create the kinds of opportunities wherever we can find them around the world so that we can take advantage of those opportunities and enable our businesses and our farmers and our working people to benefit from those kinds of advantages. secondly, the kinds of standards that are embedded in this agreement whether it be in the standard, the technical standards area, the sanitary standards for agricultural exports, intellectual property standards, government procurement, the services market, all of these are global gold-class standards that others should pay attention to because they are the kinds of standards that our exporters and korean exporters will be enjoying and set a model and an example for the rest of the world. >> thank you. and so in addition to really promoting reciprocity in terms of trade between our two countries and if you take the three agreements together, this is the most significant job package we've seen in three years. but, again, i know strategically

speaking the administration's looking at the trans-pacific partnership and going forward with that. and so seems to me the disagreement is a -- that this agreement is a model for how we will proceed going forward with tpa as well as rejuvenating broader talks in the context of the wto. is that a fair statement? ..

>> and that are a part, a key part of the proposals, engagement the united states is involved in where we are pushing boundaries on regulatory standards, pushing boundaries on transparency so our businesses can understand when they're engaged in these markets whether regulatory structures are and how they need to be able to operate effectively. and it's not an invisible hand that makes it harder for them to sell. so yes, we think the innovations in the areas of regulatory treatment and transparency and many other areas are very important point down the road towards the work that's being done on this. >> i yield back spent mr. rangel is recognized. >> i want to take this time once again to thank ambassador kirk when he first came and told us

that he thought he could work with the government of korea. i told sandy and i and staff would work so hard to share with him that unless there was some relaxation of restrictions on exports of automobiles that the government would take the position they had signed, they had agreed and it was all over. because of the korean government, staffs and people working together, catching a lot of political flak at home from the korean congress, they did reopen and examine the question of these as well as automobile. automobiles. so i just want to say that having served in korea in 1950, i had no idea that this country could go out of the ashes in such a short period of time and become such a close friend of the united states in terms of democracy and trade. but certainly in terms of

national security being there representing the same principles that we do. and so i do think outside of just the job creation that we are dealing with a long lasting friend. and i am just glad that we will work out the differences and able to move forward so that we both can gain from this agreement. i want to thank chairman reed for, i do recognize that everything we take credit for. >> thank you. mr. tiberi is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to be to the committee of the record a quote. this is the quote. if americans can buy key is an hyundais i want to see folks in south korea driving force in chevys and chrysler's. i want to see more product sold around the world stand with these three proud words, made in america. that's what we need to get done.

i know you couldn't agree more, mr. chairman, i couldn't agree more. what was said last month by a president, barack obama. i would like to submit for the record a letter from ambassador kirk which outlines detail of ustr's intend related to provision of trade remedies, the trade remedies chapter in the south korean agreements. and it's something i think everybody on this committee wants to make sure is part of the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. mcdermott is recognized. >> mr. pascrell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i get into my line of questioning, i want to say that this legislation is very much better than the original legislation even with korean trade. there's some great things in

this legislation dealing with technology products, pharmaceuticals, tremendously improved that would help my state in that area, as well as other states. but let me get down to my major contention. with this piece of legislation. and that is one of the few areas of the economy that have been improving over the last nine, 10 months is the manufacturing sector. we abandoned small manufacturers in this country. democratic presidents and republican presidents. and many of them have turned into, you have to go to the midwest, rust belt, so the entire infrastructure of manufacturing is gone. and to bring it back it's not going to be an easy task.

for those folks he believed that we are simply going to move into a service oriented economy, that's not going to happen. and i will not repeat, remind you of a debate between hamilton and jefferson, and hamilton won that debate, about what kind of multifaceted economy that we needed. so thank god we turned away from those naysayers of the '70s and '80s and '90s, that saw, that saw textiles, leather products go by the wayside. how many jobs were lost because of that foolish thinking? and yet, when we see what was -- how many jobs did we pick up because we got into the stupid trade agreement with other countries? it was not worth the agony. nafta not only hurt the united states, it hurt mexico. and it is forming deeply.

so i'm interested to hear forming contents of our arguments today. so mr. reif, let me ask you this. this is what i had major problems with, this legislation. the rules of origin provisions in this agreement, not in past agreements, not in futuristic agreements, this agreement, these provisions would allow products made with a 65% foreign content, including regional countries like china, malaysia, and vietnam, they would qualify for duty-free access to the american market, is that correct or incorrect? >> mr. pascrell, that's not, that's not a correct description of the rule of origin. world of origin provides that the automobile, we're talking about an automobile, it varies

from product to product, will be constructed, built in united states or in south korea and it needs to have a certain round of regional local content. >> in the nafta agreement even we had 50/50 formula i believe, was it not? in terms of transporting of these good? >> i believe that may be corre correct. >> isn't this the 65-35? >> right. the nafta agreement reflected -- >> that's what i asked you three minutes ago. >> wreck. but there's a very important requirement that the vehicle bill is assembled in the country in south korea or in the united states. the nafta contact, our interest was far more integrated. so, therefore, -- >> let's use an example. let's use the example of malaysia. how would that work if we're talking about the same automobile that you just described?

supposing they start to product, they start the automobile, manufacturing. and isn't this a way for them to go through korea, to have that product completed, and that product although mainly built in some other place other than korea, it's going to come into this country duty-free? >> no, absolutely not. >> tell me how it works. >> because the rule of origin requires the automobile built in the message or south korea. and on top of -- >> what does that mean, built in enough states, the anti-vehicle? >> yes, sir. it means the assembly line that puts the vehicle together witches, which is a very complicated, not a simple screwdriver to put together a car. >> is any other product -- the gentleman's time has expired. you have gone whale over the time.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted on four things i'm sensing today, and just bury the touch on them. those are jobs, strategy, common ground and gratitude. the jobs component is evident that i represent a district in the western suburbs of chicago that includes a layer airport, and have tens of thousands of jobs better inextricably linked to trade. and you know, to go through mr. reichert's econ 101 class he did a couple minutes ago, more markets for american products means more american products which means more jobs. it's a good thing from an economic point of view. to look at the other, after trading partner relationship is incredibly powerful from a strategic point of view. mr. ryan made that point as it relates to colombia. here it is, something that was originated under president

clinton, plan colombia an unbelievable american success story, a country that was sliding into a narco terrorist state that now emerged and is part of the community of nations that is leading a continent and is a real beacon of democracy and opportunity in free markets. that's something to celebrate. and the massimo early doing incredibly well. south korea. south korea, i had a great privilege of traveling there earlier, our last november. and there's been a complete transformation over the past 60 years in south korea. so from a strategic point of view, these make good sense for the united states. but it's also something to think through that this is an area that right now today in a highly charged city where the united states public is looking at washington and saying, can these people possibly find a pathway forward to create jobs and find

some common ground? the good news is, send a signal flare up because it is happening here right now. a common understanding is that approximately a quarter of 8 million jobs would be treated, that's the number the white house is commuting, that's the number that is being reflected here on capitol hill. that's a common understanding of where we are going. and that's something to celebrate and it's something to silver in the context of costing the american taxpayer zero money. no cost, job creation, not one dime. and what's at the other end of this? good things, opportunity and prosperity. the final word though, and i think it is a capstone work, and that is a sense of gratitude. gratitude to the americans and the nato forces that served in combat and transformed and rescued south korea. my dad was a company commander there. i know that we have a great

privilege on this committee and serving with two men who have served there, that's mr. johnson and mr. rangel. these are heroes. these are people who answer their nation's call. and as the south koreans have characterized it, they went to rescue a people that they had never heard of before, that they answered that call and they did it sacrificially. when my dad left to south korea, there were very few buildings in seoul that even stood standing. and now, what do we have? with a nation with whom we are entering into this relationship that is now the 10th largest economy in the world that has transformed itself with what? with american help, with nato help, without light help all the way around. and they have been wise stewards of the. they are no longer a recipient nation but now they are a donor nation. and they are an incredibly important strategic partner of

