ible] jars ever security. -- or cybersecurity. correct? >> i am aware of that. . .

time. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: thank you mr. president. i thank the senator from north dakota. i know we're going to be going back and forth on this issue and that we have speakers coming later this morning and we're going to have time divided but i appreciate the senator of north dakota allowing us to join in the debate this morning and make a few mountains. and i do want to say i appreciate the senator from north dakota's hard work on the energy committee in general and i look forward to working with him on many energy policies. he and i have worked together on a couple of different agricultural issues, and i certainly appreciate his due diligence. but needless to say i don't agree with the process of moving forward with this motion to proceed to the keystone pipeline

bill. many of my colleagues here are going to be coming down, talking about the issues. two of my colleagues including the senators from utah and arkansas along with the senator of north dakota, brought up a couple of different points, but in my mind, they are talking about a 19th century energy policy in fossil fuel instead of us focusing on what should be a 21st century energy policy for our country. so it's really unfortunate that s. 1 as people are heralding it as the new congress, to me, you know i want us to be focusing on a broader energy debate in congress than what is a very narrow specific special interest measure for a pipeline that really didn't go through the proper channels of a permitting process and because of that is flawed and this process continues more today

with people saying let's just give it more special interest attention and approve it. i believe that america should be a leader in energy policy and that our job creation is dependent upon that energy policy for the future, and we want to see america be a leader in this. i applaud the fact that the president did a deal with the chinese that u.s. and china entered into a clean energy strategy working together. we are over 60% of the energy consumption, and if the two countries work together on a clean energy strategy, i guarantee you that will be good business for the u.s. economy. in fact, i read a statistic that something like 50% of all energy is going to be consumed by the buildings in china the growth in building development and the fact that they don't have good building standards. so there is a lot to do on energy efficiency that will grow u.s. jobs and help us, and that's why we would rather see

us focusing on some of the energy policies that we did in 2005 and 2007. those things unleashed huge opportunities for american jobs and huge opportunities for american consumers to get a better deal and not be subject to price spikes. the 2007 bill had fuel efficiency standards in it and laid the foundation for the growth in the hybrid and electric car industry and has added over 263,000 jobs in the last five years. that's the kind of smart policy we should be pursuing. we also had energy bills that made investments in clean energy tax credits something i was just talking to my colleague from utah saying we needed to move forward on the energy tax credits. if there is nothing else that we should be doing we should be doing that as s. 1 because the predictability and certainty that we would be giving to that industry would certainly unleash many jobs. so the 2005 and 2007 energy bills that we did in a

bipartisan fashion helped foster an energy efficient economy and helped support 450,000 jobs, according to a 2011 brookings institute report. so these are examples of the types of things that we've done in the past that really have unleashed investment, really have grown jobs in the united states of america and they are important milestones in the type of clarity that congress can give to the private sector to spur growth in development. well i can guarantee you that this is just the opposite of that. this is about a special interest deal and overriding a process including the white house process and local government process that is so essential. so two examples of what we should be doing instead. as i said, the energy tax credits which have been delayed and as my colleague from oregon pointed out at the end of last year. we basically authorized them for about two more months, and that was about all the certainty we

gave the industry. mckenzie report has said that the cost for retrofitting buildings and energy efficiency would help employ 900,000 people over the next decade, that the wind energy tax credit would employ 54,000 people, and there are other issues about modernizing our grid and new technology storage. there is also very, very important work to be done in the manufacturing sector, and that is to help unleash innovation by making sure that we set standards on improving efficiency and focusing on lightweight materials for both automobiles and aviation. we have seen huge job growth in the pacific northwest because we were able to transform aerospace into lighter weight materials and we're also working on lighter weight -- i'm sorry. more fuel-efficient airplane fuel in a biojet fuel. so all of these things mean we have to get the r&d right, we have to get the tax credits

