better environmental stewardship. And the way forward there is really technology. It is the American ingenuity, the investment in technology, and the creativity of our companies and our entrepreneurs. That is the real key to success in the future in terms of producing more energy more cost-effectively, more independently, and with better environmental stewardship--by leading the way forward with technology development. We cannot export our regulations, but as we develop technologies, those, in effect, get exported around the world because other countries adopt those technologies.

So I will talk just a minute about the technology development that is going on in the oil sands. Since 1990 the greenhouse gas emissions on a per-barrel basis in the oil sands have gone down by 28 percent, almost one-third. On a per-barrel basis they have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent since 1990. They are engaged in major projects now to develop and deploy new technologies that will help them produce oil in the oil sands region with a smaller footprint--which is what I am showing here--through in situ development and also through carbon capture and storage.

We talk so often about developing carbon capture and storage in this country. That is being developed and deployed in the oil sands right now. The Quest project, which is a project Shell Oil Company is undertaking--let me read from a bit of a summary on their Quest project, which is a project for carbon capture and storage they are developing right now.

This is a picture of it. It is in situ--which means drilling and using steam to bring the oil out rather than excavation, which is the old style--so it has a much smaller environmental footprint, but it also reduces greenhouse gas emissions because they capture the CO2 and they store it.

A point of inquiry, Mr. President. I would like to ask the bill managers if they are ready to move forward or make any announcement. If we have any amendments, I would gladly yield the floor for that purpose.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I will wrap up in 2 minutes and will then yield the floor to the Senator from Alabama.

I have been talking about a number of different points, but right now I would like to defer. I will be back on the issues as we continue this debate. Again, I thank the bill managers, and I am very pleased to see that Senators are coming down and making these amendments pending. That is what we need do now. I thank Senators on both sides of the aisle for doing that.

With that, I yield the floor to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I thank the bill manager on our side of the aisle, the good Senator from Alaska, as well as the bill manager on the Democratic side, the Senator from the State of Washington, for working together and trying to get a list of all of the amendments and do everything possible to get them scheduled for a vote.

I ask that Members on both sides of the aisle work with the bill managers to try and get a list of amendments so they can be scheduled for a vote. As the Senator from Alaska said, we have already had at least 19 amendments. We know there are more amendments that Senators would like to have a vote on, and we appreciate and understand that. There has been a real effort to try to get those votes scheduled.

Again, I thank the bill managers for their hard work and ask that Members on both sides of the aisle work with the bill managers to try and get those amendments identified where they need to have a vote and get them scheduled so we can get to the votes in a timely manner so Members can have as much information as possible ahead of time in order to consider their respective issues and have a vote.

We have to remember that in trying to go back to an open amendment process and regular order, there is some work on figuring out how to get that going and to do so in a bipartisan way, and of course we are working through it on this legislation.

A final point: At the end of the day, we will be discussing more about this legislation, but it comes down to how the individual Members of this body feel about this underlying legislation. It is about energy, jobs, economic growth, and national security at a time when energy security for our country is so very important. Again, this goes to the underlying merits.

Let's see if we can't get these amendments scheduled and vote on them and move this along as well as we can this week and get that done. It is not only important for this legislation, but we want to have that same kind of open process with other legislation as well. It is about getting the work done for the American people.

With that, I yield back to the Senator from Alaska.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to my esteemed colleague from the State of Illinois.

Of course the answer to the question is that in fact it is a regulated substance, and it is primarily regulated at the State and local level.

In the State of Illinois, for example, petcoke would be regulated by the State of Illinois. What I understand the Senator from Illinois to be saying is that he is dissatisfied with the way the State of Illinois has chosen to regulate petcoke.

But in fact the EPA has found that petcoke has a low hazard potential. According to the Congressional Research Service, most toxicity analysis of petcoke, as referenced by EPA, finds it has low health hazard potential in humans, has no observed carcinogenic, reproductive or developmental effects. In fact, it is a byproduct of not just oil from the oil sands but also some of the oils from California, Venezuela, and other places.

So it is a byproduct that in fact is recycled. It is used in products such as aluminum, steel, paint. It is used to produce electricity.