the united states picks i just want to acknowledge, mr. chairman, those members of our own committee who, years ago, answered our nation's call, answered the world's call and came to the rescue of this nation. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. crowley is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can't help but make the observation that it's i believe almost 270 days and we're still way for a jobs bill. i hope this is not the extent of the jobs bill we can look forward to. and i also think we're looking for some vision from the other side of the aisle. i hope the vision doesn't stop the notion of simply cuts, cuts, cuts. cut social security, cut medicare without any vision for opportunity for america to move forward. and we're still waiting for that jobs bill and i will continue to wait. i won't hold my breath but it will continue to wait. i am glad we're here today at this particular moment because

the democrats and this administration, these trade bills before us now include the critical provisions which placed a priority on the protection of labor rights and environmental rights. that means core labor rights and environmental rights, if violations happen, the united states can take action under the terms of these agreements. because democrats, these creams also assure that our nation's all copies of much stronger access to the korean market. a market of themselves entirely close to the u.s. auto exports. democrats worked hard to save general motors and chrysler just two years ago from bankruptcy, and prevent the layoffs as hundreds of thousands of workers in states like indiana, illinois, ohio, wisconsin and michigan. some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued it was time to let the u.s. auto industry die. we disagreed and that the u.s. auto industry is growing and hiring again. i saw today in the news for

desiring over 5000 additional workers in its plants. democrats also recently fought to protect the key investment program that has created 40,000 new jobs in the american out of industry from a local tax. thankfully this battle was won. the united states will continue producing vehicles driven not only by americans but also that koreans, colombia's, the panamanians will also want to drive. so it's not a surprise that president obama and democrats demanded fairness for the u.s. auto industry in the korean trade pact. and i will characterize our president and its simple, if you can drive behind a in new york, you should be able to drive a ford in seoul. the obama administration as also major our service companies have access to service exports, business and contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars for a state like near where the

service economy and a particular financial services industry advisor role in employed hundreds of thousands of workers. that is incredibly important. on both the manufacturing and services exports front, these issues matter. and if samsung can make money from doing business here, and our american insurance companies have a right to operate there. democrats were on the receiving end of a lot of local tax for giving protection for american workers through trade adjustment assistance for our companies. we want them. the time is come for action. lastly also want to know the geopolitical importance of these agreements, but particularly of korea. south korea is not just the country. it is a major, major non-nato ally of the united states. the administration has played a strong emphasis, and a strong south korea is in the interest of the nested, not only for the many korean americans who live in this country for all

americans. and for that, mr. chairman, i am grateful that this legislation is before us and i intend to vote for it when the "roll call" comes about. i yield back the bounds of my time. >> thank you. mr. berg is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i first saw want to thank ambassador han for his work. i know he was here earlier in his work and trying to build this relationship and increased, with these trade agreements forward. i believe that we need to do in america is we need to create the environment for jobs. environment for growth. as we for two of the day, our small business here in america has been trying to operate with one hand, tied behind its back to the disadvantage on tariffs. and so i am obviously very excited about getting all three of these but certainly the korean trade agreement past. july 1, the agreement between korea and the e.u. i believe was passed or signed and agreed to. my concern is again we are

losing market share i believe every month. and we are going to pass these agreements, but i really want to get kind of a little bit in the weeds. what are the next few steps that american businesses can look forward to saint okay, we can start moving ahead? so if you could just, mr. reeve, kind of run through the timetable here, assuming these agreements passed the next couple of weeks, what would be the steps that american business can look at to say, gates are open, we can start moving product to korea. >> it's the coming into effect of the agreements, and our office is chomping at the bit to sit down with the governments of south korea, with colombia and panama to ensure that they've taken all the steps that are necessary so the president can determine that they've done that. they need to do that so that our businesses and our workers and farmers can get the assets but we need to make sure they're

implemented. but the moment that these bills passed the congress, we will be reaching out to our trading partners and arranging meetings to let them know our understanding of where a loss stand and the regulation speed can you give me an idea, is it a month, two-month? guest worker from other trade agreements, how long will that last? >> it has very quite widely depending on our ability to work with the government to been another circumstances. so we are very be hopeful we will be at the front edge you're doing it as fast as we can. certainly the president is eager to benefit start to flow when the agreement comes into force, that is our number one objective. we need to make sure we do it right and that the requirements of the agreement are being met by our trading partners. >> again, these are agreements with look out for months and months and years and years of. so as getting that, what would you estimate that time period would be? >> i can't give you an estimate because it depends entirely on the responsiveness of our trading partners, on the dialogue that occurs.

>> are we talking three months or six months? >> if you look, and i'm sure your staff has prepared this way, if you look at the trajectory of the amount of time is taken, it varies very widely among different agreements and it depends entirely -- we will be prepared to sit down with each country and identify, we have done the homework, ready to go as soon as congress passes a. we will identify for them where we think existing laws need to be changed, give you a flavor of what's going to happen. so that businesses will understand this, so that you can understand this. they will respond to us, here it is, translated, read it, see that it complies. we will do that in about 100 different areas. >> last couple trade agreements, what was that time period? i don't know if, as i say, -- >> some have been a matter of months and some of them significantly longer. we are aiming for the short end of that cycle.

we will do everything within our control and within our power to make sure comes in that way because that is what the president wants us to do. >> again my question is how do we go to these businesses and tell them what this means for them? and again, i understand what you're saying in the past could be two months, who knows what the timetable would be. what would you say to small business about these agreements as far as when they can start doing business overseas? >> i will say we will do our darndest to get these as fast as we can. and it would depend on making sure, because though small businesses also want to make sure that transparency provisions, the regulatory barriers that we are promising to you and we as an administration are promising are being change. we want to make sure those things are being done. because if they are not done, they may face the same problems they faced in the past. they may face all of the same obstacles. we want to make sure that those obstacles are being taken care of. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. ms. berkley is recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the work of the administration and the committee on these trade agreements, but i continue to have my serious reservations and concerns on the impact on american jobs and job creation here in the united states. i cannot support the trade agreement, but i would like to yield the balance of my time to mr. pascrell for him continue to ask, to continue his line of questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, young lady from nevada. mr. reif, i want you to understand where i'm coming from on this. i want to help workers and i want to be able to do whatever i can to help create jobs in the united states, just as much as i

want to help the industry. we're talking about this industry right now. so i have major problems in the area of rules of origin, because this is pretty tricky. it's going on right now on other products. unit, part of it is made here, the pattern is laid out over here. and i know what this is being done for, mr. reif. so let's go back to our common denominator, the cost of the art mobile. mr. reif, can engine, engine for the very car you were talking about the made in china for the vehicle that is being put together in korea? >> i'm sorry, i don't know what percentage -- >> i asked you can engine for that car, i'm using that as an example, as a part of the car be

manufactured in china that goes into the car that is going to be made in south korea and? >> mr. pascrell, if i might take a moment to describe how we develop the rules of origin for the auto sector. we sat down with our manufactures and ask them what kind of a rule of origin would enable them to -- we spent the last two years negotiating these provisions, close consultation with both the majority and the minority on this committee and with stakeholders so that we could export more ford and chevy's and chrysler's -- >> so the answer to your question is it could be, cracked? >> can i just describe what the rules of origin and why we develop the rules? we need a rule of origin that enables us to export those cars. we have developed the rule of origin which requires the car to be built in the united states or south korea. we've come up with that rule of origin so we can, in fact, create jobs, ag jobs -- >> excuse my interruption.

