the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you

madam president. madam president, when the new congress opens there's a choice as to which issues we should start to work on. would it be infrastructure jobs, clean energy jobs, minimum wage increase for all of america? no. no, that is not what the new majority decides to bring up. no. instead, it is a canadian oil export pipeline. so next week, i am going to offer an amendment that the senate will consider that asks whether we will put americans first or oil companies first whether we will keep this oil and gasoline here for americans or send it to foreign nations to help them instead? if my amendment is defeated, it will make clear that this is not an energy plan that is all of the above.

it is oil above all. my amendment says that if we build the keystone keystone pipeline, we keep that oil here, we keep that oil here. we keep the diesel, the jet fuel the heating oil we keep it all all here. because if we send it abroad? what are we doing? we're helping canadian oil companies get a higher price for their oil. we're acting as the middlemen between dirty foreign oil and thirsty foreign markets. without my amendment, there is nothing in the bill or united states law that would prevent this oil from being exported. 80% of our refined fuel exports go out of the gulf coast exactly where keystone would end. and foreign crude oil including crude oil from canada, can be freely reexported.

and we know what transcan be trans-canada's plan is because i asked them at a congressional hearing i asked a senior trans-canada official whether he would commit his company to keeping the oil and refined products from keystone in the united states of america and he said no. and why do the oil companies want to export this canadian tar sands oil? because they can get a higher price and make more profits. tar sands crude in canada trades for $13 less than the u.s. crude benchmark. and the international prices are $3 higher than our prices. and if we do all of this if we build this pipeline and then we send this oil to foreign countries then we have turned uncle sam into uncle sucker.

because, make no mistake without my amendment this bill won't do anything to help people at the pump. it will just serve to pump up the profits for oil companies. we shouldn't export this oil even as we are forced to send young men and women to defend oil interests in the most dangerous parts of the world. so let us have that debate. as we import still oil from the middle east coming into the united states on tankers this proposal that we are debating next week will actually export oil that's already in the united states. we still import millions of barrels of oil every single day. what you hear from the canadians, what you hear from the oil industry is that this is all about energy independence.

well energy independence cannot by definition include the exportation of oil while the united states of america is still importing millions of barrels of oil per day. that's heading us away from rather than towards the goal of energy independence. and so that, ladies and gentlemen, is really at the heart of the issue of what it is that we must understand about this keystone pipeline debate. we want lower prices for consumers lower prices at the gasoline pump, lower prices for home heating oil lower prices for diesel lower prices all across america. it's like a tax break that is going into the pockets of every single plern american, giving them more spending money because they're paying much less for oil in all of its forms in the

united states of america right now and it is giving an incredible incentive for economic growth right here in america. what makes america great? what makes america strong? what makes us strong is when we're strong at home. and what makes us strong at home is our economy because the stronger our economy is, the stronger the united states is in projecting power across the planet. and so that's why this debate on the exportation of oil is so central. it goes right to the heart of what it is that we must be discussing and debating in our country. this is an incredible opportunity for our country. and let's take it to the next step. the next step includes what is the taxation on the canadian oil? well there is a loophole, believe it or not, in the american tax code that allows tar sands oil from canada like

that that would flow through the keystone pipeline to not pay into the federal trust fund to respond to oil spills in the united states. understand that? canadian oil the dirtiest in the world coming through the pipeline that the canadians want to build through the united states, in the event of an oil spill, will not have paid into the oil spill liability fund for oil spill accidents in the united states. i wrote to the treasury department in 2012 urging them to close this loophole through executive action, but their response indicated that they do not believe that they have the authority to close this loophole on their own and they need legislation to do so. yet, there is nothing in this bill that would close this tax loophole for keystone tar sands oil. tar sands oil can be more difficult to clean up than

regular crude but receives a get out of canada tax-free card. that makes absolutely no sense. we are already importing more than 1.2 million barrels per day of tar sands oil into the united states but oil companies don't have to pay into our cleanup fund to import that dirty oil. there are roughly 30 oil companies importing tar sands crude into the united states. if you are one of those 30 companies, you are getting a great deal, but if you're one of the hundreds of other oil companies out there that do pay into the oil spill trust fund, you should hate this loophole, and the american people should hate that loophole as well because the canadians and their oil companies are not paying their fair share of the dues to be able to participate in our great american society. they want to build a pipeline like a straw right through the

middle of the united states, send the dirtiest oil right down that straw and if that straw breaks if there's a spill the canadians have not contributed to the oil spill liability fund. does that make any sense? does that make any sense? of course it doesn't. that's why this debate is so important. the congressional budget office says that this is going to cost the united states of america hundreds of millions of dollars because the canadians escape their responsibility in paying for the accidents. so senator wyden and i are working here to make sure that we have an ability to close this loophole and we're working with senator cantwell, the ranking member on the committee and with senator cantwell, we are going to make sure that we have this important debate out here on the senate floor. and i i know senator cantwell was out here earlier today

raising this issue highlighting this issue pointing out how unfair and unjust it is that the canadians escape their responsibility to pay. that is just another giveaway to the oil industry that ensures that this is nothing more than a giveaway to those canadian companies. and i say this on a day when it's being reported that there are now 140,000 people in america employed in the solar industry. 140,000. there's another 50,000 that are employed in the wind industry. nearly 200,000 people employed in industries that for the most part didn't really even exist in a meaningful way seven years ago. that's how quickly our own domestic wind and solar industries have been developed creating jobs here in the united

