tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 18, 2014 8:00pm-10:01pm EST
including my initial partner in this effort, congressman jim sensenbrenner. they've been true partners in this reform effort, like senators franken and blumenthal, feinstein and others who worked with me on transparency and the fisa court reforms in here. now, we fight to protect our privacy rights. they mean a great deal to us. every vermonter does. every vermonter feels that way. in this lifelong vermonter will not give up the fight. i owe that to the vermonters i serve
and the constitution i swore an oath to defend. i would say to those both in this chamber and outside who went at this issue by fomenting
fear, fomenting fear stifles serious debate and constructive solutions. that the carefully drawn reforms in this bill, doing it at the last minute is all the more regrettable. this nation deserves more than that. this nation should not allow our liberties to be set aside by passing fears. america will always face the threat of terrorist attacks both outside our borders and inside. we didn't do away with all our
civil liberties after the oklahoma city bombing, even though that was an american who did that, someone who had served in our military, churchgoing, so forth. no more should we do it if the attacks come from outside our country. we talk about 9/11, we have all
the evidence necessary to stop 9/11 before it happened. everybody who has looked at that now agrees, that bothered to translate the material we had, if had bothered to listen to people in minnesota who tried to warn about it, we could have stopped that. but because mistakes were made then, let's not take away the liberties of 325 million americans. i've felt this way when i was
a prosecutor, we even had people sustain from prison with the intent to kill me. i said okay, we'll get them, but we'll follow the law in doing it, and we did. today as the united states senator is one who 13 years ago this week a letter was sent to
me, addressed to me, it was so deadly with the anthrax in it that one person who touched the envelope addressed to me that i was supposed to open, they died. they died from that. and we still don't -- haven't caught all the people involved with that. but notwithstanding that, mr. president, when people came to me and said, well,
maybe we should do away with some of our search and seizure, maybe we should do away with our laws and wiretap, after all, somebody tried to kill you, and if you had touched that envelope, would you have died. i said no. this is more than one senator, more than one person, more than one individual. this is the constitution of the united states. and if we, the 100 members of this body, do not protect our
constitution, we do not protect our country, and we do not deserve to be in this body. mr. president, i will continue to fight,
and whatever years i have left in this body, i will continue to fight to preserve our constitution and our rights as americans. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is. mr. reid: i ask consent it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 928. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, pamela pepper of wisconsin to be united states district judge for the eastern
district of wisconsin. mr. reid: there is a cloture motion at the desk i ask the chair to have it reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: colleagues, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close bring the debate on the nomination of pamela pepper of wisconsin to be united states district judge for the eastern district of wisconsin signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names not be necessary. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to are proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 930. the presiding officer: the
question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: brenda k. sannes of new york to be united states district judge for the northern district of new york. mr. reid: mr. president, there's a cloture motion at the desk and i ask that it be ordered reported. the presiding officer: without objection the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of brenda k. sannes of new york to be united states district judge for the northern district of new york signed by 17 senators as --. mr. reid: i ask the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the
mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 1032. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: madeline cox aleo of new jersey to be united states district judge for the district of new jersey. mr. reid: there's a cloture motion at the desk, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. clippings he. the clerk: cloture motion, we
the undersigns senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of madeline cox are a layow of new jersey to be united states district judge signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to conclusion to consider calendar number -- seclusion to consider calendar number 1033. the presiding officer: all the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: wendy beetlestone of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the eastern
district of pennsylvania. mr. reid: there's a cloture motion at the desk the president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of wendy beetlestone of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the eastern district of pennsylvania. signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed calendar number 1034 and move to executive session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it.
the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: victor allen bolden of connecticut to be united states district judge for the district of connecticut. mr. reid: there's a cloture motion at the desk mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of victor allen bolden of connecticut to be united states district judge for the district of connecticut signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names -- i'm sorry. i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to.
mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that we enter into a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the rules committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 577. the clerk: senate resolution 577, permitting the collection of clothing, toys, food and housewares during the holiday season for charitable pucials in senate buildings. -- charitable purposes in senate buildings. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m., november 19. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date. following any leader remarks,
the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each and that the time from 1:00 until 2:00 be under the control of the republicans, 2:00 to 3:00 be under the control of the majority. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned
>> just after the vote, senator mcconnell said one of the first-tifirs first-ti first-tifirs first-ti first-tifirst itim will be on the keystone xl pipeline. here is some talk from the speech. >> we have a total of 56 sponsors that is bipartisan bill. that is the same bill that has been passed in the house of representatives. it was passed on friday. senator cassidy was the sponsor. representative cassidy, excuse
me. sen bill 2280 is approval of the keystone xl pipeline. we have actually passed legislation on the keystone xl pipeline before. this is not if first bill. in 2012, we passed legislation that required the president to make a state department's decision and attached it to the pay roll holiday tax. and the president turned it done. we submitted a number of legislations but this actually has congress agreeing with the keystone xl pipeline. we went back and did the research and under the clause of the constitution, congress has the authority to oversee commerce with foreign powers and other countries.
so in this situation, congress has the authority to approve the keystone xl pipeline crossing the border from canada into united states and that is what was crafted in this legislation. so rather than the president making a national interest, and he is unable to do that and i say that based on his actions. we have been at this for four years trying to get approval. but the project has been in the application process for six years. i was governor of north dakota back in november of 2008 when the company applied for a permit to get approval to build the keystone pipeline.
people making the case. when you look at this project, it is about energy. it is about jobs. it creates tax revenue to reduce the debt. it doesn't cost one penny of federal money or government money. it is about national security by helping us build energy security with our closest friends and ally canada so we don't have to rely on other parts of the world. we can produce energy here at home. it is important in terms of the economy and being competitive in a global economy because energy is truly a foundational sector for all of industry sectors.
this is a national security issue. i see the good senator from vermont is on the floor. he has a bill with handling surveillance given the terrorist threat we face. we help your friend and allies in russia so vladimer putin can't have the aggression he has. it isn't just the jobs or the energy that makes us stronger in a competitive global economy it really is a national security issue. it is long past time to act. it has been six years. six years.