but the percentage of total car can be made in other places, 8%? >> yes. >> that's what i've been trying to ask you for many moments now. in other words, if the car is manufactured in the united states also, we're talking a duty-free now, those cars will be coming into this country duty-free, made by other workers than people who work in the united states. if the car is manufactured here, remember, this is only one item on the many items that are included in the trade agreement, if the car is manufactured or put together in the united states of america, and engine can come from china also? correct? >> if i may, south korea did not -- >> am i incorrect? >> to enable the workers in other countries come and we didn't negotiate the agreement. we negotiated an agreement with that would be good for workers in the united states. south korea wants to export cars made in south korea. they don't want to export cars

that are made someplace else. >> what if parts are made cheaper in other places, quote unquote? >> their government like our government wants the benefits of this agreement to flow to working people and companies in the country, just like we want them to flow in our country. and that is how we decided on rule of origin for autos as well as other manufactured products. >> thank you. i would ask my friends on both sides of the aisle, look at the documents, look at this document, and you judge for yourself where a lot of the things that are going into the automobile, and they will be made, you will conclude, by folks who don't live in the united states of america, or who live in south korea. we are establishing legislation here, if we do this, i know a lot of work has been put into and a lot of good things in you, that cannot help the american worker. that's why mr. reif could not

give this thing, and he can't come he's not lying to us, he can't give us to even close to figure, jobs will be created it and do you know how many jobs are supposed to be great in this country from nafta, cafta, shasta, whatever they were? >> answer pretty because time has expired that i can tell you what the estimates are for job creation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it is a pro-job, pro-american export agreement. >> thank you. i believe we have two remaining speakers that asked the question. miss black is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i think both of you for being so diligent sitting here for so long answering these questions. i know that's got to be difficult but we've all had a little break. i want to start out with the idc has estimated that these free trade agreements with increased exports by at least $13 billion, which asserted a good thing for us. chairman camp in his opening

remarks reported that there could be, and as the 250,000 u.s. jobs that would be created. we know that the benefits of these trade agreements are long lasting. in fact, since 2000 when u.s. exports to countries with trade agreements have grown to times as fast as our worldwide exports. and so jobs, jobs, jobs, are the important issue right now, and we are very focused on that. but i do want to turn our attention to something else because you are also tremendous benefits to our consumers and also our producers from lowering these terrorist. tariffs are taxes on the u.s. consumers and producers, so removing tariffs as these agreements do certainly will benefit both our consumers by lowering the price of goods that they by. this is particularly important, especially in this difficult economic times with the costs of

things have continued to rise. in fact, traitors lowered prices and increase the purchasing power of the average american family of four by $10,000. so i want to direct this question to both of you. if you could help us, and i know that people watch the testimony in this committee to help others that are watching as well as myself understand, in particular in this bill what tariffs, talk about reducing of the tariff on imports, this bill. so, ms. allard if we could start with you, and then mr. reif, if you could follow-up that would be great. >> thank you for your question, ms. black. the answer is 80% of south korea's transit pipeline would become into a zero upon the limitations when it takes effect. at 92% of south korea's tariff lines with easier within five years, virtually all would be

serial within 10 years. so there's an immediate benefit. the duties are reduced as you describe to the benefit of u.s. consumers. >> and so with that we can say than the correlation would be that the cost of the products would also be less for the people here in the united states making the value of their dollar even greater? >> yes. because already south korea has tremendous access to the u.s. market because many of the u.s. duties are already so low. that this would remove remaining tariffs quickly. and achieve a level playing field where as u.s. exporters can sell into south korea without having to pay duties, and at the same time u.s. consumers and manufacturers, the manufactured downstream use imported product would have access to that more cheaply making them more competitive. >> mr. reif, would you like to follow-up on that? >> thank you.

just let me add one thing to that, which is the united states gains disproportionately out of the agreement because currently south korea's average industrial tariff is more than twice as much as ours. we believe it's 6.6%. ours is only three pointer%. similarly in the agricultural area the difference is even more pronounced. south korean average tariffs are 54%. hours are 9%. we draw down these terrorists, the farmers and our businesses and businessmen and women and workers are getting a disproportionate benefit out of these tariff reduction mac thank you for the. and i know a big part of what we're talking about now, and it's also important we talk about jobs because jobs are the number one issue for the american people. but i think also in this it's good to highlight the fact that the american people are also going to benefit by the cost of goods. and economically right now with people not having maybe a

full-time employment, or a decrease in what their income is, we've got to also talk about how this is going to benefit every american with the cost of goods their purchasing and put more dollars in the pocket. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> mr. brady is recognize. >> thank you, mr. chairman. click on the discussion today this agreement with korea is critical from an economic standpoint. it's critical from a security standpoint with a key u.s. ally. and it also moves the united states into the growing dynamic era of asia pacific region where we need frankly to move aggressively and. this agreement was found as average negotiated, but they were legitimate concerns raised by our auto and auto lawmakers. president obama, to his credit, directed ambassador kirk to work with our chairman, mr. camp, and

our ranking member, mr. levin, also american auto workers and auto companies, to negotiate with korea supplemental agreement. both countries, those parties worked together. and in our side in a bipartisan way to fashion a supplemental agreement that approves support for bipartisan support for this agreement. that's how trade ought to work. we have an opportunity today to pass a bipartisan jobs bill that is strong, that moves us into key areas and has support from both sides of the aisle as well as the present. this is an important day for jobs and trade standpoint and i look forward to passing this, along with a bipartisan trade assistance program that is moving to the floor next week. i yield back. >> thank you. as there are no further never seeking to recognize, because amendments are not in order for this measure, i will now recognize mr. herger for offering a motion. >> i move the committee

favorably report h.r. 3080. >> the question, all in favor signify by saying i go. those oppose signify by saying no. the ayes have it. a recorded vote is requested pursuant to committee rule 19, the recorded vote on reporting the house will be postponed until the end of the market. will now resume consideration of h.r. 3080, deny states colombia trade promotion agreement implementation act, depending matter is recorded vote unfavorably reporting the bill to the house of representatives. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. herger?

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> mr. largent has mentioned you'll be out of fear but it's important the clerk calls his name anyway. we will follow that process. [roll call] [roll call] >> there've been 24 ayes and 12

knows, the motion is agreed to. h.r. 3078 is favorably report to the house of representatives. but when i was in consideration on h.r. 3079, the united states and among trade promotion agreement in limitation act. depending matter is a recorded vote unfavorably reporting the bill to the house of representatives. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> the clerk will report the vote. >> thirty-two, three nays. >> the motion is agreed to. h.r. 307 and is sorted favorably report to the house of representatives. we will now present consideration on h.r. 308 so, the united states korea united states korea free trade agreement. implementation act. at any not as a recorded vote unfavorably reporting the bill to the house of representatives. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> the clerk will report. >> thirty-one day coast, five nays. >> the motion is agreed to. h.r. 3080 is ordered favorably reported to the house of

representatives. with the consent of the ranking member, members will have until 9 a.m. tomorrow to file with the committee clerk supplemental, additional or minority views on the three bills just reported. so order. there being no further business before the committee, the committee stands adjourned. >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> is required under our process as the committee's jurisdiction, ways and means committee in the house vote the bills out of committee. out of all three trade agreements were favorably report

for the ways and means committee today, that allows -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> over the last several weeks but not today because i've been in committee. [inaudible] >> i think that's still being talked about between our leade leaders. >> how many republicans might not vote? >> i suspect will have a bipartisan agreement. >> do you need democratic vote? >> i think that they have bipartisan support, all three of them. >> is there a date when they will come upon for? >> we don't have a date yet but i think it will be next week. [inaudible] >> certainly that was a decision made by, i guess -- thing is.

[inaudible] that would mean the bill,. [inaudible] >> did you work it out with the democrats before? [inaudible] >> can you say when the senate is because i can't predict when the senate is going to do this, no. >> but it should be -- >> i think i can say the house will do it next week. >> it should be later, or -- >> not necessarily. it's still being discussed. >> ought not -- [inaudible] >> i think all of this is on the path to get all four bills done. obviously, the president is confident, that's what he said the agreements.

i'm confident we will continue to move forward and step-by-step ratify all three agreements and pass the other bill as well. [inaudible] again, that detail is being worked out but i'm confident it's all going to happen. thanks everyone. thanks. >> chairman camp? >> yes. >> ough[inaudible] make room for mr. levin. [inaudible] >> you're not going to bring up the senate bill? >> i have no plans to bring up the senate bill.