states creating growth here in the united states, creating opportunity here in the united states. so this, ladies and gentlemen is really what we should be debating but once again when the republicans are in control we do not debate all of the above. we don't debate wind and solar and biomass and energy efficiency and oil and gas and nuclear. the republicans always make it a one subject and that is oil above all not all of the above. and so i'm looking forward to this debate that goes right to the heart of the security of our country, the economy of our country, the environment of our country. this is the dirtiest oil in the world. this oil is going to dangerously contribute to the warming of the planet. 2014 was the single warmest year ever recorded on the history of

the planet, 2014. you don't have to be dick tracey to figure out that this is a problem that we're passing on to next generations without the debate that this institution must have if we are going to discharge our responsibilities to those next generations. keystone pipeline is the central opportunity that we're going to have to raise this issue of global warming, of the national security of our country of making our economy stronger, and of ensuring that we discharge our responsibility to the next generation. call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you mr. president. it's good to be here on the senate floor talking about where we are in the process to hopefully finally move towards approval of a permit to allow for construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. it's been interesting the past

couple speakers this morning have all mentioned don't understand why why the first order of business in this new congress should be this measure. there's a lot of issues that are out there and there certainly are. there always is. there will always be in the united states senate. this is what we do. these are all weighty issues. but i will remind my colleagues one of the reasons we are moving early to the keystone x.l. pipeline legislation is because in many ways this is a bit of unfinished business. it was just six weeks or so ago that we had this measure before us on the floor of the united states senate. it was before this body for debate good debate led by our former colleague from louisiana who was -- was absolutely

passionate absolutely passionate in her defense of why this was timely, why this was important, why this was critical that this measure be approved. and we had that debate and unfortunately the final vote shy by one vote and so we did not see passage. but it was -- it was a measure that was in front of us because yes, it was timely but also because of the work that this body had done to help advance it init. in the energy committee we had had hearing we had process and we had a bill in front of us. now, first week of the session and we have a lot of measures that we will be taking up that are extremely important. but they are perhaps not as primed, if you will, for action on the senate floor because that

legislation hasn't been drafted up. the committees have not met to to -- to really work through some of the legislation that will be before us and so yp why not move why not move to advance the keystone x.l. pipeline? a measure that will provide for good-paying jobs in this country, a measure that will -- will work to enhance that relationship with our closest friend and ally to the north canada, a measure that will help us from an energy security perspective when we are able to displace oil coming in from places like venezuela with oil coming in from canada. that's a relationship that this senator would much rather enhance and further. so for a host of different reasons, we are here on this

measure in now the second week of this new congress. and i'm pleased that we are at this place where we reached unanimous consent earlier to proceed to consideration of amendments on this bipartisan bill. it's been interesting as i've talked to not only colleagues but reporters out in the hallways, just people that are -- you're having a conversation with and i think there was a fair amount of skepticism that if republicans were to regain the majority, that we would -- we would return the senate to what we know as regular order where there's a processing of amendments, where there's a regular committee process and how we -- how we get back to where we're actually processing amendments. but that's what we're doing folks. and those who are -- are

observing what is going on really beginning today is something that really hasn't been seen around here in a number of years. and that's unfortunate that we haven't had that process but it's never too late to do the right thing. it's never too late to really get back to a process that is deliberative that allows for the open exchange of ideas and consideration of that on the floor. and when we -- when we talk about an open amendment process i think it needs to be clear to all that it's not -- it's not just open amendment for those of us that are on this side of the aisle, it is an open amendment process for the full senate so

that members on both sides can offer their ideas and work to get votes on them. now, the majority leader has said several times, he said this process is going to be open but it's not going to be open-ended. we're not going to be on this measure for a full year or even a full month but we will be taking the time to -- to do the deliberation that i think is important on this. and i think you've already got some people saying, "oh we're spending enough time on it." it's a mixed message. you've got those saying it's not timely, we shouldn't be taking it of up then almost complaining that we've been on it now for -- since last week. but i think it is important for mibzformembers to know that we are expecting -- for members to know

that we are expecting to see your amendments filed, we are expecting to see you come to the floor to bring those up, call those up. and i would encourage don't wait until the last minute, because again to use the majority leader's words, this is not going to be open ended. so let's get to our business and let's get it done. we do have three amendments that are currently pending before the body right now but before i speak to each of those three i'd like to just very briefly address my support for the underlying bill from the perspective of alaska and from being one who is the emersed in alaska's energy process and politics. i've heard from more than a couple folks back home who've seen the debate and discussion playing out, whether it's c-span

or in the media and i've been asked, they're saying, we understand that keystone is in the national interest, we get that. but is it really in alaska's best interest? and folks back home are a little worried right now. we're seeing oil at -- at lows that we have not seen in -- in years sitting around $46 a barrel here today. it's certainly had impact on our state's budget dramatically so. and it's not just alaska. i think we're seeing in other producing states that the good news with the lower oil prices is kind of a double-edged sword for some. and so i think the questions that are being asked at home are legitimate fair and very important questions about okay, how -- how does this fit in with the alaska piece? we've got -- we've got a somewhat unique -- maybe it's not somewhat unique but it's

certainly grander in scale with large-scale infrastructure projects particularly energy projects of serious magnitude. we've got a world-class oil field in prudhoe bay and the connector that the transalaska pipeline provides from prudhoe bay down to tidewater in valdez, an 800-mile silver ribbon that bisects our state is truly a modern marvel. and it has it -- the prudhoe bay and the oil fields up there providing the resource they have to alaska. again, you can have the resource but if you don't have the infrastructure to move the resource it doesn't do your state much good doesn't help your economy doesn't help fund