right and we need to help protect consumers from spiking energy prices. this is the evolution. i don't think anybody in america thinks that we're going to hold onto a 19th century fossil fuel economy forever. the question is whether congress is going to spend its time moving forward on a 21st century plan that gives the predictability and certainty to unleash that leadership and capture the opportunities in developing markets around the globe or whether we're going to hold onto the last element of fossil fuel forever and leave our constituents more at risk. but i would like to take a few minutes and talk about this process that my colleagues are trying to describe here as why we need to hurry because i can guarantee you that's what people have been trying to do all along. hurry this along for a special interest. i don't believe that that's good for the american people, and i don't think that it's good for this process. if you think about where we have been this process is about people who are trying to push a

route through no matter what the circumstances. every state people are saying have approved this process. well i could guarantee you there is a lot of people in nebraska and a lot of people in south dakota that don't agree with that, and they are very concerned about the public interest. unfortunately, in the case of the x.l. project landowners and ranchers affected by the pipeline did not feel that they were afforded equal opportunity before the law. in their view, the process was set up to benefit a special interest the trans-canada corporation. on three separate occasions beginning in 2011, the nebraska legislature passed carveouts to circumvent the role of the public service commission to approve the keystone pipeline. if this was such a great deal, why can't it go through the normal process like in every other state of a transportation and utilities commission on siting. why do you have to take the public interest out of it? the first carveout included a

major oil pipeline siting act of 2011. so this bill laid out the rules that the public service commission determined whether a new pipeline project was in the public interest. so in making this decision, the legislature required that the commission consider a criteria. -- eight criteria. among them, the environmental impact of water and wildlife and vegetation the economic and social impacts the alternative routes, the impacts to future development in the pipeline's proposal and the views of counties and cities. okay that all sounds great. that's what the legislature said they should consider. but the legislature also required the commission to hold public hearings and have public comments. we're still on the right track and importantly require the commission to establish a process of appealing the decision that any aggrieved party could have under the due process rights of the administrative procedures act. here's the punch line. tucked away in that nebraska

legislation was a special interest carveout that exempted trans-canada keystone from having to comply with the public service commission process. so specifically the legislation stated -- quote -- "shall not apply to any major oil pipeline that has submitted an application to the u.s. department of state pursuant to executive order 1337 prior to the effective date of this act." end quote. there was only one company that qualified for this special interest exemption at the time of that legislation and that was trans-canada. so you got it. the legislature basically exempted them from that process even though they were stating that these are the things that you should go through so at the very time the legislature created new rules for due process on the pipeline, it exempted them from those rules. so i don't understand why trans-canada can't play by the rules, but i guarantee you congress doesn't have to join in

and make s. 1 a special interest bill along with a congress that seems more bent on rolling back rules of dodd-frank. they should make sure everyone plays by the rules. during this same legislative session, the nebraska legislature also passed the oil pipeline route certification act. this bill provided keystone x.l. with an expedited review process by the nebraska department of environmental quality and gave them the sole authority to approve the project resting with the governor. unfortunately for the legislature and for trans-canada these carveouts quickly became irrelevant because president obama denied the application in 2012, and that in due part to the fact that congress had decided to try to intervene in the matter. that's when congress said this is important and we should go ahead and do this. and i'm going to get into more detail on that in a second, but

this is important to understand because the initial nebraska legislation was so narrowly tailored, it was designed to benefit trans-canada pipeline and its pending date of enactment. so what happened next? the legislature went back to the drawing board and created a third new special carveout for keystone x.l. pipeline. the following -- the day following the president's denial of trans-canada's application the new bill was introduced in the nebraska legislature and yet followed another path around the existing due process afforded to citizens in that state. the legislation allowed the company to choose whether to go through a former process with the public service commission or seek expedited review with the governor. i am sure that a lot of u.s. companies would love to have that opportunity. these are people, u.s. companies, that have to pay lawyers, go through environmental processes make sure all the issues are

