see he's wearing the appropriate kind of garb. he's wearing a rain coat because the weather has really played havoc with his schedule whilst he's has been if the fill peep sews pope francis justing leaving the philippines, you are with al jazerra. >> after all this time the keystone xl pipeline does not run to the gulf of mexico, but the bill authorizing the project will run as far as the white house, where the president promises a veto. that's inside story. >> hello, i'm ray suarez. the keystone xl pipeline has

meant to take crude pulled from the tar sands of western kind and pipe it through the united states through the gulf of mexico. back to the debate is joined crude oil was much more expensive, and they were bringing it out of canadian canada by rail. today crude is cheap, oil is plentiful, and the senate is controlled by republicans. in a 63-32 vote the senate decided to move forward in the debate of the keystone xl pipeline: president obama has promised to veto the pipeline if the bill lands on his desk. it needs to 67 votes to override the presidential veto. >> we're asking the president to work with us, and the gridlock

and get this project moving. >> reporter: the house of representatives also voted in favor of ski stone. >> as a new member of congress i'm proud in our first week we passed bipartisan legislation. the approvement of the keystone pipeline is will bring jobs. we're off to a strong start. >> reporter: the president and rankers are all opponents of the 1200-mile pipeline planned. senator barbara boxer of california said when a new majority takes over in the congress you know the first bill they take up symbolize all their priorities. you know the bill they pick would bring 35 jobs. that's a big hug, big kiss to big oil and canadian interests. that's what it's about.

if the pipeline is built more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil per day would run from canada through the u.s. >> the congress is once again calling on the president to remove the barriers to completing the network of international pipeline links meant to bring canadian oil to the outside world through american ports through the golf of mexico. this time on the program the continuing battle over keystone. there is argument of how many jobs the project will or won't create. some say it's about american energy independence. it has been and continues to be a political lightening rod, and we'll try to separate the rhetoric from the evaluate, and later on the program the federal gas tax flirting with insolvent cy last summer was the highway trust fund not equal with the task that had has been given: maintaining roads and bridges.

with us karen marrow, and debby sees, and amy meyers jaffy. executive director of energy and sustainability at the university of california davis. carol moreau, let me start with you. has the price picture of oil the difficulty of extracting oil from the star sands , and the delay change the profitability picture for keystone xl. >> not in few of our companies. this is something that is very important to us , and frankly to most of the american people as shown in recent polling. this will help establish our nation in the forefront, increase our energy security and create many jobs for hard working americans, many of whom will work with their hands, and

these are good-paying jobs. this is important to our industry and to the american people . >> good paying jobs, but aren't they short-term jobs. building the pipeline through the midwest and through the gulf mean a lot of construction jobs, but once those jobs finish don't those jobs subset? >> construction jobs by their very nature are temporary jobs but it does not mean that they're not good jobs, and it does not mean that they're not important to people, especially those who don't have jobs . it seems that so much of the opposition comes from people who are well off, they're comfortable, they have good jobs. we rely on people who build things in this country, extract energy from the earth. they're dirty jobs. they're tough jobs. they go on all day long yet they provide low-cost energy to our nation. >> debby, this is something that

the pros and antis differ on fundamentally. but you hear from karen moreau and mitch mcconnell earlier, jobs are jobs and they're important. >> at best keystone 35 jobs. we know from past history that investing in renewal energy creates many more jobs per dollar invested, and it benefits our environment. keystone and developing the tar sands and shipping it across the country is all cost a no benefit. >> that 35-job figure, it does not match up to the reality of what it would mean to build 1200 miles of pipeline from the upper midwest to the gulf of mexico. it will take more than 35 people to do that, right? >> but if you want to make jobs around pipelines, we have miles and miles of pipelines that are leaking, and that are just waiting to leak.

what we need is to invest in fixing those pipelines. that's a better way to create jobs than to invest in canadian oil. >> amy meyers jaffy, have some of the benefits or potential benefits of keystone xl have been exaggerated and it's detriments been exaggerated by people who don't want it built? >> you know, the reality of what you said at the top of hours is that the fundamentals of the project has changed dramatically. the first thing we know is that in the last 60 days two new pipelines have come online that allow through our elaborate pipeline system , canadian tar sand oil to get to the gulf of mexico, that's part of the reason that saudi arabia has been talking about defending it's market share because they were looking market share to canada in the united states.

we might have increasing production in mexico instead of declining production there. some of our heavy type of oil, we might have other supplies. so you know, it's a juggle on because in fairness to the security energy question, if the low oil price created stability in venezuela, the last time in 2003 we saw that venezuelan oil exports got disrupted. we could have a war in the middle east. i'm not saying that canadian supply is not an important supply, but we have so many different options today. some of our options have to do with clear tech and more

advanced automobiles. we have options to have better mileage cars, so demand is expected to fall in the united states. oh therefore oil in general. i really think that the canadian project for keystone, you know sort of missed its time in terms of a pressing theme of this pipeline right now. >> karen moreau, we pick up there where amy myers jaffe left us. it's not like you punch a hole in the ground and it's the opening scene of the "beverly hillbillies" its heart to extract, and at $45 a barrel is it that desirable? >> well, i don't think we should be in position of determining or dictating to a private company what it's business plan is.