education if you can't move it to market. but as i mentioned alaskans are a little bit nervous right now. there was a "new york times" article recently that described kind of what's happening in alaska. the journalist described it as economic anxiety that hangs over the state. and it is because again we're seeing price in -- a drop in price per barrel for oil and when your state relies on oil for about 90% of your -- your revenues to fund your budget whether the price drops you notice it dramatically. but there's one way that you can deal with the -- the variations and the variables in price and that's if you have sufficient production. and that's where alaska is suffering from this economic

anxiety because our oil production which was over 2 million barrels a day has dropped precipitously over the past couple decades. we're now talking about an oil pipeline that is less than half full. so what does that mean to a state like alaska? when your -- your artery for your state's revenues is not pumping to the level to which you would hope snch? and we are in -- we are in that place right now whereas a state we're looking -- where as a state we're looking at what can we do to make a difference when it comes to production, because we will have price variables. as long as opec is in play, there will be those price variables that we're -- we're

not able to affect as much as we would like. we've got the resource. we've got about 40 million barrels of oil nearly 40 billion estimated bear barrels of oil in our federal areas and this is offshore in the -- in the chukchi and in the beaufort on our coastal plain within the npra. we're not looking at a situation in alaska where we are running out of oil or about to run out of oil. our problem straight up is our our -- our limited ability to be able to access it. the holdback that we get the pushback that we get from our own federal government, the policies that keep us from being able to access that resource this has been our challenge.

now, back to the keystone x.l. pipeline. the keystone pipeline, it's not going to be carrying any alaskan crude. don't get a mixed message here. we've got a pipeline for that. we've already built it. it's just waiting to be filled back up. so our need isn't infrastructure in alaska but really permission consent from the federal government to access our lands access our waters to achieve that energy potential. so when i'm talking to alaskans about the imperative for keystone and how it intersecretaries with -- intersects with alaska, there's a couple messages here and there'sthefirst one is a pretty simple one. there is plenty of demand in just the united states for all of the oil that canada can produce and all of the oil that alaska can produce all at the same time. the demand is there. even with the -- the surge that

we have seen coming out of the bakken and just the increased amount of production that we have seen domestically in this country. we're still continuing to import that oil. so again if we can the rely more on us better for us. the world view that supports the construction of keystone x.l. is the same one that leads to new production in my state of alaska and that's the recognition that affordable energy is good. this is kind of my mantra, if you will. i keep advertising i've got a bumper sticker that says "energy is good." affordable energy is good and the understanding that low prices result when world markets are well supplied along with a desire to achieve north american energy independence and this is

something that i feel very, very strong willing about. willing -- strongly about. so approving the keystone x.l. pipeline is not going to eat into the markets for alaska's oil and i think that's an important message for alaskans to understand. in fact, it's really going to help us preserve those markets that we have. because right now our situation up north is we -- north slope crude is predominantly shipped to the west coast. makes sense closer in proximity. it's there that it is refined into gasoline and other petroleum products for use here in the lower 48. so we take it down our 800-mile pipeline, put it to tidewater. it's refined on the west coast and then we enjoy the benefit of it here. but this a.n.s. crude alaska north slope crude as we call it is now finding itself in competition from the shale place

out of the bakken. so what you're seeing is without a keystone x.l. pipeline, oil -- that -- the oil that is being produced out of the bakken, it's finding a home somewhere. it's not just sitting there. it's not just sitting there. it is being moved. so where is it being moved to? it's being moved to homes that it can find, refineries that have that capacity. and so it's going west. and it's going west to those west coast refineries that are used to getting that alaska crude. so -- and keep in mind, as it moves west, if you don't have that pipeline, how is it moving there? how are we moving it? we're moving it by rail predominantly. and again we'll have that discussion about the environmental impacts of rail or truck versus a pipeline.

the safety issues, the emissions issues. you want cleaner -- you want a cleaner way to transport it's going to be in a pipeline. you want a safer way to transport, it's going to be in a pipeline. so we have -- we have this discussion and again for alaskans to understand, keystone x.l. pipeline is going to benefit us in terms of being able to -- to continue to send our -- our crude to those west coast refineries. we've heard i think repeatedly and i think very wrongly that keystone x.l. is a foreign project. it's a foreign project. it's going to carry canadian oil to the gulf coast. well okay, trans-canada we know where the name derives from. we know that much much of the oil to be transported will be

from alberta but i think it is important to acknowledge that you have got about 100,000 barrels of bakken crude that will come from north dakota and montana down -- down through the mid continent and they will -- they will come down, they will avoid the west coast if we have keystone x.l. constructed. the last point i'd like to make for the folks back home that i work for on -- and that are following this issue i really think the keystone x.l. is a test for us. it's a test of whether or not we as a nation can still review, can license can permit and build a large-scale energy infrastructure project. now, we're looking at that,

we're looking at just that in alaska. we need to know that that can continue to be done in this country, because if we can't do it even here in the lower 48 where your costs are lower where you have existing infrastructure that you tie into which keystone x.l. will, you already have the southern leg already completed. if we can't demonstrate that we can't even get beyond this process of permitting, a leg of this pipeline over the canadian border into the united states, what confidence do we have that we're going to be able to do other big energy infrastructure projects? that worries me a great deal. so when people say well, you know we're rushing this too