[inaudible conversations] >> i think i made my point very, very clear. i think not only clearly, but precisely. the action plan is very much like to extend a major problem, and it's very much part and parcel of -- [inaudible] that is that position of the administration. it's necessary because there remain concerns, important parts

necessary. it's also important as i said in terms of laying the foundation for the continued implementation of the fda. they made have contacts. they need to have a foundation. and, in fact, there remains increasing concerns, it's a lot more important that it be incorporated, clearly referred to. and i can't think of any reason at all why they are refusing to even reference to the action plan that was subject of the negotiation with the colombian government. it's an agreement. >> if you did bring up a motion today, would have been likely undermined, put pressure on

colombia to follow through on the action plan is defeated? >> look, i want there to be, i want there to be pressure on everybody. in colombia and the united states, to make real worker -- and to address violence. it is the job of all of us could do that. because as i tried to make clear, when workers have their rights in another country, they help go to middle-class. it's better for the country and it's better for us. and the essence of the action plan is to address effectively what has been untrue in colombia. i've had concerns about certain parts of it also in terms of addressing impunity. look, i met with --

[inaudible] i think she wants to do it carefully, but there has to be results. and in having the action plan and implementation bill would have required the president to essentially deter what was in the action plan was being fulfilled. and it would have sent an important signal to people in colombia that everybody is serious about making it happen. there continues to be resistance in colombia to its and limitation. >> don't you trust your own president plans to follow through on the action plan for? >> i think the best thing is when there is an agreement to incorporate into the implementation. that's basically what's happened. so it's not a question, it's a question of signaling everywhere that it's serious, that it's

part and parcel of the fta. part and parcel of the fta. >> the president has promised -- >> of the date of implementation, but it isn't part and parcel of the england haitian bill, both as of the date of determination by the president, and the fulfillment in the future by colombia. we have a dispute system. i want everybody to realize the seriousness of addressing this issue. and i want to weigh in on the side of the people in colombia who are trying to make this real. i want us to be on their side, and i think it's better for the government that we help make it clear we're on the side of people in colombia who want to see workers to have the rights, after not having them for decades.

and of everybody taking seriously ending the impunity. and so far as the human rights watch report indicates, there has been only small steps. we want the pressure to be for major steps. >> how serious are you that the president did not -- in the andaman bill that was put up given that he had the prerogative to do so? >> it would've been much better if they had done so, and they told me that was their preference. and it was thwarted by republicans who said it for in the implementation they were opposed to any reference in the implementation bill. that's a fact. >> mr. ryan spoke that labor -- do you worry about that for a future trade bill? >> it's another reason why the action plan should be there. i think we've made real progress

getting the basic ilo standards into trade agreements. i think it's another reason to vote for barack obama. i think the republicans have shown that they consider, it was indicated in some of the discussion here, that trade agreement should be commercial. our point has been for years that the rights of workers is part of the economical equation, economic equation. >> are you concerned that the fta will go for floor vote before ta comes up or doesn't not really matter? >> truth of the matter is, i wanted it first. and republicans said it would be forced. and the administration decided -- >> so it will come up after the three tfa votes? [inaudible] >> on the same day.

>> do you think you'll run into some of the same labor problems? those are questionable human rights records? >> workers rights and human rights records. look, i wish -- singapore, right? i've made it clear with vietnam, it's a different set of issues, and that we have to address the worker rights issues in vietnam. so that's another reason i thought so hard to get the reference of the action plan. i think this administration is dedicated to having it in. i hope the. we will keep on everybody to make sure that happens. [inaudible] >> are you at all concerned they are trying to claw back what we

achieve? >> we are in discussion with usdi in that very thing spent what about the proposal they made last month? >> they think it's better. >> what do you think? >> i want to be sure it is good. i'm not convinced. ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] xl

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] ladies and gentlemen it is now just after 10:00 so let's go ahead and get started. my name is jim steel from the bureau of oceans environment and science at the u.s. department of state. my colleague, mary come is from the state department bureau of economic and business affairs. we are here today to listen to your comments regarding the national interest determination for the proposed keystone xl pipeline. the state department is committed to a transparent, impartial and rigorous process

to determine whether the proposed keystone xl pipeline project is in the national interest. as part of the national interest determination process, the department is following a process that is defined by law and executive order. that includes input from eight several agencies, experts in relevant subjects and the public. this broader evaluation of the application extends beyond environmental impact. it takes into account economic, energy security, foreign policy and other relevant issues. last week, the state department held eight public meetings in the states through which the pipeline would run, plus this one today in washington, d.c., in order to hear as many views as possible. thousands of americans participated, and those that didn't have the opportunity to speak can submit written comments the will become part of

the official record until october 9th at midnight. we have also met with people representing divergent views including ngos, civil society organizations, other interest groups, native americans and other interested parties. on behalf of the department of state, we would like to thank you for joining us that this public meeting. we recognize this is an important issue, and we value your input. as i said, the purpose of this meeting is to provide a venue for members of the public to express their views on whether issuing a presidential permit for the proposed keystone xl pipeline is in the national interest. to focus time and attention on your comments, we will be listening to you today rather than answering questions. we appreciate the interest of everybody in this room to take the time to share your perspective on this issue. we take your comments seriously, and we will consider them

carefully. given the interest in this issue, it may not be possible for everyone in attendance to speak. if you do not have the opportunity, you can provide your written comments on the back of the sheet of paper that you got when you came in, and you can leave those comments with us here at the back of the room. there's a table right over there to collect your comments. or you can submit your written comments by e-mail, by fax, by e-mail or online. alladi reiterate we need to have those comments by midnight on october 9th. we understand that there are strong views and feelings about this issue. this meeting provides an opportunity for you to express your views, but we ask you to respect the rules that we have established so we can hear from as many of you as possible. we ask that you are fair and respectful to everyone who has taken the time to come to this public meeting to present his or her views.

before we begin, we would like to describe the department of state's colin the presidential permitting process, and further, to leave the ground work in this particular meeting. >> good morning. in september, 2008, transcandada keystone pipeline lt filed an application for a presidential permit for the proposed keystone xl pipeline to the executive order 1337 signed on april 30th, 2004 delegates to the department of state the authority to issue a presidential permit for facilities such as the proposed keystone xl pipeline that crossed the u.s. border. in considering a permit, the department state determines whether the border crossing is

in the u.s. national interest, taking into account environmental and safety concerns, as well as energy security, foreign policy and social and economic matters. in addition to the executive order, the department of state determined because of the proposed pipelines importance that it should evaluate the pipeline's possible environmental and safety impacts consistent with a financial environmental policy act, or epa. we prepared an environmental impact statement consistent to evaluate the proposed pipelines potential environmental and safety impact. in preparing the environmental impact statement over the past two and a half years, we have

conducted some 41 public meetings along the pipeline route and in washington, d.c. to gather public comments and to develop the scope and draft of the impact statement. on august 26, we released the final environmental impact statement which addresses the more than 250,000 comments from the public comment period. the final environmental impact study is just one factor to be considered in the review process. it does not represent the final decision or our final decision on the permit application. now as we move into the national interest determination, the department of state is compiling additional information to determine if the proposed keystone xl pipeline is in the u.s. national interest and

decide whether or not to grant the permit. this meeting is part of that effort. >> in order to maximize public participation and to be fair to all meeting participants, we ask that you abide by these rules of order. we hope to have the opportunity to listen to everyone who wishes to speak, but that may not happen. to make a little bit more likely, we are going to have to allow or give you a maximum amount of time of three minutes so please, limit your time to three minutes. at the conclusion of that three minutes, you'll see a sign that says "thank you," at that time please wrap up your comments so we can hear from as many speakers as possible. and again, certainly, if you don't have time to finish your comments, or if you cannot give your comments during the meeting, please do leave written comments at the table or the