Here is a case of a product that actually can be and is in fact recycled. I would argue that what we want to do as we produce energy is continue to invest in these new technologies that will help us produce more energy but also do it with better environmental stewardship, which means we not only work on CCS, carbon capture and storage--which is a major undertaking in the oil sands right now; and I would be willing to engage in that discussion as well--but then also work to find uses for these byproducts in things such as steel and aluminum.

For example, the President last night talked about how the auto industry is making a resurgence, and he talked about the CAFE standards. One of the things they are doing in Detroit with new automobiles is they are using more aluminum in the construction of the cars to reduce the weight to try to meet those CAFE standards.

So here is a product from the oil sands oil that is actually used in aluminum to make those vehicles lighter to achieve one of the things the President talked about in the State of the Union Address last night as a byproduct from the oil sands oil.

So I appreciate the question and look forward to further dialogue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds for a simple point of clarification.

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

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

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

Mr. President, if the Senator from Vermont is only going to speak for 5 minutes, then I will defer to him. I may go longer than 10 minutes, so I will defer to him if we would like to proceed at this time.

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

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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.

I have no objection.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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.

I wish to resume my time for the colloquy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rushed, somehow this would have been a problem.

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

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

Private Property Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act

alters any Federal, State, or local process or condition in

effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is necessary

to secure access from an owner of private property to

construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities described

in section (a).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I ask the Senator to yield for the purpose of a question. I want to understand the time. I need about 3, 4 minutes to wrap up. I did relinquish 15 minutes for the other side, so I would request 3 to 4 minutes to wrap up and then I would certainly yield the floor to her.

I just want to wrap up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I wish to make a number of points in regards to the Keystone XL pipeline approval bill, the legislation we are currently considering. But before I do so, I am planning to submit a resolution on behalf of the North Dakota State University Bison who won their fourth national championship on Saturday against the Illinois State Redbirds. It was a spirited and wonderful game in Frisco, Texas.

I know, Madam President, that you had a team that was in the hunt, so to speak, and played a tremendous game in New Hampshire against the Illinois State Redbirds. It is a testament to the quality of the teams in the FCS championship, the Division I playoff series. Teams such as the University of New Hampshire had a tremendous year of outstanding coaching and great student athletes.

I watched the game between the Illinois State Redbirds and the University of New Hampshire. It was a fantastic game that went right down to the wire. It just speaks to the fact that there are excellent teams in this division and tremendous athletes. A lot of teams had great seasons. So I certainly want to begin by commending all the teams that were in the playoffs, including our opponent in the championship game, the Illinois State Redbirds. They did a great job.

But North Dakota State University, the coaches, everybody on staff, the leadership of the North Dakota State University and these student athletes had just a fantastic year. So I want to congratulate them. Four years in a row is unprecedented. Nobody has won the national championship in Division I football in their division in the playoffs in history. So this was certainty a great achievement.

I am planning to submit the following resolution to honor the North Dakota State Bison. It says:

Whereas, the North Dakota State University (referred to in

this preamble as

``NDSU'') Bison won the 2014 National Collegiate Athletic

Association (referred to in this preamble as the ``NCAA'')

Division I Football Championship Subdivision title game in

Frisco, Texas, on January 10, 2015, in a hard fought victory

over the Illinois State Redbirds by a score of 29 to 27;

Whereas, NDSU has won 12 NCAA football championships;

Whereas, NDSU has now won four consecutive NCAA Football

Championships since 2011, an unprecedented achievement in

Football Championship Subdivision history;

Whereas, the NDSU Bison have displayed tremendous

resilience and skill over the past four seasons, with 58 wins

to only three losses, including a streak of 33 consecutive

winning games;

Whereas, Coach Chris Klieman and his staff, through their

dedication and talent, have continued the excellence of the

Bison football program;

Whereas, the leadership of President Dean Bresciani and

Athletic Director Matt Larsen has helped bring both academic

and athletic excellence to NDSU;