quickly, it's premature we need to let everything play out i think we need to remind ourselves that six years is a pretty long time to play something out. most -- most companies don't have the wherewithal to wait something out six years because the cost of constructing this pipeline, having gone down in this intervening time period, -- if anything, they're going up. we know they are. so we're working on the keystone x.l. pipeline right now but it's just the first step of many that i believe we need to take to do in order to improve our energy policy. so i'm going to be continuing my conversation with members to explain how in my state we've got an awful lot to offer our country, whether it is increasing the flow in our

transalaska pipeline, getting our production up so that we are not half full and that we are full up and that we can share that with people throughout the country, and that as we look to move our natural gas our amazing quantities of natural gas, that that, too that infrastructure project a massive infrastructure project that we can work to advance that. we have got so much to offer the country coming out of alaska, but we need to have a chance and the opportunity to do so. our pipeline up north it's already built. it was completed just after i got out of high school. in fact, i was privileged to -- to be working up in prudhoe bay at that time. and see what

actually happened out there in the oil fields. it has operated successfully safely and efficiently for decades. it has far surpassed what we believed we would be able to ship through that line. but it remains surrounded, surrounded by billions and billions of untapped oil that can be brought to market, bringing jobs, general raiding revenues, keeping prices as low as possible because we all want that and increasing our security . so this is a conversation that's going to continue until the conditions of alaska's statehood. those things that were promised to us back in 1959 when we became a state that they are fulfilled, that we're allowed to produce our resources as a state. so watching what's going on with

keystone is something that is of great interest to folks back home. and we will continue to -- to watch it and hopefully be encouraged that we do the right thing, from a jobs perspective from a revenue perspective from an economic and an energy security perspective. so i wanted to take a little bit of time this morning. we've got three amendments that are pending. and i was privileged to be sitting in the chair a little bit ago where the junior senator from massachusetts spoke to his amendment. this relates to export from the keystone x.l. pipeline. now, my colleague from massachusetts is not from a big oil-producing state as i am, but i think it's fair to say that his is a state where they care a

lot about the costs of energy. they have got cold winters. they have got infrastructure challenges. they have got other issues as they relate to energy, and i appreciate that. but it's important to understand what my colleague's amendment would do. it would specifically prohibit the export of oil that's brought into the united states through the keystone keystone x.l. pipeline as well as the export of the finished products made from that oil, so it's not just the raw crude that's put into the line. it's what goes down to -- to the refineries there in the gulf coast, refined into product whether it's diesel or other product, and prohibit the export of that. so basically it's a full-on flat-out you can't have any

aspect of it, any drop of that leave this country. and it essentially says that all all -- every ounce of this new resource this canadian resource, will be brought into this united states, and it will stay here, and my colleague has raised the concern that the united states shouldn't be kind of that pass-through entity. he used the terminology that it's kind of like a straw from canada down to the gulf and then out the back end there. the president in a comment used the term conveyor belt. the united states shouldn't be that conveyor belt. and the argument is that we shouldn't just be this passthrough where americans get none of the benefits. well if we didn't get any of the benefits, i think we should

be talking about that. i think it is important to know that this is not the first time that we have had this discussion or this idea in front of us. back in early 2012, it was part of an amendment that came before the floor. it was defeated 33-65. we had many of our democratic colleagues join with all the republicans to reject a statutory ban on exports. and i'm hopeful that this amendment that has been offered and is pending will see the same fate ultimately being defeated by at least the same margin, and i say that because i think it it continues to be unnecessary. i believe strongly that it takes our export policies in the wrong direction. this is not just lisa murkowski saying i think this takes us the

wrong way. the department of energy has looked critically at this issue of keystone x.l. oil being exported and whether or not that makes sense and in their analysis -- they state it pretty succinctly. they say without a surplus of heavy oil in pad three that's the gulf coast area, there would be no economic incentive to ship answer oil sands to asia via the point it's coming out of. the department of energy's conclusion was pretty -- was a pretty broad discussion about it but that conclusion was then reinforceed by the state department. in its final completely e.i.s.

for keystone, which is -- it's a document that everybody should read. now, granted it's a thousand pages long or thereabouts but there is an executive summary that really does help to condense so much of this, and in the state department final e.i.s. they say that such an option that being export, such an option appears unlikely to be economically justified for any significant durable trade given transport costs and market conditions. so think about that. because i think these conclusions make some pretty good sense here. the purpose of the keystone x.l. pipeline is to bring canadian and american -- let's not forget the 100,000 barrels coming out of montana and north dakota. it's to bring this bill to the gulf coast. so it doesn't make any sense to

bring oil all the way -- this is 849, 850 miles all the way to refineries that can refine it. remember these refineries in the gulf coast are set up to deal with exactly this type of oil. so you have got the line that brings it from the north to the south where you have refineries that are able to handle this, so tell me why it would make sense to just use this pipeline as a passthrough, as a conveyor belt, as a straw and then ship it to refineries around the world. add that transport cost to it. as the state department e.i.s. says it's not economically justified and it's important to understand what is going on down there in the gulf coast with our