sheet of information you got when you came in also provides the addresses by mail, online or e-mail or fax for you to submit your comments. we will consider all such comments, whether we hear them orally or whether we get them in written form. speakers will make their comments on a first-come first-served basis by assigned numbers having personally signed in at the door. after a speaker ends, the next number and name will be called and it's possible that we will go ahead and called a 24 speakers at a time just to make a little bit quicker. we can't really anticipate exactly how long each person is going to speak so it's not possible for us to say yes, you will be up in one hour, so you need to be here, you need to be paying attention to where we are in order. when your number is called we ask you come to the microphone, state your name and affiliation, and that you spell your last name also please for the court

reporter and then offer your comments. again, as you speak you will be timed for your free minute interval. a card will be displayed when you have one minute remaining and then again when your time is up. we do ask that you finish your comments in the allotted time. >> as noted, all comments made here today will be recorded and transcribed by a court reporter, and they will become part of our process of determining this. written comments, again, accepted until midnight on october 9th. department of state officials are here to listen to your comments so they can be considered. so this is not a question answer or information session. we understand there are strong views on this issue, and we ask that in fairness to everyone concerned, those who choose to speak be allowed to do so without interruption. we request for that notice

police or signs be posted in the room. please come keep your remarks to three minutes and please, be respectful of other speakers. and i would ask also if you turn yourself phones off or put them to the silent setting. our plan is to conclude this meeting at 2 p.m. i wish to stress once again the department of state has not made a decision on this matter. this meeting is part of the process that will continue to that. we thank you for your interest and for coming to this meeting. one more reminder. the fire marshal has noted that would be appreciated if people, rather than standing in the back, go ahead and find a seat and sit down, remain seated if at all possible. i see most people are doing that so thank you very much. again, thank you for your interest, thank you for coming. we'd like to start the proceedings with the first two

speakers. i will go ahead and call for speakers. please, number one, sarah hodgin, number two is mora, number three is east and moss and number four is jennifer hefftiman, please. >> r. dee? good morning. my name is sarah, h-o-d-g-d-o-n, director of conservation for the sierra club, the nation's largest environmental grassroots organization. the sierra club and our 1.4 million members and supporters do not believe the keystone pipeline is in the national interest. working with an incredibly diverse and broad coalition of groups across the united states and canada the have reviewed the final environmental assessment conducted by the state

department. we've looked into transcandada's record yet we have listened to thousands of community members, farmers and ranchers from across the midwest and texas all to come to the same conclusion time and time again the of keystone xl pipeline is a bad deal for america. the sole purpose of this pipeline is to deliver profits to a foreign of oil company transcandada. evin canadians have rejected the pipeline project citing the massive environmental and public health risk it poses. but speed is asking u.s. ranchers, farmers and landowners to shoulder the burden so they can pump their dirty tarzan through the american heartland. it is simply not in our national interest to ask american land owners and business owners to forfeit their property to a foreign company while bearing the risk of toxic oil spill onto precious farmland and into the

drinking water source for millions of americans. the opposition of the keystone xl is strong and continues to grow, and for good reason. transcanada's pipeline would create more toxic fumes and pollution from the refining process of this heavy and highly corrosive oil and the risk of a pipeline burst or spill into drinking water sources and onto farmlands are not a matter of if but when. the americans who live along the proposed pipeline route understand what transcanada's pipeline would do to their community, and not surprisingly, they are vehemently opposed. we've heard nebraska and senators consistently criticized the pipeline and the republican governor of nebraska has asked the president to reject the permit out right. sierra club members have sent hundreds of thousands of comments to the state department urging you to reject this permit for this dirty, dangerous and unnecessary pipeline.

dollar for dollar investments and renewable energy jobs create more jobs and investment and fossil fuel infrastructure. those are the types of investments that we should be making and promoting. we have the technology today to start reducing our dependence on oil and a deepening our dependence on the dirtiest source of leal on the planet is simply not in the national interest. >> thanks for the state department hosting this hearing. my name is mora, co-director energy action coalition. we are a 200,000 young voters of members and young people across the country who are vehemently in opposition to expansion of the keystone xl pipeline and are asking president obama to intervene and immediately revoke or deny the presidential permit. we represent 50 organizations, all of whom work with young

people on climate and energy issues, and one in particular, the indigenous environmental network, whose young people every day are facing the horrific impacts of oil sands and oil drilling in the building of the pipeline in their communities, and they are sick and they are dying because of it. we appreciate that you say that the state department hasn't made a decision yet on this issue, but in fact, we don't believe you. e-mails detail a relationship between transcanada and the state department that in fact suggest the two might be actually collaborating on efforts and we think the department of justice needs to intervene immediately. [applause] transcanada has already broken the law in this process they are a lobbyist, paul eliot is not currently registered to represent international corporation but in fact that is what he is doing and once again

we would like this the department of justice to intervene and immediately investigate that. transcanada and the state department are lobbying to the american public right now by claiming that this is a matter of energy independence, when in fact we know that keystone xl is an export pipeline and so narrow, a keystone xl pipeline has already vetoed an export strategy to its investors. this is other major stakeholders the will benefit from a profit perspective on this include royal dutch shell and the saudi arabian government. so this is in fact another project to pump the profit of the middle east and we should pretend that nothing else stop making claims that it is anything different and will not help the american economy. fuel prices will spike in 15 states according to the cornell university global labor

institute because of this pipeline. beyond that, this is a moral issue for the state department to consider. right now you are faced with a choice. will you stand up and work with the american people to protect our heartland from pollution to ensure that the health care costs along the pipeline route don't spike to ensure the future isn't compromised or will you allow the cronyism that is apparently rampant in the state department to continue by siding with the big oil, siding with transcanada and allowing the law is of the transcanada's to be perpetuated once again we are asking president obama to intervene immediately and denied the pipeline. [applause] >> - ethan n-u-f-f- with the energy action coalition and every day i wake up and work for a vision in this country of 100%

clean energy economy that would create jobs for my generation. when my generation is facing the largest unemployment since the great depression make this country a leader in clean energy technology that we can export across the world and create jobs here at home. i stood in line 14 hours to testify today and a month ago i participated -- i sacrificed my civil liberties to participate in a peaceful sit-in in front of the white house and was arrested for those actions. i did it because my future is at stake. the future of my generation rests on the decision of today's state department. this pipeline will be cut across indigenous land and from my home state of kansas, and i can't stand it this is not within the national interest of the united states. one, because the threat of global climate change. the world's leading climate scientist has said that if we tap tarzan's oe and burnet it will be game over for the global

climate. when the u.s. military itself talks about global climate change being the single greatest threat to the national security even above that of terrorism, we simply can't allow this to happen and have this threat of a second, because of the health impact. last year alone in the current pipeline, 14 have already happened. because of the health impact of my friends living in indigenous communities are getting sick and dying i can't watch it happen any longer. because we are being misinformed up the jobs. the cornell leader institute to the recent study saying that the promise will only come to a figure of about 3,000. because the current estimates do not calculate for factors such as the increase in gas prices that we know we will see, the risk of oil spills and the detrimental health effects on our local communities. and in fact, the only local jobs

that will actually be from the pipeline will be between 500-700. local communities will be bearing all of the environmental risk all of the health risk and getting none of the jobs. what we have here is a foreign company using foreign material to pump foreign oil through america's heartland. when we can do better for the home grown vision of american energy. good union paying jobs in our steel mills making the wind turbines across the united states and creating those millions of jobs for my generation that we need. [applause] we can do it. we can meet the united states a global leader and in our addiction to oil. it starts here, starts today at starts with your decision by firmly coming out against and rejecting the keystone xl pipeline. [applause] >> good morning and thank you. good morning ladies and gentlemen. my name is jennifer

h-o-s-t-e-r-m-a-n. i'm the mayor of pleasanton california, and i along with fellow mayors john of wisconsin and frank county of des moines iowa have started gathering names and signing on the mayors in support of saying no to this dirty pipeline. why did the mayor's care? because we are on the ground and we are directly responsible for our constituents come forever citizens, for our americans. why they often starts with a family whose son was killed in afghanistan because of our reliance on foreign oil. laden goes on to working with safety fire police ensuring that the health and safety of my community, all the while addressing tension reform in a way without beating people love. my day continues with making sure the trash gets picked up

and potholes' get filled. and at the end of the day at the grocery store in ogle -- aisle six i have people plan to defender say in what are you doing about this problem? what are you doing about this? what are you going to do to protect our natural resources? what are you going to do as a director of the air quality management district to clean up our air in the area in the state of california in this country? what are you going to do as the co-chair of the water council for the united states conference of mayors to preserve hour were drinking water and the water that we use to grow our food? that's my job, and i will tell you that as a sleepless night we have 50 mayors who have signed on to a letter which we will be spending as we gather a few hundred more which are not going to be too difficult over the next couple of weeks to ask the president of the united states to deny this permit.