Whereas, an estimated 17,000 Bison fans attended the

Championship game--

Including myself--a fantastic game--

reflecting the tremendous spirit and dedication of the Bison

Nation that has helped propel the success of the team; and

Whereas, the 2014 NCAA Division I Football Championship

Subdivision title was a victory not only for the NDSU

football team, but also for the entire State of North Dakota:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1), congratulates the North Dakota State University

football team as the champion of the 2014 National Collegiate

Athletic Association Division I Football Championship

Subdivision title;

(2), commends the North Dakota State University players,

coaches, and staff for their hard work and dedication; and

(3), recognizes the students, alumni, and loyal fans for

supporting the Bison on the successful quest of the team to

capture another Division I trophy for North Dakota State

University.

I will be entering that resolution into the Record to honor and recognize the team in a program that has done just an incredible job this year. I know how hard those student athletes worked. It is a privilege to honor them with this resolution and commend them on their outstanding achievement this year winning their fourth consecutive national championship.

Thank you, Madam President.

Now I would like to shift to the continued discussion of the Keystone XL Pipeline approval legislation that is currently pending on the floor. I am pleased to say that we have reached agreement now to proceed to the bill. In fact, we will be voting on amendments--not this week. But we can at least tee up amendments this week, and we will be starting votes on these amendments beginning next week.

That has been the idea all along--first, to advance to this bill; it is important energy infrastructure legislation--but also to have an open process to return to what we have referred to as regular order on the Senate floor in an effort to work truly in a more bipartisan way and to get the work of the Senate done for the American people.

That is the idea with this energy legislation--to make sure we are having the debate so we give everybody the opportunity to come forward and to present their amendments. We will debate them. They can then get a vote. For the amendments that can command 60 votes--it takes a bipartisan vote to pass anything because neither party has 60 votes--it requires bipartisanship. Any amendments that can garner 60 votes will be added to the legislation, and I hope that fosters the best legislation possible and enables us to get our work done on behalf of the American people--not only on this bill but on other important legislation to help move our country forward as well.

There are a number of arguments that have been made this afternoon by some of the critics of the bill, and while greatly respecting their right to come forward and present their opposition to the legislation and any criticisms they feel they want to present, I also want to take the opportunity to rebut a number of those. Of course, that is the whole focus and effort here in terms of the debate--to have this debate and hopefully convince people that what we have is good legislation. If we can make it better with amendments, great, but at the end of the day, we pass this legislation and get this project approved on behalf of the American people.

It is about energy, it is about jobs, it is about economic growth, and it is about national security. It is a great place to start in this new Congress, where we are focused like a laser on growing our economy and creating jobs for the hard-working taxpayers and people of our country, for the middle class, for the folks out there working every day. And for those not working and looking for a job, let's find ways to make sure we get this economy going and that we get jobs for them. This is a great example. This is the largest shovel-ready project--at almost $8 billion--that we have, and it is ready to go. It doesn't cost one single penny of government money. It is privately financed, and it is all about creating the kind of business climate and powering the kind of investment that will help grow our economy.

One of the discussion points I have been hearing is this whole issue of, well, this somehow is just for Canada and not the United States or that we are doing this for Canada. I will start with the premise that our closest friend and ally in the world is Canada, so the idea of working with Canada makes a lot of sense to me. They are our largest trading partner. We work with them all the time. We have a unique and wonderful relationship that very few countries have.

So to start with this criticism that this is just for Canada and not for the United States, I am thinking: Yes, and it is a bad idea to work with your friends, why? It seems to me that that is a good selling point. If this is good for Canada, then great. I hope we are doing good things for Canada, and I hope they are doing good things for us. That is how friends and allies work together. The whole concept that somehow this is a bad idea is lost on me. To me it seems as though it is a positive when we can work together with Canada.

The fact is it is not just good for Canada--it is good for Canada, but it is really good for the United States too, and that is the whole point. In that line of argument that it is somehow good for Canada and not good for the United States--the critics say it is good for Canada because they produce oil up here in Alberta, and they are going to move that oil down to our ports and they are going to export it. Well, that is not the case.