refineries. and the state department looked at this, and what they found was that the traditional sources of heavy oil used on the gulf coast are declining. why are they declining? well what -- what we traditionally see coming in as imports there coming in from venezuela, coming in from mexico but we're seeing a -- a drawdown of that, if you will, a lessening of that, and for a host of different reasons coming out of venezuela and out of mexico but not the least of which is because we're producing more here in the lower 48 states, in the bakken and so we've talked a lot about the misalignment that is going on within our refineries and what is being produced and what we are capable of refining, but again, what we're seeing in the

gulf coast is -- is a -- an ability to take on more capacity for this heavy oil. and so the -- the opportunity to refine that product coming out of canada there in the gulf coast refineries, it's real. it's there. now, i think it is important to be honest here -- i don't want to be written up in somebody's fact checker because believe me we look at those. but there are small amounts of oil from keystone x.l. that could be reexported as a matter of economic efficiency. that shouldn't get everybody excited or reason other to panic. it may come as a surprise to some but the reexport of

canadian oil that is not commingled with the domestic crude is already completely legal, it is already a routine matter with the commerce department just routinely signs off on it. this is no big deal, this is no change in policy that is dramatic. the obama administration has already approved dozens of licenses to reexport crude oil all across the world. now, i think it's important to recognize that, again this amendment from -- offered by my colleague from massachusetts would not just block the export of the crude but it would block the export of finished products. as he said, it would be everything. it would be the crude and it would be everything that then is produced every bit that we

have he would have stay here. but blocking the export of finished products would be a reversal a reversal of existing law and current practices. and think about it just from a practical perspective. how do you enforce this? really how -- how would you realistically enforce this -- this measure of diesel that came from this refinery from this pipeline here in the lower 48, that you can go ahead and export and this is what we do it's not any great state secret but we move our refined products. and we do so in a significant way to the benefit of our nation.

and so how do you -- how do you kind of fence off everything that comes out of keystone x.l. and say the refined product from this particular pipeline, you can't move outside this country. it just creates potential havoc, which i don't know but that's the point here. but i do think that the senate should recognize that this amendment is not going-term prove this bill. i don't think it's going to change anybody's mind, bring new support. i think it -- it's meant to just kind of poison the well here. and perhaps ensure that this pipeline's never going to be built. and that it can't operate. so i would encourage my colleagues look at a couple of different documents here. i mentioned the final supplemental environmental

impact statement that the state department did. it is an important read for the analysis the critical analysis that went into it and i have cited those areas where they speak specifically to the impact of the export. but there are others that have reviewed not only that but other documents, other outside facts. i mentioned that president obama had made reference to -- to the conveyor belt theory, tagging keystone x.l. as being a conveyor belt for the oil. he made that statement when he was over in burma in november. and his specific words were this would provide the ability of

canada to pump their oil sending it through our land down to the gulf where it will be sold everywhere else. so the fact checkers got on president obama for that, and did a pretty good analysis, i felt a pretty good analysis, laid it out in clear english and ultimately decided that the president was going to be awarpedded three pinocchios for that statement which a pinocchio for those who aren't familiar you've made a significant factual area, obvious contradiction you get three pinocchios. but it wasn't just "the washington post" and glen kessler that a did this assessment. we also had another fact check coming out of politifact and they also rated that statement mostly false on its truth-

truth-o-meter and i will submit both of these fact checks to the record asking unanimous consent for that. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: but, again, mr. president, i think it's important to be looking to a full understanding of what we're talking about when -- when we talk about the export of keystone x.l. and the imperative that in order for something to -- to work as the -- as the senator from massachusetts has suggested, that we're just going to be this pass-through, it has to make sense for those who are moving this product there has to be economic justification at the other end and where it makes sense is to move that product to the gulf

coast where our refineries have the capacity to handle that heavy crude. turn it into product there create -- continue to create those jobs within that region, and advance. so i'm not going to be supporting senator markey's amendment. i think that's obvious from my statement. but i do think that it was important to just give some of the background there and we commend to colleagues some of these articles that i have referenced. there's two other amendments that are pending before us, and i'll speak very, very quickly to the amendment that has been offered by the senators from ohio and new hampshire. they have once again teamed up to offer this bipartisan amendment on energy efficiency.

they worked very closely on these issues over the years. we're to the point where you can't think about energy efficiency without thinking portman or shaheen. so i commend my colleagues for their diligence on this. i have been happy to support them in their efforts. and i'm happy quite honest think that we're going to have an opportunity to vote on an amendment that does relate to the energy efficiency. it is not the full-on energy efficiency bill that my colleagues have introduced previously but it's an amendment with a text that's identical to the measure that came out of the house the energy efficiency improvement act. this is a bill that moved through the house 375-36 during the last congress towards the end. we tried we tried to move it through here in the senate, we came close to advancing it by unanimous consent but there were still a few outstanding

concerns that we couldn't get around so it's back before us once again. but really, nothing has changed since then, and in my view, this is a good reason why this proposal is really regarded as important, noncontroversial, it's cost neutral it contains four provisions, one of which is extremely time sensitive. and we -- sometimes people don't want to get down into the weeds of certain aspects of what we're dealing with. the time sensitive provision that we're dealing with is these federal energy efficiency standards related to water heaters where we have a consent decree from back in 2010 that our water heater manufacturers have until april 16 of this year

be -- so exactly three months from today -- where they have to meet these revised minimum efficiency standards from d.o.e. the problem is that the d.o.e. standards effectively ban production of these grid-enabled water heaters that many of our rural co-ops use for electric thermal storage or demand response programs. so instead of saving energy, these revised standards now threaten to actually work against these goals so you've got a bizarre unintended consequence here, and we've been working for a couple years now to address this, to fix it and now it's urgent. now we've got to deal with it because in three short months manufacturers are worried what's the congress going to do is it going to be resolved should it i be building any of these. so i think thanks to the cooperation of senators from