today we will have that debate and i hope at the end of the day we will have the 60 votes we need and we'll find out this evening when we vote. but it comes back to what the american people want. we are representing the american people. and overwhelmingly in poll after poll, 60%, sometimes 70%, they say build the keystone xl pipeline. i hope that is the work we get done today. mr. president, i turn to the good senator from louisiana. >> thank you, mr. president. >> the senator from louisiana. >> i thank my cosponsor and lead sponsor on the bill, former governor and good senator from north dakota who has been a great leader and partner with me
on this. as the american people have absolutely figured out democrats cannot do anything alone and neither with republicans. it has taken us a while to figure it out here in the senate and the house of representatives but the american people figured it out a long time ago. just like they figured out practical things like keeping the roof over their head and food on the table and keeping their kids moving forward through difficulty even. the american people are smart. i trust them, always have and i have been honored to represent 4.5 million people in louisiana and done my best to represent them the time i am hear and hope to continue for years to come. one thing they know that is not true to people here is it takes
both parties compromising to get the job done for them. not for us, but for them. it is interesting to me because the founding i grew up in was about public service, not for ourselves, but for the people we represent. that is why i am on the floor today and have been on the floor dozens of time on this bill and bills similar to this. this is a keystone bill which i supported with senator hogan literally for years. i have a letter from 2011 in fact with oran hatch, who was the lead signer and senator
mcconnell's signature wasn't on the letter, but 15 of us sent the letter in 2011 urging secretary of state hilary clinton, this is how far back it goes, people hardly remember she was secretary of state because now it is john kerry. but a long time ago saying it was really important for us to get the pipeline built for many reasons, but the main reason is it will signal a great sign that america understands that energy independence for our nation is possible for the first time ever. and when i mean energy independence, i mean for the north american continent. we might be able to do it in just the lower 48. we might.
hawaii can contribute some. alaska clearly can contribute a lot. we might be able to do it in the 50 states. but i know beyond a shot out of a doubt that with our partners in canada and mexico this can be done. and north america can be the super energy powerhouse of the planet. why is that important? there are so many reasons i just want to name two and then i am going to sit down and reengage in this debate because barbara boxer who is a lead opponent has indeindicated time on the floor and i have more time today. but this is important because people in louisiana and texas and mississippi and new jersey
want -- what people in south dakot sonia, and illinois and vermont want are good paying jobs. when a country as blessed as we are uses its resources wisely to create wealth, not just for those at the top which is happening right now. the people at the top are doing great. the fancy restaurants i walk by and see and sometimes i am in them. people are drinking campagna and buying cars and people see that. but the people in the middle class and the country are really stungling and so our job here as leaders is to have our eyes on them. providing for them. and these energy jobs are not minimum wage jobs. they are not $15 an hour jobs.
they are $45 an hour job. our labor men and women who represent the middle class, some uni unionized and some not, but all hard working, how would we know? because i stood in line at them with four or five in the morning at a shift change and did it a lot during election times. i felt their hands. i know how cold they are in the morning and how rough they are because they work all day. they would expect us to work longer because we are short weeks. tuesday-thursday with long lunch hours and weekends. most americans think we have lost it because they work hard from morning until night. their hands are tough. and they expect us to stand up for them.
that is why i am standing here. so i have been fighting for this because of energy independence for american and i know about that because texas, louisiana, oklahoma -- our area of the country are proud producers of energy. we produce mostly oil, gas, a little coal and generate a lot and just fyi to everybody that thinks this pipeline is the end of the world, we have 2.6 million miles of pipes in america. 2.6 million miles of pipes. we are only completing a thousand miles. what is everybody upset about? we have been building pipelines in this country for a long, long time and we need to build this one. this is about energy independence and jobs. that is why i am here. this is what the people want and i am going to close this up. for the 25th time at least i
want to say this because i want the record of the congress to reflect this because it is the truth whether people acknowledge it or not. the record of this congress will reflect this to be the truth. that some of us, not just my, have worked to get this bill to the floor for years and it was blocked by both majority leader harry reid and minority leader mitch mcconnell for their own political reasons. those reasons cleared up after the election. mitch mcconnell couldn't bring it to the floor without voting on the epa coal regulation and she would not allow the vote because she is opposed to having a vote on the epa. i respect that and i respect her
and everyone knows that is the truth. harry reid didn't want the vote to come up because one or two members of the caucus had a serious issue this being voted on. i knew that. and there is a part of the team and i try to be part of the team but i knew that the results of the election with the senator mcconnell winning and some of the senators, unfortunately my dearest friends loosing, that we had an opportunity. and i took that opportunity. i called for this vote. not harry reid. not mitch mcconnell. i called for it. i think it is worth fighting for it. i am telling you the last thing i want to say. thanksgiving and christmas are coming up and it is a shame that this congress hasn't delivered more in the last 5-6 years for the middle class. we say we try. i am not sure we are trying hard enough. so i am going to lead by
example. it was the way i was raised. we are going to try today. one of the first debates i have been in in eight years at least where the outcome is uncertain because all of the rest is pre-set, preordained and teat theater for the team. i brought it to the floor knowing in my heart we have 60 vote and i hope we have the courage that supports us. i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> senator from california. >> thank you so much. i will be controlling the time and very strong opposition to this and before i yield the photo on our side was senator
l landrieu. she is the only reason we are debating this today. so anyone who wants to play games about this, and name this bill the cassidy bill, which kind of is a joke, because i believe i am correct he introduced it november 12th of this year, set that politics aside. let the record be clear forever that this debate wasn't being before this body were it not for senator landrieu's insistence. i want to be clear. secondally, i think you will hear a terrific debate today. because the people who support this think not only this is a good thing for the country to build the keystone xl pipeline, they think it is great think for this country.
and i have great respect for them. on the other side, we have those of us who say it isn't a good thing for the country. to me this keystone xl pipeline is extra lethal. my debate will show why as you analyze the oil that is coming into the nation 45% more than we have now and the risky business that it is proven to be. and what the health cost are for our people. and that is not me. that is nurses and doctors saying so.
i have not gotten into climate and all of other issues. so i yield five minute to my friend at this point. >> senator from vermont. >> mr. president, i know the distinguished senator from louisiana has the majority of the votes in the body for the keystone xl pipeline and that is a compliment to her hard work and gain besides the majority and minority votes.