Is it possible that some oil could be exported? Yes. But the reality is a lot of this oil is coming to our country and will be used in our country, and even more than that, it is not just Canadian oil. The argument that this is somehow just Canadian oil and it is going to be exported is wrong. It is wrong on both counts. I wish to take a minute to rebut that because that argument has been brought up a number of times.

As a matter of fact, I believe it is the focus of one of the first amendments that has been offered by the good Senator from Massachusetts. He wants to include a provision that says none of the oil can be exported because it is all Canadian oil and it is all going to be exported. Well, on both counts, that is wrong. Oil from North Dakota and Montana, out of the Bakken formation--our State oil in North Dakota produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day. We are second only to the State of Texas. But because we don't have enough pipelines, we have to move 700,000 barrels a day on rail.

We are trying to move agricultural goods. We are the leader of 14 different major agriculture commodities. We have all kinds of other products that we produce, as do the States in our region, which includes Minnesota, South Dakota, and Montana. But we have tremendous congestion on our rails because we are putting more and more oil on rail. We have 700,000 barrels a day going out on rail and growing as we continue to grow our production in this part of the country. So we need more pipelines.

What you see on this diagram is the original Keystone Pipeline that was constructed and built when I was Governor of North Dakota, and this yellow shows the sister pipeline we are trying to build.

As you can see, this goes right through our State, and the new pipeline goes right next to our State. The whole point is we want to put 100,000 barrels a day--at least for starters--of our light sweet Bakkan crude in this pipeline.

It is not just moving Canadian oil, it is moving domestic oil as well. It is moving U.S. oil. When you hear that it is just going to move Canadian oil,

that is already wrong. How about we stick to the facts? How about we make sure we foster real understanding? How about we tell people what is really going on here? It is not just Canadian oil, it is Canadian and it is U.S. oil.

The whole point is this is the kind of infrastructure that helps us achieve North American energy security. What do I mean by that? I mean by the United States working with Canada, we can produce more energy than we consume, and that is energy security. That means we don't have to depend on importing it from OPEC, that means we don't have to depend on importing it from Venezuela. When push comes to shove, we produce more oil and energy than we consume. That is a national security issue.

When you drive up to the pump today to fill up your car, take a look and check out the price at the pump. It is less than $2. It is about half of what it was maybe a year ago, right? That equates to $100 billion to $125 billion in savings for American consumers. Why is that happening? Is it that OPEC decided: Hey, let's give America a Christmas present? Is it because Vladimir Putin decided: Hey, let's get some energy over to America? Is it because Venezuela said: Hey, let's drop the price at the pump in America? Why is that happening? The reason it is happening is because we are producing so much more energy in our country in places such as North Dakota and Texas and the Bakkan and in the Eagle Ford. We are producing more natural gas in places such as the Marcellus and Utica, and the shale across our country, and because we are getting more oil from Canada because we have more supply, that is bringing the price down. More supply puts downward pressure on prices.

Every consumer is benefiting at the pump. A 60-cent drop in the price of gasoline translates from a $100 billion to $125 billion tax cut for the people of our great country, for the small businesses, and for all the industry sectors that rely on energy, and that is most of them, right? That is the benefit we are creating by working together with Canada to produce more energy. It truly is more energy, lower prices for our energy, making us more competitive in a global economy, it is jobs for our people, economic growth, and it is a national security issue. It truly is a national security issue.

Back to the point it is all going to be exported. First, it is not just Canadian oil. It is Canadian and U.S. oil, and I have gone through that.

On the issue that it will be exported--they say, look, the pipeline goes from Hardisty in Alberta all the way down to these ports--Port Arthur. So that must mean it is all going to be exported. No. It is going from where it was produced to where it is refined and consumed. It comes from Hardisty, down to Steele City, and from there it can go to Patoka, IL. Why? Because there are refineries there and pipeline networks where it can go into the eastern part of the United States.

It also goes to Cushing, OK--a huge pipeline network that goes all over the country, and it is based out of Cushing, OK, so it can go almost anywhere.