ohio and new hampshire we've got an opportunity for us to have this measure in front of us once again. there's three other provisions in this amendment that are actually noncontroversial. they all relate to voluntary efficiency programs. one focuses on the efficiency of commercial office buildings another provides greater information about energy usage in those buildings and then the third looks at energy efficient government technology and practices. so again mr. president this is one that i would hope we would be able to advance without further delay. this is really a commonsense effort to fix a real problem for our rural co-ops. and more importantly let's embrace energy efficiency around here. we're talking now with the discussion about -- about increased production is very real i started off my comments

by to go about alaska's desired contribution to the national energy economy. but i kind of view energy from a three legged school perspective. you've got increased production you've got all the technologies that are going to allow us to achieve our potential with our clean and renewable resources which is hugely important but you also have the efficiency and the conservation piece. we don't talk about that enough around here. we need to do more. shaheen-portman is one way to get us there albeit in a very small way. and then the last amendment that we have pending is an amendment offered by my colleague on the other side of the aisle from minnesota, and also serving on the energy committee. he's introduced an amendment that would require all the iron and steel and the manufactured goods used to construct the

keystone be produced right here in the united states. and i think all of us want to do all that we can certainly, to encourage more jobs and job creation here in this country and to put in place policies that would allow us to do so and i do appreciate that senator franken's amendment inserts language in the amendment that allows -- i guess it avoids a conflict with our international trade agreements because we know that that could have really threatened the bill, it would actually have given the president real reason to threaten to veto this bipartisan bill. but they have addressed that within the amendment. i also appreciate the amendment allows the president to waive the requirements for american materials based on findings that he makes.

so that's language that's included in it. but i have to tell you, mr. president, we're sitting here at 2,310 days, 2,310 days since the initial cross-border application was submitted for this project. i was reminded that when the initial application was first presented, the president was then senator obama that much time has elapsed. and so i see this language and i think it is included in this amendment in good faith but i just can't be convinced that the president would actually exercise this type of a waiver in a timely manner. he certainly hasn't demonstrated it at any point throughout this

whole long, drawn-out process that we have been on with keystone x.l. amp six years. so -- after six years. so i am going to be opposing this amendment for the same reasons that i opposed it when we had it in front of us in 2012. it was included as part of a broader amendment at that time, but it did fall on a pretty strong bipartisan basis. and, you know, these are important -- these are important issues to be thinking about and considering and i did take good time to review this. but, again, i i think all of us want to do more to encourage jobs production job creation. i buy american and i buy local wherever and whenever i can. i strongly support the use of american materials in american

projects whether it's in my state or around the country. i know that you probably do as well. the senator from minnesota does as well. but in considering whether we here in congress should maintained specific materials for the keystone x.l. pipeline, i have come down on the side that we should not mandate that. and i think we need to look at several things. first off is the commitment that has been made to buy american without any sort of mandate without any requirement coming out of congress. fully, 75% of the pipe from this project is going to come from north america. that's the commitment that's been made. and i understand that more than half of that -- it's about 33 332,000 tons is going to come from arkansas alone.

so again mr. president, this is a commitment that has been made to ensure that america does derive benefit that we do see these direct and indirect -- those induced jobs. and so when you make a commitment you say hey, we will pledge a full 75% of the pipe for the project is going to come from north america i think that that's important. and it was important enough that trans-canada announced this three years ago. so this is not just something that they have decided oh, in order to help facilitate this, we're going to -- we're going to say 75%. they made this commitment a while ago. now, here in congress we passed the "buy american act," and that act specifically is applied to projects that are federally funded.

but, keep in mind here, when we're talking about keystone x.l., this is a private project. keystone x.l. gets no subsidies. it will receive no taxpayer dollars. it will be built to the government's spesifications. and we've seen that -- when you look to that final seis where the additional mitigation measures that are required once the permit is approved, it will be built to government specifications but i don't think that the government should decide what it is actually built with. we're going to define the parameters in terms of mitigation. but, again, this is a private project. this is -- receives no federal funds and so it is -- it would be somewhat precedent-setting. so i asked the congressional

research service to see can you identify for me any other projects where the congress has sought to force or direct private parties a private company, to purchase domestic goods and materials? so all the materials that go into it, not just the steel but everything else in there -- and they've been looking. they've been looking. they've got some pretty sharp folks over there at c.r.s. so far they have not been able to come up with an example in our laws. so i'm concerned about this, quite honestly. as much as i support buy american and making sure that we receive the benefit of these jobs from creating these products. but i'm concerned about the congress setting a press sent here. i think -- a precedent here. i think it puts us on a potentially pretty slipe slippery slope. so if we're going to set the

precedent here for keystone x.l. why would wouldn't we do it for other projects? on wind turbines. i know some of my colleagues in other states, where they're manufacturing good wind turbines. is that a policy that we're going it take on where we're going to say nope, it's an important industry, it's an important sector and so we're going to require it be all made in america? if that's the case, why not on our vehicles, on our autos? why not everything? i worry about that. i worry about the precedent. i worry about kind of where we go beyond keystone x.l., if that's the requirement. and i think it's also important to listen to industries industry's perspective on this. the american oil and steel