now we have a lot of people in this room who need work. we need to create jobs in this country, and the week to create jobs is bypassing the american jobs act. we need to pour money into infrastructure improvement in this country so we can put people to work in good paying, long-term jobs. that's my message. thank you. [applause] [cheering] >> thank you. i would like to call number five, deborah white plume, number six, thomas myer, number seven company campbell and number eight, ruth caplan. you can also use the other party and if you wish, which is closest to you, please. stomach good morning. my name is deborah whiteplume from the reservation of the great lacota nation.

i'm here today to the president obama, the great father and government of the united states of america that we do not want this pipeline in our 1868 fort laramie treaty that was ratified by the united states congress by ending international document of law. we have under the united nations the rights of the indigenous people which requires consent before any mining or desecration of land, air or water can occur in our territory. we did not give prior consent for transcanada to bring this pipeline through our beloved mother earth in our area, this country. this pipeline will cross our water pipeline on the pine ridge reservation, rosebud reservation these are the only lacota people on mother earth. we have no island where we can

send for more lacota people with our people were killed by this oil contaminating our only drinking water source. this pipeline will cost hundreds of surface water, river water. we believe it is against mother earth, it is against our sacred water. we cannot have this pipeline in our territory. we are human beings with two legs, we get the silent nation, the plants, we are part of the environment. there is no line separating human beings from the environment. i stand here today to ask the great white father to say no to this pipeline, for him to defend our people come and defend our water committees and our land, or animals and birds and plants. say no to this pipeline that is killing the people where the oil comes from the first nation in canada. this is genocide for first nation people. the american people should not have to choose between jobs and

wrecking the environment for ever for the coming generation. so why ask you all to remember the word [inaudible] that means all my relations, we are all really done mother earth. we need to stand together for mother earth now because mother earth is crying. our lacota prophecy tells us when mother earth prize we stand and fight for her. she will dhaka and we will die with her. i asked everyone to remember crying the earth, rise up with mother earth. rise up and say no, no to this pipeline. no, no, no! [applause] >> good morning. - thomas m-y-e-r, a sophomore at the university of washington,

d.c.. i have with me the signatures of 422 american university students representing 43 states in the district of columbia and the u.s. virgin islands. they signed a petition stating their opposition to the construction of the keystone xl pipeline and their view that the pipeline is not in our national interest. the petition reads: we strongly oppose the construction of the keystone xl pipeline and urge the department of state and president obama tooby am i transcanada a presidential permit for this project. as young people from all around the united states, we expect our leaders to stand up for a little feature. the united states needs to start showing some real climate leadership by recognizing the facts of the tar sam and the keystone xl pipeline. tarzan's oil is dirtier than other types of oil and the risks involved in transporting it across our country are outweighed only by the global consequences of burning it.

please, say no to the tarzan and to the keystone xl pipeline. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. thank you for this opportunity. i realize i am a minority here but i support the keystone xl pipeline. [applause] i am from the indian reservation in north-central montana where i was born 76 years ago. my husband and i have been ranching there since 1964. i still am an active cattle rancher. i raised longhorn cattle and in guest and a few quarter horses.

i still do my own irrigating and i put of my own to winter my cattle. i was an education for 35 years. the first 20 years i taught on and off the reservation. the last 15 of those 35 years i was in elementary school principal in the public school on the reservation. today i am come in addition to ranching, a director on the electric cooperative's board where i served for 13 years, a majority of that time has the secretary-treasurer of the board. my husband, bud was a native american, a proud native american. he enlisted in the army when he was barely 17-years-old. of course he wasn't my husband then. he did his basic training in the philippines and he was there when world war ii started.

after months of jungle fighting he was captured on the peninsula on april 9th, 1942, and he spent the next three in a half years in captivity in japanese prison camps. they were starved, beaten, worked to slave labor, they didn't know if anyone even knew where they were or if they were alive yet. but they never lost faith in america or his love for america. this keystone xl pipeline is a good project for america. this is the america that bud thought for, believed in and loved. the pipeline over its lifetime will provide billions of dollars in tax revenue to the states and counties along the pipeline corridor which will help fund education that is so important to the youth, society and future. the large electrical loads to power the stations on the

pipeline, which are served by the rural electric cooperative, will help stabilize rates for all and that's particularly important on the indian reservation for the poverty rate is so high. i spent most of my adult life on indian reservations in montana, and i know that native americans were the original environmentalists. they respected your, they took only what they needed and wasted nothing. this keystone pipeline will be safe. there are many more safety features built into this one than the ones now in existence and operating -- >> can you finish a please come and you hit your three minutes. >> yes. i support this because i have children, grandchildren, more than two dozen great-grandchildren. i could not support anything that i thought was damaging the environment or jeopardize in their future. i'm a rancher and ranchers are

the ultimate in conservationists to read our life depends on the way we look after the land. i'm strong and independent. a strong and independent woman. i tell you strength and independence. >> thank you very much for the record you are betty campbell. [applause and booing] >> i am ruth caplan, giving it my place to like to speak that the keystone inspection process. >> hello. thanks for allowing me to speak. i am a former inspector, a civil engineer -- >> can you state your name? >> white k-i-l-n-k. i am affiliated with myself. how is that?

i decided to speak out because i wanted someone to know about the quality of the project that keystone did on the first one in north and south dakota. with several glaring construction errors, county creek construction reinforcing rod outside the structure, wrote this up and sent it to the main contractor, said it on to bechtel, the construction manager on the job that went to transcanada. a lot of what was covered up, frozen concrete, there was several times that transcanada came into view the work said it's a case in the middle of nowhere. don't worry about it. they covered it up and went on. moly integrity tells me that you can't do that. we can't allow things to be built that aren't according to the proper specifications. the pump station, which had the

largest leak was on an island in north dakota, surrounded by what plans. we watched the destruction of wetlands while they were doing construction with no regard, reported as environmental problems. transcanada did nothing. they didn't care. then we get to the piping. the piping had come from china. what about the jobs that were lost in the united states? our steel mills? we need those jobs here. you go to weld on to the pipe and splits and breaks. and they get those reports that says the point is good. the problem is none of us can read chinese. please, if nothing else, before you decide on this, adopt quality standards. and i know that you may not have them right now. you think you of the nuclear regulatory commission does have

them. give them a chance to build something that's right, regulate it, welding procedures, and maybe, just maybe, there won't be 14 weeks in the first year, one of the worst disasters of the pipeline in history. thank you very much. [applause] >> i would like to call number nine anita paro, number ten, mr. balk of vanderbilt, number 11 stevan rupner and number 12, rabin mann, please. >> good morning and thank you very much. my name is anita parlo with al parlo and associates you can find it at www.sustaintheglobe.com. thank you very much for allowing

me to present briefly my thoughts regarding the administration's decision to approve or decline the permit that will allow the transcanada to build the 1700-mile tarzan pipeline, the keystone xl, that would traverse the american heartland stretching from alberta canada before reaching port arthur on the texas gulf coast. i a understand the concerns right now or whether this would be in the national interest, and i appreciate the national when interest in a variety of complex ways. given that the proposed pipeline would cross among other locations the indian country and the u.s., might i note the traditional native american theology would ask that its recent decision regarding land of the utilization of natural resources be made with consideration of potential impacts to seven generations yet to come. the core issue is whether it is in the interest of the united states to approve the permit to allow transcanada to transport 830,000 barrels per day of

canadian tarzan. my own perspective on whether the administration would grant the permit to transcanada is based on two main concerns. first, that the decision be made within the context of energy security moving forward and second, that if a favorable decision is made, the administration along with transcanada and other business interests would fully incorporate conditionality into the permits to ensure an appropriate protection and disaster response capabilities the would support the environment, water, humanities -- sorry, human and community risks. my own experience on these matters draws from a combination of my advanced degree from oxford university and corporate social responsibility and my recent work in a variety of locations in the americas and sub-saharan africa, central asia and most recently on a related project in the u.s. gulf coast. we have community recovery particularly in the seafood industry at stake.