i've actually been to the alberta , canada, visiting where they're extracting oil from the oil sands. i've seen the technology at work using natural gas in a cogent generation facility. this is the highest level of technology being employed to produce energy for this nation and our consumers are seeing the benefit of the production that is coming on the north american continent. it's changed the course of history, really, for this country in the energy area, and we're seeing it at the pump with the lowest gas prices for years. >> you used the frame "for this nation," and it's my understanding, and i've heard it a lot the last couple of weeks the lyon share of the i'll traveling through that pipeline is not intended to be used in the united states. >> that's unfortunate, but that

is not true. the oil would be going to the refineries in houston, which are some of the best refineries in the world. again there, is a high level of regulation that course in --that occurs in this nation. with our refineries. it's best that it's refined here, and it will go into the american economy. and i think amy speaks to this a bit, and her expertise goes to this with the global picture and the economy and energy. it's so important to keep in mind that we're part of a global picture. what we do here does expect the price of oil and those who are producing it in other nations, and we do have this competition going on, which is made possible by the technology coming from this nation. so i'm a strong--obviously i work for the oil and gas industry, but beyond that i come from a working family a hard-working farm family, people

who work with their hands, and i have an appreciation for the kinds of jobs this will create. it's important to many people who are without those jobs. >> amy myers jaffe, you were trying to get in quickly before the break. >> i just want to make the point. everyone talks about the improve the united states energy picture. that's true, the industry has done an amazing job as bringing back and having a renaissance in oil production, but we would still have the same level of imports if our demand for gasoline was still rising. and so we really do have to point to our cost average sufficiency standards and downward trend of gasoline demand that comes with having more fuel efficient cars and a younger generation that don't want to drive. it was really the combination that has brought us to this excellent place.

>> debbie sease we'll come to you after the break. we'll look at what happens if the president's veto holds. is the oil going to get out? if there is no pipeline, is it less likely that canadian oil is refined and burned? stay with us. >> sunday night. >> 140 world leaders will take the podium. >> get the full story. >> there is real disunity in the security council. >> about issues that impact your world. >> infectious diseases are a major threat to health. >> "the week ahead". sunday 8:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america.

>> welcome back. >> welcome back to inside story. i'm ray suarez. if the senate moves ahead with the approval of the keystone xl pipeline as they promise, and if president obama vetoes it like

he promises, what will happen? will it head west ? will it still make sense to exploit the tar sands? debbie sease, the canadian ambassador was on this program and he was adamant that canada was going to get that oil out whether the pipeline was built or not. from an environmental point of view , isn't it a wash? this is oil that is going to get burned. >> we don't think that that oil will inevitably get burned. one of the reasons why the canadian government has given so much effort in getting the pipeline approvalled is that it's a lynch pen for them to make it economical to deliver that oil. and also the longer it waits until it has developed the more evidence it is, the more public sentiment there is about no investing in the future in the dirtyiest fossil fuels. >> during this debate has the

oil been coming out through different means. >> not at the level if the pipeline was accused. >> is it true there would be a lot more oil flow going to the pipeline had been built? >> you know what, if there is demand for the oil it will flow. it will come on the rail cars or villa patchworks of pipelines. you know, i do believe it's very hard to keep oil in the ground. when environmental groups say they want to keep oil in the ground and they want to do something else, they need to talk to the american drivers. it's almost the same as the drug trade. if the demand is there, the oil is going to get here. i think that the amount of investments that have gone into the oil sands are commiserate to the oil in the market. moving forward, if saudi arabia is committed to keeping their oil in our market because they want a geopolitical liaison and a common interest with the united states.

if you have mexico improving it's oil industry it will be a pretty crowded market for this canadian oil. so it probably has a cloudyier commercial future than it did three years ago. >> karen moreau, how about that? early yes said you we shouldn't dictate to the companies, i wouldn't suggest that, but isn't there a market clearing price where it becomes his advancous to sedsed a less advantageous to mine it. >> well, to your point, ray, you just made my point in saying let the companies decide if, how and when they're going to extract the oil, and how they're going to ship it. i don't think that our government should be in position of making that decision, but because it's crossing an international board that's why

the obama administration is in the position in the first place. so i think its up to companies. there are some companies that have the wherewithal to produce this type of resource at a certain price, and there will be companies that would not. and they would not make that decision. in response to debbie's comment about clean energy jobs, renewal renewalible jobs. certainly there are some jobs being created in that realm. a lot of it is frankly coming because our government generally is subsidizeing this area heavily. i see it in new york state where i'm located, but again our transportation system depends so much on the availability of a low-cast gasoline, and it has led to so much opportunity and freedom in this nation. i drive a suv, i have five kids. instead of $70 at the pump it's $50.