we feel this pipeline won't lead us toward moving forward. the tar sands require an energy intensive process complete were harmful pollution to get them from the ground, extract them and refine them. despite the first year of operation the existing keystone xl pipeline was built as you recall to be the safest pipeline in history was build in 2010 has spilled 12 times in the first year of operation. that is more than any other pipeline in u.s. history. and the tar sands are harder to clean up. communities along the kalamazoo river in michigan. it has cost $1 billion so far to clean up the tar sands spill in 2010. and more than four years later,
mr. president, a distinguished leader responded to an act but was too busy to respond to questions even though asked. i would note that the disclosure, the fact that section 215 of the patriot act that lowed bulk collection of phone records, this came upon after numerous congressional hearings including six public hearings in the senate judiciary committee. it is not keeping the country safe. we have wide bipartisan agreement in the senate and house that bulk phone records
program is not essential, it violates america's privacy and has to end, so our question is when and how. this legislation is a result of several months of intense discussion with the intelligence community and stakeholders across the political spectrum and the support of the director of national integration, the attorney general, american technology company, privacy and civil liberty groups raising from the aclu to even the nra and the director of the nsa in small pockets support it. let's get it done now when it can be done. and i would ask both make my
full statement part of the record and i ask consent to several editorials for the act of 2014 be put in the record. >> without objection. >> i would yield the floor and say distinguish senator from california for giving us his time. time. the presiding officer: the senator from sopher -- senator from california. >> i thank the distinguished chairman of the judiciary
committee. they mean a lot. i want to put this vote into perspective. this is a major decision. people say it is as a big pipeline, we build them all of the time. well this is a major decision. and i know that each of us regardless of our party or before we cast a major vote we think is our vote going to make our life better for people we represent and the people who count on us every day and i will do everything in pie my power to make the case that building the keystone xl pipeline tar sand pipeline will make life worse for the people rerepresent and those generations to follow because i think i will prove to you today that misery follows the tar sands. i said before, it is called
keystone xl. extra lethal. not extra large. but extra lethal. senators should ask themselves three questions before they cast their vote on the hoving landrieu bill. first, why does it make any sense for the senate to force the approval of a project that would bring millions of the dirtiest pollution you can think of into america? why do we want to bring barrels of america? this isn't an ordinary pipeline. this pipeline is carrying tar sands oil, which is in fact the most polluted kind of oil. and i'm going to tell you why. this isn't hyperbole. tar sands oil contains levels of toxic
pollutants and metals that are much higher than conventional crude oil. and i want to make this case. president obama said, when he became president, that he would do everything in his power to make us energy-efficient and to make us energy-independent, and he has worked on bodg both fron. we have seen a tremendous r hav in domestic oil production. hav it is not tar sand oil. it is not faciliilthy oil. the tar sand has 11 times more sulfur and nickel. six times more nitrogen and five times more lead. so? let me say that again. before we invite a 45% increase
in this oil let's look at the tar sand. it has more sulfur, nickel, n nitrogen and lead. and in the course of my presentation i will show what happens in places like port arthur, texas when this oil is refined. what i am trying to impress thon body today is i am proving the points i am making. the facts are the facts are the facts. this is what it looks like in port arthur, texas. and this is what the kids have to put up with. here is a playground in a low income community and i had the
activist from port arthur saying police protect us from this -- please -- oil. now, these dangerous pollutants i sited and the metals are very harmful to metal health. sulfur penetrates deeply into the lungs and causes disease like broncitis and you will not hear about this from the proponents. but that is why i stand with the public nurses and doctors to say time-out what are we doing to the people who we are saying we are helping with the tar sands. it aggravates health disease and
increases sim symptoms in asmaw. half the class raise the hands and tar sands will increase that. we know the dangers of led. it adversely affected the immune system and the cardio vascular system. the keystone extra lethal pipeline. we are talking about huge quantities coming through the pipeline. 830,000 barrels coming across the canadian border heading to
the gulf region every day. a 45% increase in the tar sands oil. a 45% increase in those heavy metals and dangerous pollutants. and this could be just the beginning. we already know again, misery following the tar sands from the extraction to the transportation to the refining, to the waste disposal. this is as a picture of petroleum coke. can you show me? environmental justice question again. because what we have is this is what is left after the refining and it is sent all across the country. and this is a picture of pet-co in we believe chicago. senator durbin is going to talk more about this. but this is a serious
environmental hazard. the prison in this residue in a wind storm just blows around and we have stories in the press, in chicago, of a little league game being interrupted because of the pet-coke was growing all over the field and the kids were getting pitch black from this. so, yes, i have stood with doctors and nurses and people in these communities who have faced harm along each step of the tar sands. these are cancer-causing polluta pollutants. so when someone says this is nothing. this is a pipeline. we have a lot of pipelines. this is nothing.
why are you fighting? why did i demand three hours of opposition? this is a dangerous project. why should we vote to force the approval of a project that will bring this dirty polluted tar sand in the united states when we know it is the most difficult type of oil to clean up in case of a spill. according to the epa, tar sand oil creates especially difficult challenges to cleanup when the pipelines rupture because it is so heavy it sinks to the bottom of the water. look at the spill in michigan's county due river in 2010, which they still haven't cleaned up. 2010. and in may flower, arkansas, we will show you a picture from
2013. these spills are not cleaned up. this came into residential communities. so, again, dirty, filthy oil, and the toughest to cleanup in case of a spill and we know as sure as i am standing here if this is build there will be a spill because that happens. it happened in 2010 and in 2013. now, of the projected 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil, most of it isn't going to go to our domestic use and that is the other question. why would you want to bring this dirty polluted tar sand oil that you cannot cleanup into our country if practically all of it is going to be exported?
and we will have to bear the burdens of the refining, the filth in the air, the pet coke in the cities as we see the product being exported to other countries. now, i could stop here. i am not sure the proponents which i would but if you are not convinced this is an enormous mistake i have five reasons. a deeper look at the health of your people. i have already said tar sands filthy oil and i stood with nurses and doctors to take this point that downwind from the tar sands extraction sights in canada significantly higher
levels of dangerous pollutants and cancer causing agents are higher. people are suffering. i met them. i talked to them on the phone and they flew down here to stand by my side to call attention. people are suffering higher rates of cancer in nearby communities linked to toxic chemicals including leukemia and non-hod non-hodkins lymphoma. no one wants to talk about it but i am going to talk about it. and i am going to enter into the record a university of california irvine university of michigan study documenting
elevated tar sands and this was an article peer review december 2013 if i may place this in the record. >> without objection. >> once it leaves canada and and it is transported to the united states to tar sands will increase the communities that are already plagued like port arthur. it is already refining tar sands oil there. this is going to greatly increase the amount of toxins going to be refined. and they are on the epa's list of city's with dangerous ozone levels, people serving from asthma, cancer and skin irritation. the oil company and the koch brothers and my republicans
friends are not going to tellia about this. but i will. tar sands will add another threat to port author and other communities that are already in distress and i would ask consent to place into the record an article describing health problems experienced my families living near port arthur refineries and it is entitled everyone deserves clean air and equal protection from pollution dated august 12, 2014. may i place that in the record? >> without objection. >> thank you. to get to the golf coast, it will be transmitted through areas in six states and we know how harmful this would be
because of how hard it is to cleanup after the spill. and we know about the pet coke. i have shown you that. it is black dust containing some heavy metals. some heavy metals. open piles of this w ...n piles of this w as to appear at unprecedented levels in midwestern communities and it has sparked health and environmental krn concerns in my neighborhoods in detroit and chicago. now, could we show that -- let's take this down. and shoand show the chicago pice again. so in this chicago neighborhood, billowing black clouds of pet coke forced little league players off the baseball field. the children were forced to seek cover from the clouds of black dust that pelted homes and cars. according to the one newspaper, "kids that were playing ball
were sent scurrying away because the stuff was getting into their the stuff was getting into their on to their faces and in their mid-michigans and everything. they just had to get the heck out of there. and i'd like to enter into the record at this time an article that says, quote, in chicago, piles of petroleum coke suggest the future of canadian tar sands oil dated november 18th, 2013. me a i place that in the record as well? >> without objection. >> thank you. now, when this pet coke started to blow across the communities, residents felt they could not safely open their windows during the summer, for fear the black crowds would trigger their children's asthma, for good reason. this type of pollution can
increase the number or severity of asthma attacks and contributes to other lung diseases. asthma. the federal government has said asthma has become a national epidemic. this is a picture of a little girl who is having a hard time breathing. i say to my friend from kansas, i have another 15 minutes, just for his information. so this is the photo of a little girl who is having difficulty breathing because she has asthma. the federal government has said, asthma has become, and i'm quoting, a national epidemic, which affects one out of every 12 people or 26 million americans and seven million of these are children. we don't need more asthma. american communities don't need more pet coke.