addressed. i'm sure american companies would love to know that any day of the week, they could just go past a utility commission and just get the governor to stamp approval on their project. under this expedited approach, the legislature authorized the nebraska department of environmental quality to independently conduct an environmental impact report. however, unlike the due process required by the public service commission this process required only token outreach to the public. there was just one public hearing in 2012. so this special process provided no recourse for aggrieved parties. there was no formal appeals process other than the courts, there was no administrative process with the ability for shakeholdors challenge the fact as a matter of record to base their formal appeal on and these are fundamental differences between an expedited consideration of the governor's office and process requiring

public interest determination by relevant decisionmakers at a commission. so i know my colleagues here would like to argue that somehow this has been a long, drawn-out process. this has really been a process by one company constantly circumventing the rules on the books and trying to get a special deal for approval. you have to ask yourself why. why do they want to proceed this way? well i know my colleagues always like to talk about their neighbors, my neighbors in british columbia, they're not so thrilled about tar sands pipeline activity. they're not interested in pit maybe that's they want to get the process through here in the united states. so i ask my colleagues, do you have confidence that the public interest was really taken into consideration, that you run over the interests of property rights owners on these issues, was the department of quality comprehensive? i can tell you one nebraska

land.er described it as -- quote -- "an incomplete evaluation with the magnitude of the aquifer and now it is left in the hands of trans-canada to do their own policing" -- end quote. so another family who has been ranching there for five generations said the process left clearance with nowhere to -- landowners with nowhere to tern with concerns of erosion, or imminent domain. another owner had this to say about the process in nebraska -- quote -- "i feel it is not in the best interests of nebraska nor the nebraska to have our legislators crafting special interest legislation to meet the specific demands of an individual corporation." i couldn't agree with him more. that's exactly what we're trying to do here today. the same stakeholders in nebraska have also questioned the appearance of conflict associated with the nebraska department of environmental quality report.

since it was prepared by a contractor who also worked for trans-canada and exxon on different joint pipeline projects. so meanwhile a majority of the state supreme court 4-7 justices last week ruled that the legislature and governor's actions were unconstitutional. the presiding officer: the senator has consumed 15 minutes. ms. cantwell: i'd ask for an additional two minutes just to wrap up. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: i know my colleague would -- has already given me some time this morning and i certainly can come back and add more to the debate, but what i am outlining here is exactly how this process has circumvented the laws of this land and one more action by this body is exactly what this special interest company is seeking. if congress had passed and implemented this before when you

tried to push the president of the united states into agreeing with this, this route would have been done and it would have been right through the aquifer that people are objecting to now and forced the company to then change its route. so i don't know why we're being asked to push something through when we really should allow the state department to do its job. i'll have much more to say on this process and the circumventing of public interest about the devastating spill in kalamazoo, the fact that we don't know, all we need to know about tar sands cleanup of water to talk about the fact that midwest prices could be affected by this, there are many issues so i gladly debate this with my colleagues throughout the rest of this week and mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i'd like to resume my time for the colloquy. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. hoeven: i just want to take

a minute to respond to couple of the points that my colleague on the energy committee just brought up in regard to both the process and also in regard to the timeline for approval of this project and then i want to turn too to my cosponsor the senator from west virginia and get some of his input on the project and now we're getting into the debate we've wanted from day one. i had the good fortune to serve as governor of the great state of north dakota and the good senator here on the floor with me from west virginia at the same time was governor of his state of west virginia. we worked together on many different issues, i'm a republican he's a democrat, and we found common ground on important issues as governors and we found common ground here and that's what this is all about. that's what we want to have happen among our colleagues so that we can get this and other important legislation addressed and passed and help our country. and so i just -- before i turn

to my colleague from west virginia let me just touch briefly on a couple of points that the ranking member of our energy committee brought up just now. she said she opposes the project, i understand and respect her views but she talked about the length of time that the approval process takes, and what i've goit got to point out is we've been in this approval process now more than six years. more than six years. so when she talks about needing more time to get the project approved it's hard to understand how we're going to have a working functioning economy, how we're going to get the private sector to invest the billions of dollars it takes -- this project alone the largest shovel-ready project that's ready to go, just under $8 billion, $7.9 billion, and it's been held up more than six years. america got into world war ii and won the war in less than six