the bp spill and its ongoing aftermath offers perhaps a sobering glimpse into what can happen if this is not done. the 1700-mile pipeline could become a fault line moving into the 2012 election. but what of the lead outcome of the transcanada should be treated on its own terms rather than a political football. my eighth remarks focus on regulatory and other limitations that the administration should require before issuing a permit commercial a permit be issued. and not to say that some of these issues weren't discussed in your eis, but wheat we learned after the bp still is that there was quite a lot left undone, unnoticed and attended or insufficient regulatory. one energy security. we were told that the pipeline what be good for jobs. a gentleman waiting in line with us is one of the union made it quite clear 20% unemployment among workers comes to something in terms of the determination of whether or not the permission --

permit would be issued. however a corollary question raised by several persons here is another question, another aspect of energy security on whether the tarzan oil will be used for domestic consumption a path for exports. >> can you go ahead and complete your remarks, please? >> in the new book in your tonnes author tom friedman noted the u.s. is becoming a country that the transnational corporations hover over rather than identify with. the other issues that i think are quite significant leaks come eminent domain and up-to-date disaster response capabilities which bring local communities that might be affected or impacted buy any disaster or still or pipeline break down that might occur. in conclusion, what ever come before the administration should decide to grant a permit, the government must go beyond the call. it must consider all viewpoints and above all develop a regulatory monitoring disaster response capability that includes local communities to

assure to the extent possible that a bp style disaster is not waiting in the wings. thank you. >> thank you para [applause] >> thanks to steve jobs or have a timer i can use. thank you, steve. my name is bob and i traveled all the way here from terry montanan and i am a proud citizen. i have no stake in the keystone xl pipeline. my wife and i traveled here 2200 miles. 22 miles a guest to get from here to the airport. i am a petroleum industry analyst and proud to be in the industry for 52 years. worked for unical for 20 of those years and i was there at the santa barbara oil spill and was the santa barbara oil spill plan manager and cleaned up my share of the burdens and i was not proud of it and i saw will cost us to have with that point

became the irony in oil cut off and no energy policy and this keystone xl pipeline will help us at least get it back to the americas because we have lost three war and many conflict 150,000 lives fighting for foreign oil to get it here because the exxonmobil and the other oil companies i have worked for cannot afford to follow all the regulations and anything that has been passed along to follow the rules we need to have in order to have the clean environment that the american indian, a native american just spoke about. transcanada being accused of manipulating oil prices, and i'm here to tell you that no one oil company can do that. we have the goldman sachs and morgan stanley and hedge funds in the wall street banks with which these people outside our apparently protesting doing it

quite well, thank you, and they are making money. we will in fact save money on this pipeline because guess who is making all the money right now transferring the oil from north dakota and eastern montana and the oilfields? the burlington northern and santa fe. you know who owns that? warren buffett. is warren buffett going to make so much money he will give up his 15 or 25% he's been talking about to president obama? i.t. he will. i have a coal train from 20 minutes in montana to chicago. you know what? i love it. it's capitalism, it's good she's making money and it's good for him that this pipeline will make money for last. the last thing i want to say is since my time is not up i asked the question at the meeting how many people here commit other than a fossil fuel vehicle?

a few hands. okay. out of 500, zero people that actually came in other than a fossil fuel vehicle. my time is up and i appreciate. did president obama to approve this pipeline now. [applause and booing] >> can we move along, please? >> krepp i would like to call on mr. stevan, please. can you sit down, please. >> also, those in the back of our standing there are plenty of seats in the front end the fire marshal would appreciate people remaining seated. good morning - stephen b-r-u-c-k-e-n-r with the sierra club virginia chapter. i speak in opposition to the proposed keystone xl pipeline. not only because it violates the

official climate positions of the canadian and u.s. governments but because the canadian oil industry's proposal is against the economic interests of americans specifically its farmers and consumers. the oil economist, professor from the university of calgary state, is building the keystone xl pipeline would increase the fuel cost of u.s. farmers by $2.6 billion in 2013. it would increase the food cost throughout the u.s. because the farmers to costs are passed through to consumers. but increase the gasoline and diesel cost throughout the midwest by ten to 20 cents per gallon. therefore, the building of keystone xl would increase america's we'll buy $5 billion per year. how would this happen? at the current time the canadian tarzan is shipped to refineries in illinois and oklahoma. these refiner b-r-u-c-k-e-n-r

dollars per barrel less than the global price because the tarzan of's oil is an oversupply. this reduced price benefit midwest farmers and consumers. if the keystone xl pipeline is built, the oil will be shipped to the refiners in the gulf coast and from there the resulting gasoline and diesel would be exported to south america or it would catch the $15 per barrel higher per price. since the canadian oil companies will be able to receive the higher price by exporting they will reduce the supply into the u.s. market until the u.s. price increases to match the global price. thus of the keystone xl pipeline is built would decrease the supply to the u.s. market and increase the u.s. oil bill by $5 billion per year. in addition, the canadian oil companies claim the proposed keystone xl pipeline would reduce the import of oil from unfriendly countries and reduce the potential for the supply disruptions. this claim is bogus, however because the u.s. already has a

700 million-barrel -- [booing] >> can you please let the gentleman finish? >> already has 700 million-barrel reserve designed to provide the same protection. this reserve provides more than adequate insurance against the disruptions. in summary the proposed keystone xl pipeline is against the economic interest of u.s. farmers and consumers and should not be approved. consider the uproar over the failure of the department of energy's guarantee that cost u.s. taxpayers $500 million. this department state decision could cost u.s. taxpayers $5 billion per year. that is ten per year every year. thank you. [applause] kuhl >> robin man, please.

>> robin man regarding the keystone xl pipeline as president is dangerous, dirty and unnecessary. i was in montana just after the yellowstone oil spill and i toured the site of this bill on what i saw was a catastrophe. the oil croplands 25 miles of river by 42,000 of toxic crude oil. i took away three lessons that the department should heed in the decision on the pipeline. first, spills happen no matter how many precautions are taken. second, the impacts are much more devastating during extreme weather events such as flooding or droughts and wildfires as in texas and changing climate appears to be bringing more

extreme weather. third come out of sight is not out of the ecosystem or unconnected to our health. i saw pastor were the top of the grass looked fine and on the stems below was residual oil, oil that was left from the flooding conditions and that will poison the land, please in the water and livestock for a very long time. last week we saw hundreds of americans travel to hearings to say no to this pipeline. these people were not paid, not around by transcanada. [applause] these were people -- >> please go ahead. >> these are people who took the time to understand this complicated project who are exposing the truth behind transcanada's it saturated claims, and covering the safety record of this company. the american people are expected a fair hearing by the department of state, and we are shocked to see the testimony being taken by employees of the company, a friend that advertises specialization permitting