but, my republican friends aren't going to talk to you about asthma. they're not going to quote the oil companies saying what a great job their doing preventing it. ultimately the keystone tar sands pipeline decision should be based on whether the project is in the national interest. so, today i ask rhetorically of my colleagues, how are more americans with asthma in the national interest? how are more americans with cancer in the national interest? how is it in the national interest when kids playing baseball have to duck and cover from dangerous pollution. the health of our children and our families are at stake. and we have a right to know how tar sands oil would affect our health. and unfortunately, we don't have all the information we need to have. senator whitehouse and i wrote
to secretary john kerry asking for a comprehensive health impact study on our tar sands -- on the tar sands oil, and how the keystone pipeline will impact the health of communities across the nation. we don't have the studies. now, again, senator whitehouse and i, we're not physicians. that's why we stood with the nurses and the doctors, the nurses, a gallup poll has found that 12 years in a row, that nursing is the most trusted profession. okay? so the national nurses unitedwht professional association of registered nurses, 185,000 strong, they joined our call for a comprehensive health study, and we have their letter, mr. president, if i might put it into the record. >> without objection. >> the nurses concur with senators boxer and whitehouse that what is nobody today about
the health hards associated with the expansion of tar sands is just a sampling and they believe the consequences of the keystone xl have been substantially ignored in state department's final eis and it needs to be addressed. the american public health association wrote us a letter. i ask unanimous consent to place that in the record as well. >> without objection. >> they say the same thing. there's an increasing recognition that the environment in which people live, work, and learn, have tremendous impact on their health. the administration will certainly benefit by having a better understanding how the proposed keystone pipeline could impact the public health. and they go on to say the full spectrum of health considerations are often overlook citied their opolice can lead to policies and practices that are unnecessarily harmful to the public health. now, maybe senators feel they
know more than doctors or nurses. maybe they do. good luck. they don't. and we should listen to doctors and nurses, just like we should listen to scientists when day talk to us about climate change. the whole thing, i'm not a scientist. that's right, you're not, republicans. so, listen to the scientists. this answer is perplexing to me. if you're not a scientist, then be humble and listen to the peer-reviewed scientists. i if you're not a doctor or nurse, be humble. they don't have a special interest. they have an interest in giving us information we should base our decisions upon. now i'm going to talk about the environment. you know, this pipeline is going to go through the owing la la, a
would fur, one of the largest sources of underground fresh water. it provides water to farms in eight state us, accounting for a quarter of the nation's cropland as will as municipal drinking wells. remember what i told you before. that when this oil gets into water, it is the most difficult oil to clean up because it's so heavy. there's over 2,000 wells within a mile of the pipeline, including 39 water public supply wells, 23 private wells in the pipeline rate of way. if the pipeline to look it would seep into the sandy soil and contaminate water supply for millions of people. i have already shown you a spill in arkansas. these spills happen. now, if a spill occurred near
any of these aquifers it would be tragic. local residents know the harm the pipeline can cause. i'll show you pictures of locals objecting to the pipeline. in april a group of rankers, farmers, and tribal leaders, gathered in washington, dc for a rally. they wanted to send a strong signal to congress that they want their way of life protected. their farms, their tribal lands, and their ranches. now, you're going to hear from tar sands proponents that the keystone pipeline will be safe, it will be a safe alternative to rail shipment of oil. but experience tells us otherwise. in 2010 that pipeline ruptured, spilled over a million gallons in michigan. the local health department ordered evacuation of 50
households. approximately 100 families were advised not to drink water. one resident living near the kalamazoo river had to abandon her home because the stench from the spill made her dizzy and nauseous and sick. classic sign of cute exposure to toxins. another resident who was pregnant said she cooperate breathe, quote, my eyes were burning, my nose was burning. it smelled like a diesel tanker turned over in front of my house, unquote. now, you will not hear this this from the proponents. the michigan spill was the largest inland spill in history, and more than four years and a billion later, it is not cleaned up. this summer parts of the kalamazoo river were closed as dredging efforts continue to remove oil from the bottom of the river. and i talk to you about
arkansas. residents were exposed to benzene, a known carcinogen, hydrogen sulfide. people suffered, dizziness, nausea, headaches, respiratory problems, classic effects from chemicals found in tar sands. there's a section of the pipeline in the gulf region. it's already experiencing problems that could result in another pipeline spill, but you won't hear that from the proponents. according to bloomberg business week, the pipeline and hazardous material and safety administration, finsa, found a systemic problem with substandard wells on portion of the pipeline. in fact, during one week when the pipeline was being monitored, regulators found that over 70% of the wells were flawed and required repair. senators should pay attention to the facts.