The idea that building a pipeline is somehow an unusual or difficult thing to do--well, let's take a look at all the pipelines we have moving oil and gas around this country. The whole point is when you bring that pipeline through, you can interface with all of these networks so you can move it all over the country.

For somebody to look at this and say: Oh, gee, look, because it goes from Hardisty down to here, it will all be exported. Come on, let's tell people what is really going on. There is the pipeline. It can go through many different routes and across the country. Don't just take my word for it because I am an advocate for the pipeline. People say: Well, he is pushing for the pipeline, and that is what he says. Fine. Let's go to what the State Department and the Department of Energy say. Let's go to the Obama administration's State Department and the Department of Energy and see what they say.

Here in January of 2014, the State Department determined in its final environmental impact statement--

[The export of the oil] appears unlikely to be economically

justified for any significant durable trade given transport

costs and market conditions.

That was in the final environmental impact statement, section 1.4.6.2. I will repeat that statement.

[The export of oil] appears unlikely to be economically

justified for any significant durable trade given transport

costs and market conditions.

So there we have the State Department and the environmental impact statement saying they are going to use the oil in the United States.

How about the Department of Energy? In its report, the Department of Energy determined that it does not make economic sense to ship the oil to China. Furthermore, any export would need to obtain a Department of Commerce license before it is exported. I am not saying that none of it will be exported, I am saying that according to the State Department and the Department of Energy, it will be used in this country, and before it could be exported, you would have to have the Secretary of Commerce say it is OK for some of that oil to be exported. The Obama administration would have to approve exporting some of that crude before it could be exported.

Furthermore, refiners that have contracts with TransCanada, which is Valero, have publicly confirmed that the oil that will be shipped through the Keystone XL Pipeline will be used for U.S. domestic needs. The United States retains 99 percent of all crude within the country and uses 97 percent of the gasoline refined in the country. A large majority--over 90 percent--of transportation fuel refined in the United States is for use in the United States.

Look, these are global markets. I am not saying that there is none that would be exported, but my point is we are going to use this oil in the United States, and if we don't build this pipeline, then one of two things will happen--again, according to the environmental impact statement that was done by the Obama administration.

If you can't build a pipeline, then it is going to have to be railed into this country, the same way I got done telling you that we rail 700,000 barrels a day out of my State of North Dakota. We will have to rail more of the domestic crude that I mentioned out of here, continuing the congestion on the rails, and we will have 1,400 railcars a day moving that oil because you can't move it on the pipeline. All of those locomotives produce emissions, right? We will either have to have 1,400 cars a day railing it or you are not going to build the pipeline and Canada is going to build pipelines to the west coast of Canada, and then they will load it on tankers and take it to China, thereby producing more greenhouse gas emissions, and refining the oil in Chinese refineries with higher greenhouse gas emissions.

And, by the way, since we are not getting that oil, we will have to bring more in from OPEC for us, right?

Under this scenario where they build the pipeline to the west coast and send it to China, how much of it will come to us then? Then it is all exported, isn't it?

This argument that some of it might get exported, then the converse of that--or the result is to say, we don't want the pipeline because some of it might get exported. So, in essence, we blocked it from coming here, and so then it will all be exported and it all goes to China. Wow. That makes sense? Let's see, because some of it might get exported, then let's make sure we don't have the pipeline so make sure it all gets exported, but we don't want it exported.

What am I missing here? Where is the common sense? When push comes to shove and we are not in a situation like we are right now where prices are low, when prices start going back up based on supply and demand and all of those things, or when there is conflict in the world that disrupts supplies, would we rather have control of that supply of oil from Canada or would we rather make sure it all goes to China?

When push comes to shove and we need the energy, when prices are high, or when there is volatility or conflict in the world, do we want to make sure that all of those resources are going to China and then we can go hat in hand and ask them for it, or would we rather have control of it? That is why I wanted to take a few minutes to rebut the argument that, oh, gee, it is all going to be exported rather than a more commonsense view of, well, gee, some might be exported because it is a global economy, but if it is, they have to get the Obama administration's approval to do it.

If you don't build the pipeline, you are either going to have it all come by railcar or you are not going to have any of it, and 100 percent of it will be exported because we would force all of it to go to China. Under any of those scenarios, you are still producing the energy up there, aren't you?