institute have been a huge supporter of keystone x.l. for years now. and they've got major producers like u.s. steel. they have got 125 major producers. right after we came into session, before this amendment was even filed the american iron and steel institute sent every one of us a steel gram reiterating their support for keystone x.l., and their letter is pretty definite. they don't -- they're not nuanced about it. they say, it is essential that congress act to ensure the approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline without further delay. so i think we should listen to those words. those words aren't coming from trans-canada they're not coming from an oil company. they are coming from

associations and workers around the country who believe earnestly and honestly that construction of this pipeline will be good for this country it'll be good for these families. so let's listen to them, and let's agree that 2,310 days and counting is more than enough time to make a decision. we saw the supreme court of nebraska come out with their determination that what had -- the decision that had come out of nebraska was not unconstitutional so it clears away that excuse, if you will, or that reason to say we can't move forward. there's really nothing holding up a decision at this point in time other than the president's

unwillingness to do so. so i think if we want to move forward provide good jobs -- and we've had the debate about how many jobs are really created. is it the 42,100 that the final seis states in terms of direct and indirect jobs? is -- if you want to just focus on the permanent jobs -- you know, that is definitely a much lower number, 35 to 50 permanent. but, you know what? when you build something the opportunity for good, honest work for well-paying jobs, for welders, for truck drivers for operators, people are looking for alookingfor an opportunity like this. they want to be part of i would abouting something.

i can tell you in arks in alaska, when we're debating how we're going to move our natural gas to market and how we're going to build this natural gas pipeline that will move this, nobody is saying we can't build this because it's only going to be temporary construction jobs. that's not what they're talking about. they know that there is benefit there. and they're hoping that they're going to be part of that benefit. so when we talk about where we are with some of these amendments coming forward i think -- i think it's good to have this debate. i think it's good to have this disawtiondiscussion whether it's talking about exports because that's a legitimate part of the discussion talking about requirements that may be placed on construction. but i think we have to remember, we are not the zoning board here

in the senate or in the congress. this bill doesn't have anything to do with siting. we are not determining the route. that is what the states do, and rightly so. what this bill does, what this two-page 400-word bill does is approve the issuance of that permit to allow for construction construction. but we're not -- we're not -- we are not the ones that is determining, this is the way the line goes. and i would urge colleagues, look -- look critically at the language. see wheact exactly what it does. understand that when we're talking about the benefits and burdens of a pipeline, it is true: pipelines are not 100%

fail-safe. not much that we build is 100% fail-safe. but what we try to do at every turn at every opportunity is to make it as close as possible. but when you look from a safety perspective, interest an environment perspective the safest and the most environmentally sound way to move this oil is in a pipeline. it's not putting it in rail to other parts of the country. i.t. notit's not putting it on the roads, as we're seeing. and those are the options right now, mr. president. because whether or not people in this body or across the chamber here object canada is accessing

their resource. they are accessing their resource and they will move their resource. and right now the wait that they're moving it is in a way quite honestly, adds to emissions, has greater -- greater potential for a spill for an environmental incident. so i'm looking at it from the perperspective of canada is going to move that. they have made it very clear. in fact, there was an article just yesterday -- actually it was a couple days ago now -- out of the "wall street journal" and it's talking about the impact of lower oil prices and the impact on what is happening in canada as an oil producer. are they slowing down their production in response to lower oil prices?

absolutely not. what we're seeing is almost a -- not a -- i don't want to describe it as double downing because that's an inaccurate phrase. but what we're seeing is continued -- continued effort within canada to access their oil resources. and some of the statements that are made by some of the canadian oil companies i think are really quite telling. they say that -- that canadian natural -- canadian natural is an oil company -- will ensure the oil sands will continue adding to the global glut for a long time to come, regardless of the price of crude. they go on to say it's not

well-understood just how robust the oil sands are. if you stopped expansion of the oil sands tornlings you'd have no declining in the production for decade. few in canada envision scaling back problems at their oil sand operation. so what we're seeing is, there was -- there was big investment up front with the oil sands in canada and accessing a resource that is plentiful but if you are to believe some of the statements from these canadian companies they're going to continue to produce their resource. even if the face of what we're seeing with declining world oil prices. so if canada is going to continue to produce how is that

product going to be moved? i would rather it be moved safely through a pipeline with fewer emissions through a pipeline and to a part of the country where we are set up to accommodate that resource in our refineries so that we can real estate fine that product -- so that we can refine that product to our benefit. to me, that makes sense. so we will have good and -- excuse the pun -- energetic debate about amendments in these coming days. i think you can see from my comments we're going to have some amendments that i like and some that i'm not supporting. but what i am looking forward to is the fact that we are at a point that we're describing as regular orders, going to be voting on amendments, perhaps quite a few as we move towards

final passage of this bipartisan bill. and i look forward to the exchange that we will have. with that, mr. president i thank you for your attention and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized. mr. hoeven: thank you mr. president. i'm very pleased to join my colleague this morning and the chairman of our energy committee, the senator from alaska is doing a fantastic job leading our energy committee. and i so appreciate her leadership on the committee her knowledge of energy and her words this morning very well spoken and i think really goes to the heart of what we're 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 actually get the people in our

community to vote. republican and democrat alike we're saying bring your amendments 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's the way it's supposed to work around here. we're encouraging our colleagues to join with us and get the work done that the american people want done. again, i'd like to thank our energy chairman for setting that in motion. that's the right way to do business. that's what we're elected to do. that's working to get something done for the american people that sent us here for that very reason. when you look at what's going on in energy today you've got to feel fretty good about it -- pretty good about it. and if not drive over to the gas station and fill your car because gas prices at the pump are about $1 lower than they