people are sick around the tar sands. when it spills, it threatens their way of life, harms them physically, all you have to look to is the evidence to see that xl stands for extra lethal, and misery follows the tar sands. now, i'm going to talk about climate. i want to explain here that once we begin transporting the dirty tar sands oil, through that pipeline, it would unleash more carbon pollution and harm our nation's effort to address the dangerous climate change. the state department says a barrel of tar sands oil would create at least 17% more carbon pollution than domestic oil. the state department says, compared to average crude oil, burning the amount of tar sands oil from keystone extra lethal
pipeline could add an additional 27.4 metric tons -- i'm sorry -- would add an additional 27.4 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year. now, that is a fact. you don't hear the proponents talk about that. i know, we have a senator from hawai'i who has taken over the chair. he knows what climate change is doing to hawai'i already. i was in the state. i took a tour. i was at a conference that he organized. and we know, we can't afford this. if we allow this to happen, we would see the carbon pollution that you would get from adding 5.8 million new cars to the road, or wiping out the carbon
pollution reductions we gained from the first round of fuel economy improvement for heavy duty trucks. wiped out. wiped out. and i believe this is a fact that, if we do this, we'd see the equivalent of eight new coal-fired plants, and those are dirty. eight new coal-five-ed plants, the equivalent of what we would be getting here in terms of carbon pollution. every year. in august 2014, study in the peer review journal nature climate change, estimated the increase in oil consumption called by keystone xl would result in up to 110 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year. that is four times the state department's high-end estimates. now, i said, eight coal-fired planting are right? this peer review study says it's
29. so, mr. president, we have two estimates, one says it's the equivalent of building eight new dirty coal-fired power plants, and another peer review study that said it would be equal to building 29 new coal-fired power plants here in the u.s. 29. think about it in your mind's eye. all you need to do is look at china to see what happens when you throw the environment under the bus. is this the kind of world we want to see for our kids? is this the future? this isn't hyperbole. this is a picture of what -- i was in china. in a fantastic trade trip. and i never saw the sun for ten days, save for one day when it sort of peeked out, and guide
said, isn't it a beautiful day? no, it wasn't a beautiful day at all. there was like a semblance of a little sun behind a cloud. why do you think people love the environmental protection agency in our country? 70% strong. it's because they know this could be america. you throw the environment under the bus, this is what it will look like. now, some of my colleagues they don't want to eight on climate change, especially my republican colleagues. i don't know of a one that's ready. and they say, well, china is building cole-fired plants but the president just came back and the president did have an agreement with china to move forward because the chinese people can't live like this either anymore. and the social unrest that is
the big fear of beijing that starts to bubble up, has a lot to do with this. we have had a breakthrough agreement. would this be the time, in the face of this progress to approve this pipeline? i say, it's ridiculous timing. it's ridiculous. i remember a time when saving the environment was bipartisan. i remember leaders like john heavy, john warner, now i don't see one republican ready to step forward and say, it's time to put a price on this pollution. and stop this pollution. my state has done it. oh, my state is doing great. just great. new jobs. and i'll put some information into the record on that.
now, canada's natural resource minister said, quote in order for crude oil production to grow the north american pipeline network must be expanded. so, we know this is just the start. now climate. everyone can say what they will. i'm not a scientist. i don't know. over the past few months we have seen everything from the hottest august, the hottest september on record, and the hottest october on record. we have seen historic droughts and extreme wildfires. i've seen them in my state. we have seen vanishing wildlife habitat in alaska. toxic algaeblomming out of control in contanimating drinking water supplies in toledo, house, because the water is getting hot, and the algae that couldn't survive in the colder waters, survive in the
warmer waters. we see these wakeup calls every day. but instead of confronting that crisis, we have the party of "no" saying, no, i'm not a scientist, and, no, i won't listen to them, and, we do not think, and this project does the opposite. it makes matters worse. now, there's a lot of talk about how we need this oil to become an energy independent. let me tell you something. we're going to see gas prices go up if this goes forward and i'll explain why. this is from an economists, not from me. and it is not a win for america. big oil will be the winners. you have to know, u.s. gasoline demand is on the decline, and economists say it will continue to be through 2040, and since
2011 the u.s. has exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported. so, big oil will be the big winners here if this project moves forward. not american workers or families filling up at the gas pump. the reality is, keystone extra lethal will increase the price americans pay for gas at the pump, and it's cheaper to buy gas in the midwest today than it would be if the pipeline were built. that is because moving tar sands oil to the gulf coast gives it access to international markets, which will increase the price canadians can charge for it. so, right now that oil stays in america, now it's going to be pumped out and can get higher prices and our prices are going to go up. the exports will reduce the supply of gasoline right here in america and drive up the price. and a bloomberg reported earlier
this year, three separate studies have shown keystone xl pipeline could raise domestic prices by 20 cents to 40 cents, because it would divert canadian oil away from refineries in the midwest, where it's easier to export. gulf coast refiners plan to process the cheech canadian tar sands crude that would be supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export. during congressional hearings at the end of 2011, my senate colleague, then congressman ed markey, who is now a member of our environment committee, senator markey, asked transcanada's pipeline head if the company would commit to keeping the canadian oil and refined products in the united states, quote so that this country realizes all of the energy security benefits your company have promised. mr. -- i can't pronounce his name -- porbain said, no, i
can't do that. so the head of transcanada is not promising to keep the oil here and the products here. we know that. so, all this talk, energy independence, let me tell you how you get energy independence. you produce what you can here, and we have been doing that. where it's appropriate. and you also utilize the sun, and the wind, and the geothermal, and the clean energies of the future that, believe me, when you embrace that clean energy agent, you have far more jobs yours don't have pollution, you have safer communities. now, one refinery in port arthur owned by valero is expected to be a major customer for crude oil. let's show that picture of port arthur. because that refinery is in a foreign trade zone, valero can
operate tax free. in the first nine months of this year, valero has reported a net income of 2.475 billion. today you'll also hear from tar sands advocates that's tar sands oil will just be shipped by rail if if the tar sand pipeline isn't built. it's very expensive to ship it by rail and the truth is, that's not a clearcut case. in fact, both the rail companies and tar sands producers that pioneer transported canadian tar sands oil by rail are on the verbal of insolvency because of the high transportation cost. so, don't buy into that. oh, well, if you don't build the pipeline, you just ship it by rail. and then they say it's safer. we know it's not safer. now, we just heard the operator
of the pipeline say, it's 35 permanent jobs. okay? and i don't bee little the 1900 construction jobs for two years that you would have. i don't belittle that. but i can truly tell you, coming from my state and later i'll talk about the successes -- we can dwarf that by the hundreds of thousands, if you really embrace a clean energy economy. the materials needed for the pipeline, that's not a domestic boom. a 2011 analysis found 50% or more of the steel pipe will be manufactured outside of the united states. we need clean energy policies as we know it is appropriate to drill for oil in our country where it's safe. it's appropriate and if we can get the clean coal, it's precipitation, and it's appropriate if you can get to
safe nuclear. the fact of the matter is, this pipeline is going to bring filthy, dirty oil, going to bring misery all across the country. let look at the wind industry. supports over 560 manufacturing facilities, supports over 50,000 full-time jobs in 2013 alone. and that's 50,000 full-time jobs compared to 35 full-time jobs for the pipeline? come on. the solar industry in 2013 employed 142,000 americans. an increase of 24,000 additional jobs just last year. this is the future. not the misery that follows the tar sands. not communities that have to suffer with this filthy, dirty iest of oil, and not having
this pet coke stored all over the midwest where it blows on kids and having kids get asthma. here's the spill. in arkansas. still can't clean it up. it happened in 2013. show me this one. this isn't what we want the future to look like, mr. president. not this. we want the air to be clean. the water to be clean. this is china. this is what happens when you ignore our people who are telling us, they are having increased asthma attacks, increased respiratory disease. you're not going to hear a word about it from my colleagues and they're going to make a jobs argument that falls flat on its face. look, we know climate change is real.
whether someone says they're not a scientist or not, we all know you're not a scientist. i'm not one. climate change is real. unleashing this filthy, dirty oil, unleashes far more carbon and makes the problem worse. you're not going to hear any of that. and you're going to hear things that just aren't true. you're going to hear about all these jobs. 35 permanent jobs compared to thens of thousands in clean energy. you're going to hear this is the greatest thing. you'll hear, oh, it's better to transport it by pipeline than rail, when in fact that is not a fact in evidence they would do that because it's so expensive. they're not going to talk to you about this, the spills.