years. building the hoover dam took less than six years. with if we're going to create the kind of environment where we speculate slate investment by the private sector and get our economy growing and going and get people back to work we can't hold private investment up. remember not one penny of federal money it will create jobs create hundreds of millions in tax revenue help us build our energy future, help us with national security by being energy secure, all those things and here the federal government is held it up for more than six years. how can we argue there's any kind of process there that works in any kind of realistic or commonsense way when it been held up more than six years? and specifically as regards the state of north nebraska, in 2012 i put forward legislation which we passed in this body attached to the part holiday that required -- payroll tax

holiday. we said you have to make a decision. at that time the project had been under review four years long enough, make your national interest determination. passed it with 7 votes so the president at that time said, well no, i'm not going to make a decision on the project now because of the what he perceived to be the problem with the route in nebraska. remember, this project goes through states from montana through texas. here it is. and also remember, it's not just carrying canadian crude. it carries crude from my state of north dakota and the state of montana, light sweet bakken crude. everybody forgets this moves domestic crude as well. and my state alone produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day and we're moving 700,000 barrels a day on trains because we can't get enough pipelines. so here we want to put 100,000

barrels a day into this pipeline and we've been waiting for six years, putting more and more oil on rail cars, congestion on the rails can't move our ag products and we've been held up six years. but in 2012 we passed that bill, this body passed it and the house went to the president and he turned it down said the routing wasn't just right in nebraska. there had been objection in nebraska. here you see the pipeline goes through nebraska, he said i'm not going to approve it at this point because they've got to square it away in nebraska. so in nebraska the state legislature, the elected body of the people went to work with the 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 want through a long process they rerouted the pipeline to address any concerns regarding the ogallala aquifer and other

concerns brought up, a long process, and approved it. every state on the route has approved the project. they've all approved it. they've had six years to do it so it wasn't like they had to hurry. but they've 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 0 hoopoeses the project said she was concerned about the supreme court decision. remember the supreme court decision came up because after the state of nebraska approved the project then opponents challenged it. forced it into court. went to the nebraska supreme court, the nebraska supreme court found in favor of the governor and the legislature for the state of north dakota. excuse me, nebraska. for the state of nebraska. so they found in favor of the route and the state of nebraska said that that is as it should be.

okay. so that's all been covered at great length by the elected representatives of the state of nebraska and the supreme court of nebraska. how much more does this take? furthermore, the point that my colleague was making was if we had rushed somehow this would have been a problem except if you look at the legislation we put right in the legislation in section 2 under the private property savings claws to make -- clause to make sure if there is an issue like that it's addressed in the legislation so the concerned she has addressed is in the legislation and the reason it's in there is because the good senator from montana also on the route senator tester wanted this provision in the bill. also a democrat and showing the bipartisanship of the bill, he said let's make sure we take care of that so we put language in the bill to make the concerned addressed on the floor is addressed. i'll 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 tate of enact to secure from private property to cross border facilities described in section a. so we tried to make sure -- and fourth-hour, -- furthermore let me read judicial review. we also provide that section -- i won't read it but we provided for judicial review so if any of these 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 that any and all concerns she just raised in regard to the process of the individual states is protected. and, again i make the case they've all gone through great lengths to approve the gentlewoman and -- the project

and we're the only entity blocking it after more than six years is the federal government. and one other point i'd like briefly before turning to the senator from west virginia and that is the good senator from washington talked about alternative energy sources and renewable energy sores sources and how we need to develop them and they create jobs and that's great. and this is a note on which i'll turn to my cosponsor and the distinguished senator from west virginia. we're for all of the above energy approach. but we've got to get over the idea that somehow they're mutually exclusive. because we go forward and build important infrastructure so that we can make sure that we don't have to import oil from opec or countries like venezuela or other parts of the world to ensure that we can be secure in energy that we can produce as