were this time a year ago. if you equated that savings that our consumers are receiving at the pump to a tax cut it would be more than a $100 billion tax cut for hardworking americans. that's pretty exciting. that's pretty exciting. that didn't just happen and it certainly didn't happen because opec venezuela or russia decided they want to cut us a break, cut hardworking americans, hardworking taxpayers, consumers, small businesses across this country a break. it happened because we're producing more energy in this country and we're 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 or oil equivalents. oil and oil equivalents and produce about 11 million of those barrels here domestically. and we're up to about 3 million. of the 7 million we import,

about 3 million comes from canada. we're down to importing about 4 million barrels a day from other sources. if we stay on this track build the necessary energy infrastructure like the keystone x.l. pipeline, and we continue to build good business climate 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 security meaning we produce more energy here and at home with canada than we consume. then we're in the driver's seat. not opec. then america is in the driver's seat. if we block projects like we're debating right now then we put opec back in the driver's seat. when they hear our president say he's going to continue to block this project or veto this legislation if we're able to pass it with a strong bipartisan majority that's music to opec's ears because that puts them back in the saddle and that's what they want. but we work for america and that's why we need to continue

to move forward and build this exciting energy future for our country that we're building. it's energy. it's jobs. it's economic growth. this project will create hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue state local and federal to help reduce debt and deficit. that's a huge and important impact of the project. and of course it is about national security with energy security. i want to emphasize that again because that is doing the work that the american people sent us here to do. but for the opponents a couple things i've heard this morning and i hear on an ongoing basis and one 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 is doing this project in any way prevent us from doing any renewable project that we ought to do? let's do those renewable projects. in my home state we use steam from coal plants to produce biofuels to power biofuel

plants. we use the wastewater from some of our communities in those biofuels plants. we have wind energy. we have geothermal. ethanol, biodiesel. and we're now the second largest oil producing state in the country, produce 1.2 million barrels a day second only to texas. they're not mutually exclusive. let's do it all. how does holding up one enable us to do the other? it doesn't. when i hear this argument we ought to do other things, let's do them. but this project just helps us. it provides more energy. let's do the other too. arguing 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 i hear of course a lot from the critics and opponents is the environmental argument. and again i say look at the facts, go back to the science. the report itself says no

significant environmental impact. that's the report done by the obama administration, the environmental impact statement that's designed to look specifically at the environmental impacts that have been done over the course of six years. they have produced not one not two, not three but five reports, three draft reports two final reports and the results are in the report, keystone x.l. pipeline will have no significant environmental impact. and in fact, in fact we have higher greenhouse gases without the pipeline than we do with it. or if somehow they manage, critics manage to block that, then it would go to china. we would have pipelines built to the west coast of canada and the oil would go to china. it would go in tanker ships be refined in refineries that have higher emissions. however you slice it without the

pipeline you have higher greenhouse gas emissions. but here's what i want to touch on for just a few minutes today and i'll 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 got a major project up thrvment shell's got a major project up there. exxon project is the curl project. the shell project is the quest project. in both cases they're bringing down the greenhouse gas emissions of the oil sands by investing in new technologies, in co-generation it carbon capture and storage. hundreds of millions, billions of dollars that's 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's adopted in other places. it's adopted here in this country. it might be adopted in places like 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, efficient ways, more environmentally friendly ways to produce that energy, that technology that is adopted around the world. in other words they're finding solutions to some of the concerns that are being raised on the environmental front by the very critics of this project. instead of stopping that investment and that advancement why don't we find ways to continue to develop it which is not only a benefit in the oil sands in alberta but it's a benefit that we can utilize to produce energy this this country and other places around the globe. that's true for oil true for gas. that's true for all fossil fuel energies. that's 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 you know what? deloitte very technologies that -- deploy the very technologies that give us the environmental stewardship we want. when we block these projects, when we prevent the investment, when we won't let them build the infrastructure you bring all that to a grinding stop. why would we do that? it doesn't make sense thrvment's thrvment's -- it's not one penny of u.s. taxpayer dollar going into this project. it is private investment. why wouldn't we want the private investment that helps us build the infrastructure and develop and deploy the technology that gives us better environmental stewardship? isn't that what it's all about? isn't that why our power plants

and our energy production in this country is light-years ahead of what they're doing in countries around the world where in many cases they're still using third world type energy approaches. let's lead the way forward in technology. let's empower that to happen. and because i note that time is wrapping up here, i'll come back to the floor next week. but i'm going to talk about the hundreds of millions that are being invested in the curl project, which is exxon is doing that project. and also in the quest project. shell is doing that project. and they're working with the provincial government in alberta to develop carbon capture and storage, something we talk all the time about wanting to do, and here we've got private companies working to put hundreds of millions into developing that technology. since 1990 -- since 1990 the greenhouse gas emissions for the

production of oil in the oil sands has come down 28% been reduced almost by a third. and they're 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 higher foots print and you don't have that investment in technologies, that kind of investment in stewardship. let's talk about this issue in a way that advances the ball and do it the right way where we get the energy, the jobs, the economic growth, we build our relationship with canada rather than saying no, we're not going to work with you guys, and at the same time get better environmental stewardship. we can do it. let's do it. mr. president, with