now, we have a very important process to good through before this pipeline is approved. this legislation derails that process. and that process was established by an executive order and was updated by president george w. bush. before a finding is made as to whether this should go forward the president must consult with experts in many federal agencies to determine whether this pipeline is in the national interests. this includes the department of defense, department of homeland security, and other agencies, before a permit is granted. this spill that is in front of us short circuits this review and cuts off experiment opinions of our military leaders and others when determining whether the pipeline is safe, is it in the interests of the country? is it going to be another target? we need to know. and we don't have the answers on
the full public health implications. i would say also, what is also interesting, is the tar sanded report is glossed over the fact that this bill tramples states' rights. the rights of citizens in south dakota to have a say anywhere state's ongoing proceedings concerning construction of the pipeline. how about this fact. two -- here you see it. these voices have to be heard. i will tell you, two million people submitted comments hope to tar sands project. and passing this bill now does not allow those comments to be given due consideration by our country. now, i'm really surprised at this, given my colleagues who speak of states rights, public comments, local viewpoints. they want to bypass all of this because they have decided that they know better than the two
million people who -- many of whom have to live side-by-side with this pipeline and many of whom would have to breathe the kind of air they're breathing in port arthur, texas, right now. i want to guarantee you this, not one senator in this chamber will live next to a refinery that refines this filthy, dirty oil. not one. and if i have not said something true, please correct the record. tell me. i ill apologize. we don't live near refineries here. i tell you who does. a lot of kids who get asthma, just ask the nurses. if i told you, if we elm brace the clean energy argued we could create far more jobs, be far more healthy, and save this
planet, wouldn't you say yes? i think you would. but, oh, not in this chamber. they listen to big oil, the koch brothers, and these are the people that will profit. they're not going to live next to port arthur refinery. their children aren't going to live there. their grandchildren aren't going to live here. you know, they brush aside these issues. that this is filthy, dirty, oil. the dirtiest, with the most dangerous pollutants, including lead, including sulfur. and i will tell you, when you meet with the citizens of port arthur, texas, as i have done and at the activists there who want to protect the kids, they say please, please, please, we
have enough of this stuff. we don't want anymore. misery follows the tar sands. and that is why i called this pipeline, the keystone xl, extra lethal, pipeline. the evidence is clear, keystone tar sands pipeline will be harmful to our families' health, it will hurt the environment, it will worsen the impact on climate change, it will raise the price of gas, and that is not me. i respect economists, and this is clearly the economists' view. and it's just plane ding -- plain dangerous because it will transport the dirtyest oil on the planet. forcing the approval of the keystone when so many concerns romaine does not allow for the kind of review that our affected communities deserve, and i hope
my colleagues, enough of us, will vote no on this. i see the handwriting on the wall itch could. now know what happens in this chamber i know the votes will eventually be there. this is an issue that impacts the health and safety of our families and our planet. so, if it means i'm going to have to stand up here time and time again to tell the story, of the keystone extra lethal pipeline, i will do it. i will do it. for as long as it takes. if i didn't think it was important i wouldn't do it. and i just hope, if this body does pass this pipeline today, that the president will veto this dangerous legislation. i feel so strongly that the way to a prosperous, job-producing
future, is the embracing of clean energy. yes, we'll continue with our coal, make is at clean as we can, we'll continue with our drilling here, yes, we'll have an all of the above where it's safe to do. we don't need a project that is so harmful to our families, to our communities, i talk to the people in canada who live near this. you won't hear that from my friends. it's all in the record. i hope they read the articles i placed in the the record of the kind of cancers we're seeing around this stuff. i don't want to see a trail of misery extending from one end of the country, that i love, to another. so i hope we'll vote no on this. enough of us will. but if we can't stop it today,
we can't stop it today, then i hope the president will veto this and tell this story of why this trail of misery should not be put upon the american people. one of the biggest shocks i had with meeting those canadians who have been putting up with this, and then meeting the americans who live around these refineries, and hearing from them, what happens, and hearing from my friends from chicago, who remember that story, we're going to close with this. these kids sitting around-getting ready to play. league baseball when all of this petroleum coke stored all over the midwest, just blew and it got into the mouths of these kids, got on their clouts. they ran away.
how could anyone believe that this is what the future should look like? when i can show you case after case on the record, substantiated by the numbers, that clean energy produces far more jobs, far more jobs, and will lead us in the right direction in terms of our health. people don't want to become like china. we don't want to look like this, like this. they don't want to have their air look like this. i come from a state where, before the clean air act -- by the way, was done by republican president, thank you, richard nixon. we had dirty, filthy air you couldn't see a foot in front of you. we cleaned it up. because we stood up to the polluters and said, we know we want to work with you, we want to have your products. do it in a clean manner, do it in a safe manner.
and the epa, again created by the republicans, came in there and cleaned up the air, along with the local people and our states. we have rebounded in california from the recession with clean energy jobs leading the way. we're so proud of it. and our people can still see the sky. i'll tell you, i'm not going in this direction if i have to stan on my feet until they hurt, and as you know, have to wear heels because i'm very little. but i don't care. i'm not going to let us go this direction. no way. so, i hope we defeat this today. if we don't, i hope the president will veto it. and i hope we can move toward a positive bipartisan clean energy agenda that is really the future of this nation, and this planet.
i yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time. >> the senate later voted 59-41 on the keystone xl pipeline bill, failing to it good the 60 votes needed for passage. 14 democratted joined all 45 republicans in voting for the bill. one democrat voting for the bill, senator mary landrieu of louisiana, faces a runoff against congressman bill cass cassie. the u.s.a. today reported the democrats aloud for the vote in order to help her re-election chances. samuels questions the campaign strategy, saying the vote looks like a blatant political maneuver and a desperate attempt to save lan drew's seat. shortly after the vote senator landrieu held a news conference to discuss at the pipeline bill. this is a half hour.