much or more oil than we consume both with domestic production and canada, we need this infrastructure but that in no way precludes any development of any other source of energy. they're 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. let's do them both. and on that note i want to turn to my colleague because he's -- ask anybody in this body particularly coming here as a governor he's somebody who not only is very bipartisan in his approach to all these issues but somebody that really has not only advocated for producing all of the above in terms of energy but somebody that's done it in his time as governor. so i'd turn to my colleague and say can't we do both, and isn't approval this part of doing it all? mr. manchin: i want to thank the

senator from north dakota, my friend for taking the lead on this and working with him so closely. and i really am excited about the process we're in right now an open amendment process learning a lot debates a lot of good ideas come out before and when it's all said and done we should have a better piece of legislation. this is not about pipelines. if this was about an x.l. pipeline or any of the pipelines, we wouldn't have 100,000 of miles of pipelines in america already. since l industrial revolution, we have not built all the pipelines that are needed to carry all the energy that's needed to run this country. so this is not about a pipeline. this is about basically the concerns we all have about greenhouse gas emissions and the development of the oil sands in canada. nothing to do with the pipeline. and with that being said, we got to be very clear canada is going to develop the oil sands whether or not the keystone x.l. pipeline is built.

that's a fact. and we've talked about this. the state department, our own state department in this great country of ours, the united states of america has conducted five environmental assessments of the keystone pipeline and has found -- and all of them -- that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. now, these are the things that we have to be cognizant of. the state department also found that the pipeline is unlikely to affect the rate of extraction in canadian oil development. that means that whatever we do here is not going to change the rate of development in the oil sands. so the state department also examined alternatives to the proposed x.l. pipeline. these alternatives included what would happen if no action was taken at awvment all. let's say we do nothing and nothing comes about with this pipeline. likely the crude would be shipped either by rail or by

tanker. and if that continued it would be considered no action if we take no action here and don't build this pipeline, for whatever reason, the greenhouse gas emissions which we're all concerned about and our debate is about that really, will be between 28% to 42% higher if we do nothing. so those people who are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions should say well, okay why do we want to contribute to more? the pipeline decreases that. and if we don't do it, we've got 28% to 42% more emissions. i've talked about this before our dependence on foreign." i've said this many times. we all are entitled to our opinions and i think you're going too hear all of our opinions in the next couple of weeks much what we're not entitled to is our own set of facts. i've said this before and i'll repeat it again and continue to repeat it.

we buy as of the 2013 figures from the department of energy, e.i.a., we the united states of america, buy 7 million barrels of crude oil a day. whrornlgwhether you like it or not people buy it. it's what it takes for ow -- for our economy to run. 7 million barrels a day. we already buy 2.5 million barrels from canada right now. we're already dependent on canada for 2.5 million barrels a day. we also buy oil from other countries, and i think you ought to question why we're buying oil from these other countries and especially when you look at venezuela, we buy 755,000 barrels day from venezuela and they are an authoritarian regime impoverishes its citizens. they violate their human rights and have put down their

citizens. but we're purchasing a product from them that they use the resources to continue this type of regime. the same here of 2013, we bolt 1.3 million from saudi arabia. now, i don't know about you but i'm going to question, the resources from that, are the proceeds from that oil that we've paid saudi arabia for was it used for the betterment of the united states of america? for our best interests? i have my doubts about that. we also buy over 40,000 barrels a day from russia. don't need to tell but what's going on there. i think you all know that. the keystone pipeline would allow us to more safely import oil from a stable alirks one ally, one of our better trading partners. our number-one trading partner is canada and it is the most stable regime, the best ally we've ever seen.