that $20 is going else for my kids, so i think that's a benefit there. >> debbie sease, karen just pointed out that a lot of jobs created are done so with either direct subsidy or various forms of tax breaks, will these jobs that are being created by alternative energy be able to stand on their own in the marketplace at some time in the future? >> absolutely. in fact, one of the things to look at for every dollar invested in clean renewable energy created five times more jobs than the same dollar invested in positivel fuels. -- fossil fuels. fossil fuels have had huge subsidies over the years. know we're seeing solar and wind energy growing by leaps and bounds. as we get committed to a cleaner energy future we're going to see that market share increase. and particularly as we start to

put the companies that are producing fossil fuels on the hook for cleaning up their pollution, the full set of pollution, including car upon. >> truth be told, the rail cars that are carrying the oil currently are rolling on rails that were built with subsidies too. it's time for another quick break. we'll turn from the keystone xl pipelines is $2.10 a gallon a safe rate to raise the federal gas tax? stay with us.

>> welcome back to inside story "inside story" on al jazeera america. i'm ray suarez. as we discussed the keystone xl pipeline has become a political flash point and,, and we're going to stay on that theme and the shift of prices in gasoline and the rising tax. >> gas prices are at an all-time low. >> i'll be able to get to where i need to go. i own my own business. >> as gas prices fall, the federal highway trust fund that helps pay for roads and bridges is running out of money. the fund could dry up in five months.

congress did a stop-gap fix last year. republican senator bob corker of tennessee and democratic senator chris murphy of connecticut are offering a more permanent solution, raise the tax gas tax. senator corker said that we're open to all different ways of doing this, but one thing i'll lay over the railroad tracks is any sort of short-term kick the can down the road approach. >> today it stands at $1.84. still

.18.4 vents.18.4 cents. still with us our guests, amy myers jaffe, if forced to, i could make the argument for both approaches. where do you come down? >> well, you know, during the recession there are several states in the united states that had no choice but to raise state gasoline taxes. it had a positive affect on the budgets and consumers stomached it and went long. when we talk about the federal situation we'll have falling gasoline demand in this country. hopefully we'll stay the course and we could see limb nate two to three million barrels of gas lean demand just through better cars. that means there is no solution for the highway trust fund and other projects related to gasoline sales except to raise

the gasoline tax. we do not want to send the message to average members that they should be buying gasoline-guzzling cars now that the price of gas has gone down. we want people to take that savings invest it in other parts of the economy, like i said before, better educational and other kinds of supplies for our children. going to the movies and enjoying the local restaurant. and the best way to do that is to send the signal to people that we've adjusted to driving less, and we probably need to stay the course. >> the trend in gasoline use must be gladdening to the hearts of the sierra club, but the hidden problem is that as people use less gas, less money goes into the trust fund to maintain the bridges and roads. >> you're right on both counts. in fact, the deficit we have in terms of what it would take to get our bridges, our roads, and

our mass transits up to what it needs to be by 20/20 is $1.7 trillion. $1.7trillion. that's what it takes. and we've been losing about $12 billion a year in terms of the gap between what the current tax brings in and what we're spend approximating. we really do need to moderate the gas tax. the public likes what it done with the gas tax even if they don't like the idea of the gas tax. >> karen moreau, does that make sense to you as an argument. >> our companies apis fairly neutral on this issue, and the arguments are interesting, certainly on all side. but as an owner of a gas-guzzling suv, and frankly i could not fit my family into

anything smaller, i see that gasoline consumption in this country, i don't see it going down. in fact, you don't have to ask me, but the iea has predicted that we're going to see consumption remain at 60% fossil fuel being the source of that, of course. but an interesting thing from our point of view would be if we're going to address infrastructure such as roads and bridges, shouldn't we open the conversation to all infrastructure such as pipeline and funding that. we think that has to be part of the discussion. >> amy myers jaffe, is it a politically less sensitive time because gas averages $2.10 a gallon? >> well, it's the third rail of american politics to even use the word "tax." i do public speaking to consumers and different groups all around the country, and it's

always popular when you're not a politician, to talk about the good things we can accomplish just through a gasoline tax even if it is to reduce the deficit. we have this opportunity. at least to debate it, and see if rational heads can prevail, and i commend corker and his colleagues for at least getting it on the table. >> thank you to you three rational heads for joining me today on inside story. debbie sease, amy myers jaffe, karen moreau. good to talk to you all. that's the end of this edition of inside story. thanks for being with us. the program may be over but the conversation continues. log on to our facebook page. send us your thoughts on twitter, for follow me directly @ray suarez news. we'll see you next time on inside story. in washington i'm ray suarez.

>> announcer: this is al jazeera. hello, welcome to the newshour. i'm martine dennis in doha. coming up in the next 60 minutes - hundreds of yazidis released by i.s.i.l. in northern iraq. violent protests against the french newspaper "charlie hebdo". seven die in niger i'm malcolm webb in the democratic republic of congo. fighters from the