I will shift to the environmental argument. I will go back to this chart. There is another argument I wish to rebut for a minute. The argument is, oh, gee, all of this might be exported so we don't want the pipeline because we are trying to prevent the oil sands from being produced because of the environmental aspect of greenhouse gas.

As I just pointed out, even without the pipeline, the oil is still going to be produced. Again, this is not me saying that. Go back to the environmental impact statement. Go back to the science. Go back to the report done not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times by the Department of State and their environmental impact statements--three draft statements, two final environmental impact statements, five different studies. What they say is the oil is still going to be produced so if we don't build the pipeline, our emissions are going to be higher from greenhouse gases than if we build the pipeline. Why is that? I went through some of that already. No. 1, we will have it all moved through railcars, which produce more greenhouse gases than a pipeline--1,400 rail cars a day. It will be shipped to China, which will refine it in refineries that have higher emissions than ours. And we are going to have to haul it in from other places such as Venezuela. So we have greenhouse gas emissions from the ships as well. So the reality is--and the environmental impact statements show it--that we have lower greenhouse gas emissions with the pipeline than we would without it.

As we have talked about on the floor many times, everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Those are the facts as laid out very clearly, as I say, in not one or two environmental impact statements but in three draft environmental impact statements and two final environmental impact statements.

The other point I wish to make on the environmental aspect is that we produce oil in California and we import oil from Venezuela that has greenhouse gas emissions that are as high or higher than oil produced in the Canadian oil sands.

Another point I wish to make is that Canada is working to reduce both the greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental footprint of their production in the oil sands. Since 1990, on a per barrel basis, in Alberta, Canada, the producers of oil from the oil sands have reduced the greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent--almost a third. So that is a 28-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in oil sands oil from 1990 to the present on a per barrel basis. So they have reduced it by almost a third, and they are continuing to find ways through better drilling techniques, through cogeneration, and through other efforts to improve the environmental stewardship of what they are doing there. That is the way it works. Rather than blocking investment in needed infrastructure, rather than blocking investment in new technologies, we need to encourage that investment because when we encourage that investment in our country and work with Canada, we produce more energy more cost-effectively with better environmental stewardship. When we block it, we don't get that technology, we don't get the energy, and we don't get the improvements in environmental stewardship.

That is the way we should be approaching this. We should be encouraging the investment.

As I said before, not one penny of government money is expended on the pipeline. We are simply allowing a project to go forward. Private companies invested almost $8 billion in the largest shovel-ready project we have after the project has been held up by the Federal Government for more than 6 years--held up after every single State--all six States--every single one of them has approved it. But here we are 6 years later and the Federal Government is saying to those States that even though every single one of those States on the route has approved it, even though they want it, even though all the States will realize hundreds of millions of dollars in cash revenues and benefits not only from construction but from property taxes and other sources of revenue in building the project, and even though it won't cost the government one single penny, the Federal Government said no. Even though we have studied it for 6 years, that is not good enough. Even though in poll after poll 65 percent of the American people want it built, even though Americans want energy security here at home and in Canada, even though a bipartisan majority in the House and in this Senate support it, the President says: No, that is not good enough somehow. We would rather keep importing oil from OPEC.

That has to be music to OPEC's ears. Oh, good, the Americans aren't going to get serious and work with Canada and make sure they are energy secure. They are going to keep getting oil from OPEC.

That has to be music to China's ears. They want it. They are trying to buy these oil resources in Canada. They are not only trying to buy the oil. They are trying to buy the resources in Canada. But last I checked, we work for the American people, and the American people want energy security.

So we have an absolute obligation to make sure that as we are talking about this project, we are talking about the facts. We are not talking about our opinions. I know we are striving for clarity and an understanding of what is really going on.