the pipeline will have a final capacity of 800,000 barrels day. we can continue to produce energy in north america while stibblessing global supply as well as benefiting americans and a lice. in fact, last year one of obama's -- president obama's former national security advisors one of the president's former national security advisors retired marine general james jones told the foreign relations committee the international bullies who wish to use energy scarcity as a weapon against you all are watching intently. if we want to make mr. putin's day and strengthen his hand, we should reject the keystone. i repeat, if i would want to make mr. putin's day and strengthening his hand, we should reject this keystone pipeline. but if we want to gain an

important mairve international energy security, jobs, tax revenue and prosperity to advance our work on a spectrum of energy solutions then don't rely on carbon, it should be approved. so you got to decide which side you're on. do you want to make mr. putin's day? or do you want to find alternatives and use all the above and be less dependent on foreign oil? in addition to our energy independence and national security interests this bill will also create thousands of jobs. i think we've talked about that. i hear the argument, well, yeah, but they're not going to be permanent. we build a lot of infrastructure a lot of roads we have a lot of good construction jobs when we're building the bridge. i don't know any permanent jobs after we build a road. but we have a lot of good construction high-paying jobs. and when you start looking at that the building and construction trade and the teamsters, the afl-cio all of

our friends friends -- working americans, the hardworking americans support this piece of legislation. they want these jobs. our own state department says it'll create about 42,000 jobs to construct the pipeline and thousands of other related jobs, so why don't we seize the opportunity? you know, now we talked about amendments. this is an open amendment process and a lot of my colleagues a lost my democratic colleagues on my side of the aisle, have some great ideas. i'm going to work with them. i agree with my democratic friends, the company shipping oil through this pipeline should pay the excise tax to the oil spill trust fund. there's no reason they should be exempted from these payments. i'm going to work with them to put that amendment in. it is a good amendment. it'll strengthen the bill. that's what the amendment process is will about. i agree also with my colleagues on the democratic side that any still needed in the future on

this oil project should be bought from american steel companies. that's great. let's promote more jobs in america. buy american steel. don't let them dump on us. we should be supporting american jobs. i also agree with our friends that we shouldn't export any of our oil abroad. if that oil comes to america it should be semiconductorred to the same laws as all the -- it should be subjected to the same laws as all the oil that comes to america. i would like to think this process will strengthen a piece of legislation hopefully give us 68-70 vietnams, that really gives a good piece phs legislation for the american people. we've been promised an open amendment process and i'm so thankful for that which presents a valuable opportunity to accomplish some of our democratic priorities. some of our democratic priorities that we talk about all the time on my side of the aisle. i believe the process will improve the bill and i hope that

my colleagues will support this important piece of legislation and let's get the needed votes that we need to make sure that we move our country forward become less dependent on foreign oil and more self-sufficient and more secure as a nation. thank you mr. president. ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i know we have several colleagues who want to come down here and speak on other issues this morning and then we have some members who want to join back in on this debate. but i'd like to make a few points and finish up my remarks from earlier an then yield to our colleagues. mr. hoeven: mr. president? i'd like to -- the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: h.o.v. i'd ask the speaker to yield for a purpose of a question. i'd like to understand the time liefnlt i need about three four minutes to wrap up. i did relinquish 15 minutes for their side. so i would request three to four minutes to wrap up and then you'd certainly be willing to turn the floor over to them.

ms. cantwell: go right ahead. mr. hoeven: thank you mr. president. this is going ton an ongoing debate. i want to thank the senator from west virginia. i'm glad we are engaging in this debate. i think we should debate all aspectsspects of it, as we are and look forward to that continued effort. i do, though, want to wrap up on a point as to the environmental impact. we talked about a number of different aspects of this pipeline project. we talked about taking great care in the approval process to address all the issues at the state level. we talked about making sure that we put provisions in the bill to respect that state process. that's been going on for more than six years and obviously now it's time -- 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 which he's indicated that he