>> good evening. it's been quite a few exciting days on the floor of the senate, and actually i wish there would be more days like this. not only die wish that bit think our colleagues on both sides of the while and the american pub wants more days like this, where we debate honestly, listening to each other, and talking about the importance of getting the job done for middle class families in our country. it's about jobs and economic opportunity. i came here 18 years ago, fighting to get here, fighting to stay here, and i'm going to fight for the people of my state until the day i leave. i hope that will not be soon. i'm going to continue to shake this place up when i can, to identify opportunities as i see
them, to push an important debate forward for not only louisiana, not only my part of the country, but for the entire country, and that is what i did. i have been the lead sponsor of this bill for many years. i have worked side-by-side with senator john haven from north dakota and i am so please ted be joined by two of the most outspoken, fierce, proponents of the keystone xl pipeline, senator joe manchen and hidy. they've been on the point to lon for a long time. i ied do not ask harry reid permission nor mitch mcconnell. i took the floor and used the power that comes from being a senator, rating one of the great states in the nation to force a debate on an issue i feel strongly about and they feel
strongly about for many years. there was a lot of politics going on about this before the election, and i'm talking about in the last several years. not just in the months up to the election, and y'all that have followed this know that as well as i do. but there was an opportunity. this was not on hard are reid's agenda, not on mitch mcconnell's agenda because they told you what they're agenda was and keystone was not on it. but it's on my agenda and is staying on my agenda, and i'm going to do everything i can to help america become energy independent, and to use the assets and the resources that we have, and most importantly, be a partner with our best ally, which is canada, and our very promising new economic partner in mexico. it makes sense for jobs here, jobs in canada, jobs in mexico, and it makes sense for us to stand against the tyrants of this world, which would be putin, and the leaders of china in some ways, and others, that
would force us to negotiate or trade in ways that are not in america's interests. so, for jobs, for economic opportunity, for independence, for energy independence, this fight was worth having, and, joe, i want to thank to you for your extraordinary leadership. now it means a lot to the people of west virginia and i can't tell you how much i appreciate you standing shoulder to shoulder with the coalition. >> let me just say i was proud to stand with mary on this. she let this fight and i was proud be with her. this would be good for every state in the nation when you think about a jobs bill and think about the security of our nation, this bill does it all. we buy 7.7 million barrels per day of oil. from other countries. all you need to do is look up and google and it find out which countries. that doesn't make us secure as a nation. twice help us tremendously. you heard the dialogue down
there, whatever side they were on, on the piece of legislation itch was pound of mary, the fight she led for us, their fight we almost won at 59. it will be another day for that. and i hope the people of louisiana know what a fighter they have in mary lan drew. she is not -- landrieu. she is not afraid to take on -- whether whether it be the president, leaders of her own party, or the establishment, but this is something that needed to be talked about and needed to be debated. mary government that debate for us. we got our say. this day would have never come if it hadn't been for mary leading the charge. with that i just want to say thank you, mary, for the job, you're fighting for the jobs we almost have and jobs we will have. we have to continue to fight for this. hastes not going to go away, nor should it. i've been very proud of the state, one of the most treasured energy states in the nation. represented by one of the best senators in the the nation,
heidi, who understands what economic development means. >> thank you, joe. great thinks to my great friend mary landrieu. this was a discussion about a pipeline. you would have thought it was the end of the earth. you would have thought this was the most significant thing that was happening today in the free world or in the entire world. guess what, it wasn't. this is about a pipeline. this is about whether we're going to build an infrastructure in this country that transports the energy we need. this is about whether we're going to buy that energy from our good friends, north in canada, and i just going to say one comment because you heard it and all you'll have questiones. all those people now who are talking about gasoline prices being below three dollars, i'll tell you why that's happening. it's supply and demand. it's classic economics, and when we have a supply of crude oil, not just from an opec or cartel
country, but you have a supply of oil that goes into the free markplace, that supply results in meeting demand sometimes exceeding demand, and driving energy costs down. and so today, it's not just about a pipeline. today is about energy policy. today is about energy consumers. and we have taken this discussion about a pipeline, and we have made it about much more than what it is, and so my great hope is that we will resolve this concern, we will resolve this controversy regarding the keystone pipeline and will begin to have a much broader, much more significant discussion about energy policy in this country. that what the american public needs. that's what the american public deserves, and so is this is just one step in the process. i look forward to the next congress when mary landrieu, joe manchin and a number of our other great democratic senators
who stepped up to say yes to jobs jobs and rational energy policy will be back. it's not the end of this issue, and i'm grateful for the opportunity in this congress to vote, and there's only one senator who gave me that opportunity, and she is standing right next to me, because she has never stopped fighting for common sense, and she has never stopped fighting for the people of her state. so, on we go. >> on we go. a few questions? dana? go ahead. >> senator. [inaudible question] >> i'm going to let hide deanswer that. she can tell it better. >> i don't know who -- where you guys get your information about what guess on there but i read all the time what you guys say
guess on there and it's not the meeting was at. we had a very -- since the election, we have asked for more frank discussions in caucus. did we have a franks discussion in all of us spoke at the discussion, talk about why we believed in the need for this pipeline project. obviously there was heart-felt beliefs on the other side and i'd say i was very productive, and to suggest that there was anything more than a substantive discussion on the issue of this pipeline is really disingenuous and don't know who told you that. >> there was more of a passion not discussion in favor of the pipeline than those who have had basically a philosophical belief on the other side. nothing brutal about it. basically the kind of caucus we should have been having the last four years. >> it was an honest discussion and i remember quite a bit of applause. [inaudible question]
>> first of all, there's no blame. there's only joy in the fight. where i come from, we just never talk about quitting. and we don't talk about whining. after the game is over -- and this is not a game. it was very serious, but when i played ball, whether you won or lost that day, you just shook the opponent's hand, got up and went to fight another day. so there will be no blame from this senator. the reason i was fairly confident is because i arrived here with 14 votes. and felt relatively certain that the coalition that was put together was strong enough to find the extra one. i say we have to work on our little muscle a little bit more. yes, ma'am. [inaudible question] >> absolutely not. the power that comes with a
senator is equal to all senators, regardless of whether you're a junior or senior member. but the experience of being here 18 years is what informs me, just like the experience of doing your job, when you're a junior reporter you write a certain article. after five years you write differently, and after 20 you write it very differently. only a senior member that has been here as long as i have could have recognized the opportunity, the opportune moment, when mitch mcconnell was focused on other issues and harry reid was going back to the same old agenda, that i said, you know what? i think it's time to have this debate. so, my experience is still valuable. my chairmanship of the energy committee to the end of this congress, is very valuable to the people of louisiana, and when i get back here as ranking member, with 18 years of experience, having worked with three presidents, six governors, and four majority leaders of all different parties, to represent the people of my state, is
valuable in itself. >> if i could say one thing about why it's so important for mary to come back. being a member of the energy committee i hey been able to see in a short time mary has been the chairman that we're able to move things forward and have discussions we never had before. we never had these debates before and mary is able to bring that to the table. here coming back as the ranking minority member, work with less a as the chairman, is going to have a policy that is going to be good for americans. it's important for mary to come back. i've told the people of louisiana, i should hope they understand that. >> i want to comment on this. i think that we talk about clout. but the single most important attribute of a successful senator is tenacity. the willingness to put it all on the line, and i saw this with the debate on flood insurance, working with mary on reforms on flood insurance, which has literally saved the people of louisiana hundreds of millions
of dollars. you saw it during her debate and her work on katrina. and so what i hope that the people of louisiana saw in this senator's efforts is a tenacious advocate who puts her interests, who puts her personal life on the line, to be an advocate for the people of louisiana, and i think that was punch in this fight. -- was proven in this fight. [inaudible question] >> thank you all very much. >> unfortunately we came up one vote short on the keystone pipeline today. i wanted to make two
observations. number one, i want to congratulate the senator for his extraordinarily good work on this, and number two to let everybody know this will be an early item on the agenda in the next congress, and i'm very confident that senator hovens bill will succeed and we can get it to the president. kings. i turn it over to you. >> we're disappointed. we knew it would be a tough to get 60-vote threshold. we had 59. thought we might get 60 or 61. didn't happen. but all along, as we have said, we knew we would be in the new congress on this issue, because of president made it clear he is going to veto this bill, and so we were p prepared to come backe lad 9 today but if you look at the new con, you can count four right away. and there may be others when
you look at west virginia, iowa, south dakota, colorado. you can see that we're well over 60. but we're going to have to do better than that. we have to get to 67r have to attach this legislation to a broader energy package or maybe an appropriations bill. done that before. again in 2012, we passed a keystone bill attached to the payroll tax holiday that required the president to make a decision. he turned the project down. that is why we have come back under the commerce clause of the constitution and this bill provides congressional approval for the project. so, as i've talked about with many of you, we'll go back and work to decide the best approach, but i want to thank our leader for saying that we're going to be back on this bill in the new congress, early on, and it comes down to the merits. it is about energy. it is about jobs.