When it comes to the environmental aspects and when it comes to whether the energy is going to be exported or used here, when it comes to the economic impact, when it comes to the job creation, and to all of these different issues, let's debate them. If somebody has an amendment we can add, let's debate that, too. It needs to get 60 votes. But let's make sure we are fostering understanding of what is really going on here so we talk about climate change and that type of issue that is relative to this project. Let's make sure we are clear. Let's make sure we are telling the people that this project will have no significant environmental impact, according to the U.S. State Department--the Obama administration's State Department. According to the Obama U.S. State Department--the Obama administration--according to their environmental impact statements, including three draft statements and two final statements done over more than 6 years: no significant environmental impact. Then when we talk about greenhouse gas emissions and the oil that comes from the oil sands, let's be clear that this is not just Canadian oil. It is also domestic oil from our country, from States such as North Dakota and Montana. Let's also talk about how the investment in new technologies is reducing the environmental footprint and reducing the greenhouse gas for oil sands production. There has been a reduction of 28 percent in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 in the oil sands because of their investment in new technologies, in better drilling techniques, as well as their efforts going forward.

I do believe we are going to have officials from Alberta and from Canada coming during the next weeks to talk about what else they are going to do to make additional improvements in terms of environmental stewardship and the efforts they are undertaking to reduce further the environmental footprint and the greenhouse gas impact of the energy they are producing.

So with that, I wish to close. This really is an opportunity to work with our good friend Canada on a project of great mutual benefit, and that is energy security for North America and energy security for our country as well as for Canada. I think this is a project Americans very much want.

Again, I urge my colleagues to come forward to engage in this debate and, at the end of the day, let's get this done for the American people.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to again talk about the Keystone XL Pipeline approval bill. We will be voting on cloture on the motion to proceed in about 15 minutes or so.

I believe we have a bipartisan majority. We have 60 sponsors of the legislation, and we will have some others join us in voting to proceed on the bill.

That is important, not just because this is bipartisan legislation, important energy legislation for our country but, as I have said before, this is an opportunity for all the Members of this body-- Republican and Democrat--to come forward with their amendments in an open amendment process and really have an energy debate.

Let's talk about the energy future of this country and let's bring forward amendments to this legislation that can be good amendments and help us build the right kind of energy plan for our country.

What I would point out about this Keystone Pipeline approval bill is that as we work to build an energy plan for this country, as we work to produce more energy so we are truly energy secure--a lot of people call it energy independence--but the way I define it is energy security for our country where we produce more energy than we consume, so we control our destiny. If we produce more energy than we consume, then we control our destiny when it comes to energy. But to do that, we would not only have to produce that energy, we have to have the infrastructure to move it safely, cost effectively, and efficiently from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

We have this incredible opportunity with Canada to have North American energy security. We are working with our closest friend and ally in the world. We together produce more energy than we consume, and we have the infrastructure in place to move it from where it is produced to where it is consumed in our country. Now we control our own destiny.

When it comes to OPEC or when it comes to Russia or when it comes to China, when it comes to geopolitical events that affect the price of energy, we are in a strong situation. Look at what is going on in Western Europe right now. Look at what is going on in Ukraine. They are in a tremendously difficult situation because they are dependent on Russia for their energy, for their natural gas, at a time when Vladimir Putin is undertaking very aggressive action in Europe. He is invading Ukraine. He has taken Crimea. He continues his aggressive efforts. And at the same time the European Union is trying to support Ukraine, Ukraine is fighting with Russia. This is a situation where Ukraine is depending upon Russia for its energy.

Does America really want to be in that kind of a situation in the future when we have real problems in the Middle East, when we have real problems with fundamentalists, Islamic jihadists conducting terror on our people and other freedom-loving people around the world? Do we want to be in a situation where we continue to depend upon the Middle East for our oil?

Well, the answer to that is no. The American people resoundingly answer that question--no.

Also, the American people well know that the reason gas prices at the pump today are lower is not because OPEC just decided to give us a Christmas present. They know the reason energy prices are low in this country, that when they pull up to the pump they are saving money, is because we are producing so much more energy in this country and we are getting more energy from Canada.

Unless OPEC cuts back their production, more supply drives prices down. So it is not only about low prices now, it is about making sure we are able to control our energy destiny in the future. We have to take a long-term view. It is working.