has, that he would 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 that he was holding out for the decision in nebraska. wlg, the decisionwell the decision in nebraska has been completed. he needs to make a decision and he needs to tell us what he is going to make that decision. if he follows his process he needs to make a decision in favor of the project because as i'm pretty sure you're going to hear from some of the opponents of the project they're saying, oh, well based on environmental issues, that's why he should turn it down. and i understand and respect their views on some of the climate change issues, and they're 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 state department in those environmental impact statements found this result. as a result of this project "no significant environmental impact." and i understand that they're going to spend a the love time talking about their views on climate change. that's fine. i understand that. but there is a difference between opinion and there's a difference between the general discussion and the science of this project. that's the finding by the obama administration. we'll 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 19 90 on a per-barrel basis they've reduced greenhouse gas emissions impiemissionsby about 28% and they're continuing to do more. so they're addressing the environmental issue by 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 in that's not? that's not the way. the way to do it is to encourage the investment that not only produces more energy but does it with better environmental stewardship. again, i want that 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 person issue and that -- on this important issue and with that i yield the floor. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i will try to wrap up my opening remarks in this debate, too and then turn it over to our colleagues. some are wanting to speak on this subject and on other matters this morning. i wanted to respond to a couple of things bases i because i know our colleagues keep thinking this is something we have to do and expedite. the reason why this project hasn't been approved to date is because they haven't followed the process and people keep bringing up objections to that

process. along those lines i'd like to turn back to the fact that the congressional involvement in this matter during the back-and-forth with nebraska on the pipeline change when there is a sensitive area of the sandhill region. during 2008 until 2012, the u.s. state department was reviewing the trans-canada initial application for the border and this required a national interest determination by the president. it's worth reminding my colleagues that this was a process laid out by president bush. in the review of that process in their initial application the state department in 2011 announced that an alternative route through nebraska needed to be done to avoid uniquely sensitive terrain of the sandhill area. so the president in the state department said we need to go a different route. okay? what happened next? you would think that most people would stop and listen and say oh my gosh, that is concern about this aquifer. well that's not what happened.

that's not what happened. people came to congress and said, we should get the old route approved in the disastrous aquifer that provides 30% of the groundwater for irrigation through the united states. so at the same time the state department was telling the company we've got real concerns, you should go somewhere else, the company was coming here to congress trying to push the old route through. at the same time the state department was negotiating. so i will say to my colleagues if you think you're helping this process, you're hurting it. you are trying to take away the negotiating power of the state department to make sure that the environmental and sensitivity issues are addressed here. i know my colleague who i look forward to working with on the energy committee thinks that his legislation has protected something in the area of property rights, but let me be clear. this legislation ensures that the status quo in nebraska under

the supreme court decision last week will stand. it simply affirms that the use of eminent domain on behalf of trans-canada will be the law. and so we're not doing anything in this legislation to protect them. so jamming keystone on to the temporary payroll tax cut bill was a mistake and so is this a mistake. don't try to answer all of these questions that we think the state department should decide in our national interest. the president should have the ability to say yes or no on this. so i would like the president to answer these questions as it relates to the tar sand oil in water, only because i had a chance to ask the commandant of the coast guard a year ago about this issue because we're very concerned about the transport of tar sands out of our northwest area and the commandant at that time said we have no solution. no solution. when my colleague from michigan

talked about the $1.2 billion they had to spend on tar sand cleanup because it sank into kalamazoo river, i think these are issues that the state department has every right to raise with the company to get answers on. just recently trans-canada has been redoing some of its pipeline in other areas because it has also found that these the holes the wells on these projects were not sufficient. so the state department is telling them we want a third party validater. no other colleagues would lient lient -- like to interrupt that by saying we know best. i ask my colleagues not to urge the urgency of a process that has been failed from the beginning, that did not allow for the public interest to be adequately afforded their

rights that basically is stopping the people who have objections now in south dakota from getting their day in court and a day in process. so i don't understand what the hurry is. i do want to hurry on energy policy but it has much more to do with getting the tax credits clean energy incentives in place that will unleash thousands of more jobs and give predictability. that is the prerogative and the responsibility of congress to look at these tax incentives to establish economic incentives. it is not our job to site pipelines when the local process is not played out. at least don't stop the president from making sure these environmental issues are addressed. i know my colleague from massachusetts has been waiting and i know he has been a leader in the house of representatives prior to his time in the senate making sure that tar sands should pay into the oil spill liability trust fund and i