its about economic growth and it is about national security by building a secure energy future for this country and not depending hope to middle east for our energy. the american people know it, and overwhelmingly they're saying to their elected representatives and senators, approve this project. so we're not going to stop until we do. >> i, too, want to congratulate ongoing. he has been a champion -than -issue, pitbull and won't let go of this. obviously we'll revisit this issue in the new congress, and have an opportunity with some new people for a new vote, and i'm disappointed, like my colleagues are, that we didn't have today the requisite 60 votes to move this along but obviously in the new congress that vote will be different. and i'm -- i only wish that the -- at long last the
democrats would have gotten the message on this. just seems like they are held captive by the far left wing of their party when it comes to this issue. this is a mainstream issue, it's an issue on which the person miami have been very clear, and it's an issue that if you look at it on the merits and all the objections raised and you heard a lot of the discussion on the floor, i don't know how you can get past the fact that this has been scrutinized and studied and reviewed and analyzed for the past six years, more than probably any project that we have seen in history, and five, five environmental impact statements, all of which have come back and said it would have a minimal impact on the environment, and we know that, according to the state department, the president's own state department, that it would create, according to them, over 42,000 jobs. so, you have jobs, you have energy security, which is of course the national security issue, and our part of the country this helps relieve some of the stress we feel in our
rail system. we're having a hard time because of all the oil movement on rail. it puts additional pressure on the rail system in such a way that makes it harder to move or agricultural commodities to the marketplace. this would free up some capacity and create a better transportation system for us to get our agricultural commodities out, for all those ropes this made so much since. it is a no-brainer. it's unfortunate we didn't get it here this evening about i consistent the senator for his leapership and look forward to pass this in the next senate. >> senator murkowski. >> i'll join the chorus of sporting the good work of senator hoven on reading on this issue. just because we didn't get the wreck we sit i 60 doesn't mean this is over. ed a vanning -- it's good for
our relationship with our friends to the north, our strongest ally, canada. when you think about the benefits to this country, that the keystone xl pipeline brings, and then you throw in, yes, the environmental piece, because that's what our colleagues on the other side have been pounding on, is that if we advance this pipeline, it is going to be harmful to our environment. there is lower risk when you move oil through a pipeline. there is less environmental activity when you move oil through a pipeline. so, for so many good reasons-we will be back at the first of the
year, as leader mcconnell has said, and i do believe that the momentum that we have gained-the momentum that the american public continues to press us on, will approve that we will see -- will prove we'll see passage of this and ultimately success with this pipeline. >> senator? i. >> i want to join everybody else in thanking the senator who supported this before he came to the senate as something that needed to happen and has been our leader on this for all the time he's been here. i've been pleased withs to be a cosponsor of every piece of legislation we can think of get this done, and the keystone xl pipeline is important only its own but it's also become important as a symbol of whether our country is willing to embrace the great opportunity of more american energy. and if we do, significant things will happen for jobs and families that wont happen if we
won't. this is more than just the jobs to build the pipeline. this is the jobs that occur when people think there's a utility bill they can pay and a delivery system that works, this will have huge impact on our economy, both our neighbors to the north and south have energy resources that combined with ours make a significant difference, with canada, our biggest trading partner, with mexico, that's quickly becoming almost our biggest partner, i think they're number four now in the entire world. but north american energy, what we do with that. how we have these three economies that are so interlocked and beneficial to each other working together, to solve this big problem, but it's more than just the jobs to built the pipeline. i heard that several times today. well, there are only -- i heard at one point only, like, 36 jobs to operate the pipeline. of course because the pipeline, as senator murkowski says, is an efficient way to move a product
we need, but other jobs occur, confidence in our economy occurs when we embrace more american energy. if there's a simpler formula than more american energy equals more american jobs, i don't know what that formula is. the senate near rovely walked away from -- narrowly walked away from it today. the house embraced the concept last week ask this issue will be back as soon as we get back next year and is the right direction for us to take if we want families to have the kind of jobs we should want families to have. >> senator cornyn was going to jump in -- he'll be back if you have a question for him. >> talked about having -- [inaudible question] >> is there one thing that -- to get to that point you could potentially override a veto but there is any way you think you could possibly get those 67 or better yet, convince the
president to sign this and not have to go to a -- or is that -- [inaudible] >> i think both or possibilities. we're at 59 today. i know of a net pickup of four. that takes to us 63. and that's before some of these maybes, who may come onboard. didn't come on today. were thinking about it. but by the end of the year we should have the judicial process in nebraska pretty well decided. that's also going to bring, i think, some people onboard. so we're at 63. now we're starting to close towards the 67. so, getting to that magic number is a possibility. also, as i say well-may combine it with other legislation, and so i think between the combination of those two we'll have a strategy and come back and i am confident that we'll not only get it, but that we'll get it in a way that gets us beyond the presidential veto. [inaudible question]
>> how far are you going to take that -- a shutdown -- >> it's not -- this isn't going to have anything to do with a shutdown. this is -- we'll work in a creative way, but there's any number of members on both sides of the aisle that are already in discussions with us about coming up with either a broader energy package or some other way to work on it. there's a lot of interest in moving this. it goes back to the merits, and the broad support in the public. there's a lot of interest in coming up with equations to move the bill, and our energy committee chairman in the next congress is here, and she has got great ideas in terms of how we can package this, and -- i also want to thank all of the sponsors who joined us to this point. senator landrieu and recognize that we're going to have