Of the 18 million barrels of oil a day this country consumes, we now produce 11 million barrels in this country. We are up to 11 million barrels that we produce in this country of the total we consume, so we are still importing about 7 million barrels a day.

Canada is now up to 3 million of those 7 million barrels, so we are down to only importing about 4 million barrels a day, but if we keep working at this, we can continue to produce more in this country. Canada's production is continuing to grow. And if we build the infrastructure, we can make sure that we control that energy--North American energy security.

That means not only now do our consumers and small businesses and our whole Nation benefit from lower energy prices, lower gas prices at the pump, but we have that ability to make sure we control our destiny and that we benefit in the future.

Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past where we return to this dependency on OPEC down the road because we haven't built the infrastructure, we haven't worked with Canada, and we haven't brought our domestic industry to North America so that we truly are energy secure. If we don't build the necessary infrastructure, if we block the necessary infrastructure, we can't build that energy plan for the future.

I have heard my counterparts, some of the critics, say: Well, it is not up to us to issue a building permit for infrastructure.

Really? So you mean it is the President's job and it is Congress's job to block critical energy that will get us to energy security? Our job is to block it? Our job is to prevent the very infrastructure we need to build energy security for this country, to block the private investment, the $8 billion that private companies want to spend to build this infrastructure, to create jobs, to produce more energy in North America, and to help make this country's energy security? The President's job and this body's job is to block the ability of our country and Canada to build this necessary infrastructure? Well, I don't think so.

If you want to put it in terms of: Oh, well, we are not supposed to issue a building permit--really? So our job is to prevent the building of critical infrastructure even when it does not cost one single penny--not one penny--of government money?

This is almost $8 billion of private investment that will generate hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue--State, local, and Federal. Every State on the route has approved it.

There is an idea somehow we are jumping the gun after 6 years? Let's see, it has been in process for 6 years. Every State on the route has approved it. We are not spending any Federal money. We are saying our job as a Congress and the President is to block that kind of investment, block that kind of job creation, block that kind of energy development, and block our ability to get to energy security for this country.

Then there is this argument: Oh, well, it is TransCanada. It is one company. It is only one company, so it really doesn't matter.

Really? Well, if you were a company--a Canadian company or a U.S. company--and you were about to build infrastructure so that we could continue to produce more energy in this country, would you do it? If, in spite of the process that the Federal Government has to approve this project, where all of the requirements have been met--not once, but over and over again--and Congress and the President continue to block your ability to build that infrastructure, are you going to jump up and spend billions of dollars and do it? I doubt it.

And isn't that really what this is all about? That is what it is about, isn't it? It is for the folks, for the extreme environmental groups that don't want the development of fossil fuels--they are going to block it. This is sending the message and making sure they shut her down here. That has to be music to OPEC's ears. I have to believe that OPEC is going: Boy, that is great; they are not going to build the infrastructure in their country to produce the energy.

That is going to keep OPEC in business.

There is another country that I think will be very pleased, really excited, if this project gets blocked, and that is China. China is so anxious to get this oil, they are trying to buy that production in Canada. Because, make no mistake, if the energy doesn't come to the United States, it is going somewhere else, and it is most likely going to China.

So when we get back in that situation down the road when oil prices move back up, energy demand goes back up, and we have prevented our industry from growing--and Canada is sending all the oil to China, and we have to go back hat in hand to OPEC, Venezuela, and all of these countries, remember----

I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 minutes.

What time is the vote scheduled?

I note the presence of the chairman of the Energy Committee. I defer to her for some time if she wishes to speak before the vote. That would be my question, whether we could get maybe a couple of minutes for that purpose. I can certainly wrap up in a couple of minutes.

I will wrap up on this note.

Let's not get back into the same predicament we have gotten ourselves into before. Let's build this vital energy infrastructure so we can develop energy security for our country, together with Canada.

The other point I want to make is on the environmental point: No significant environmental impact. That is the finding of the Obama administration's environmental impact statement done by the State Department. That is their own report: No significant environmental impact.

I look forward to having more discussion on the environmental aspects as well.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

Cloture Motion