compliance and whose clients include transcanada and pp. i am glad to know my comments are being heard today by the state department officials. this firm has managed much of the environmental impact review, public outreach and public comment process. state department failed to deliver on its responsibility to draft a scientifically robust and fair environmental review. the state department has also grossly mismanaged the input process by turning it over to a firm aligned with the oil company proposing this pipeline. americans are now being asked to shoulder the risks from the keystone xl pipeline simply to grant the tarzan's industry access to international shipping port. there is no guarantee that this pipeline's oil will be used in the united states, and in fact one of the main companies contracted to purchase the oil has indicated it will export it. it is simply not in our interest to threaten the air, water and land of millions of americans to supply foreign markets with a

dirty wheel and benefit the companies serving them. sierra club calls on the department of state to take another look at this proposed pipeline and this time do it with out the transcanada contractors and transcanada lobbyists in the room. it's time to take a look at the impact, the science, look at the record and listen to the will of the american people, the national interest will be clear. say no to the pipeline. [applause] [cheering] >> ladies and gentlemen. while we appreciate that you appreciate comments made by the various different speakers, long rounds of applause to take time away from listening to those comments so please hold that down. we have next i would like to call ms. daniel simms, number 13. mr. iraq hyfa. 15, suzanne lubay. and number 16, george. >> my name is dan yell,

s-i-m-m-s. i was born in 1988, the senior that he gave his, testimony on climate change and awareness. i was too young to remember the exxon valdez oil spill in alaska, to young in 1997 to understand the frustration when the united states didn't sign the kyoto protocol. throughout my life i've seen the drought, some of the largest listed destructive hurricanes of history and i've lived through the hottest years on the planet and graduate college weeks after the bp oil spill disaster. clearly the united states needs to lead on climate action. i'm asking americans and many of our communities pay the price by losing your health risks such as the power plants or oil pipelines. this keystone xl pipeline is not just an environmental issue and civil rights issue as well. it can destroy op refers and introduce toxins to our food supply. already, tarzan's oil extraction

requires removing ancient forests and leaves toxins behind the cause cancer and increase air pollution and lung disease. i have faded american ancestors and people who profess how to possess nature will see communities destroyed by the pipeline. indigenous people have contributed to climate change and suffer from the brunt of their immediate effect. the proposal for this pipeline shows the state department is willing to put the wellbeing of communities at risk for the profit of the oil industry. the american people -- the federal government can make every effort to end apartheid increase the gap between haves and have-nots and the on climate action. this begins when the country ceases to invest in the unjust energy system that creates to benefit millionaires. this begins with the u.s. stops investing in technology but poisons our planet, our water supply and food supply.

this begins with the u.s. shows the world that we have a determination to end our addiction to oil while reducing the constitution to quite a change. since the keystone pipeline has already leaked 12 times in 12 months a new pipeline is not a serious effort to solve the problem. in 2006, one senator stated america is addicted to oil without following a plan for energy independence is like committing alcoholism and skipping a little step program. it's not enough to identify the challenge, we have to meet it. the senator is now our president. state department, today if you feel a sense of urgency we feel then you have the moral choice you must make. to be able to support the oligarchy and the oil industry or the american people, environmental and civil rights justice. we are in power in you, this department, to deny the pipeline for the keystone xl. finton. [applause]

>> good morning. my name is eric and i and president of friends of the earth united states. i am here representing our members up and down the pipeline route. i am here representing the more than 76 friends of the earth country groups around the world because this pipeline is a dangerous and deadly polluting the pipeline that will come as jim hansen said, take our planet into climate chaos. we have not been silenced about our opposition to this pipeline, but we want to live with in the process, the fact that citizens have a fair right to express their opinion. but unfortunately, secretary clinton and the state department very early on tipped the scales in transcanada's fever. in october, president or secretary clinton said she was inclined to approve the pipeline. she was inclined to approve it before the comments heard today in and around the country were heard.

that is an unbalanced process. it's also shocking to see that part of all interests, a consultant for transcanada as business part of transcanada is leading the process that is tipping the scales. just last week friends of the earth got over 300 pages of information from state department officials that were coaching and routing for transcanada and the lobbyists the higher, mainly paul eliot, to get the pipeline approved. ..

>> the future generation of this pipeline is approved can read how the state department helped this pipeline to build. are you guys just clearing the way and making excuses for transcanada? and finally, why is the state department allowing the legal clearing -- illegal clearing in the nebraska and moving of dangerous species before a permit, before a permit is even approved and the process for public hearing is done? president obama ran a campaign trying to clean up washington, d.c. and cleaning up the lobbying process. it is clear that this process is failing his promise and it's failing the american people, and

it is saving the environment and it is failing our needed globally to address climate change. this pipeline should and must be stopped. president obama must take the authority from the state department and make the decision on his own. because that is the only way that we protect this planet, protect the american people, and ensure that there is integrity in this process, which is lacking right now. thank you. [applause] >> please, do go ahead. >> hello. my name is susan. i am a land owner and a rancher from the sand hills of nebraska. [applause] first of all i'd like to shout out to mom and all the people

back home. helping out while i'm here. i have traveled all the way here to tell all of you this permit must be denied. it is not in the national best interest for anyone except the money hungry, greedy corporation of transcanada. i am part of a fourth generation ranch that raises black angus cattle. sadly, our way of making a living could all go away in seconds, and that is why we have not signed our easement contract with transcanada land agents. people out here have no idea what it takes to work in the land of the sand hills of nebraska. it is a seven-day a week job. we are proud of what we do, but not everyone can do the work we do. you have to grow up in this type of atmosphere to get out day after day. so when a foreign corporation comes in and tells us land owners lie after lie to get us

to sign, it leaves a very sour taste in our mouths. all of us nebraskans are now very concerned about our sandhills and our water. if i don't take care of both, it could lead the land destitute for anyone to live off of it forever. i don't want parts and chemicals in our water. our water table on our ranch is only two feet underground. knowing this pipeline will fit in, not over, the aquifer is a serious threat to our livelihood of nebraskans. we have been threatened with imminent domain so many times. the bad reputation and false promises of transcanada does not make anyone trust them. all the jobs promised is not worth the economic stimulus that nebraska's sandhills and our aquifer will stand. we are and asked it with the world's best kept secret, until now. and now it is an all-out war to

battle transcanada and keep them off our property. if i can't sell my cattle, if i can't sell my land, if i can't shower or drink the greatest tasting water on earth, when there is a leak in our aquifer, where will i work? president obama, you promised to let the earth heal and look for better ways to lead our future. madam secretary of state clinton, this is definitely an art nation's worst interest. please for our children's future, on our ranch, deny this permit. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> and good morning. my name is george. i think i am the one who is out of the ordinary here, because i'm first nation and they come from northern canada. i come from the tar sands area.

i represent many first nations in canada and i'm here today representing the families who are also living and dying with very rare and aggressive cancers, which we suspect are cost from the tar centered i'm a former chief of my first nation. we live in an area called the delta which is one of the largest freshwater deltas in the world. unfortunately the tar sands are situated in our traditional homeland and we've been observing many issues of the 40 years of open pit mining of the tar sands, and only 3% of the total tar sand deposits have been mind. and we seemed water quality issues, water quantity issues impact animals, to birds, to big game, the fish health. and more critically we are seeing rare and effective cancers in my community today. we have seen environmental injustices, human rights abuses,

repeated infringement of our constitutionally protected treaty rights by both canada and third parties like the multinational oil companies that are invested in the tar sands. there's nothing ethical about using tar sands oil versus saudi arabia oil. it is for the pipeline will undoubtedly mean the total devastation of our homeland. the water, the animals, the birds, the fish, and contribution to early death of my people, and undoubtedly the genocide of my people. we vehemently and categorically reject the approval of this pipeline, for very obvious reasons. and i want to challenge secretary clinton, president obama who, i think, hasn't ethical and moral obligation, prior to making this

determination of an approval, to visit the tar sands, to see the tar sands, to hear our people, and to listen to the many issues that people have. and so with that, i'm happy to be here with our indigenous brothers and sisters from both sides of the border, thank you. [cheers and applause] >> i'd like to call, please, mr. stephen anderson. mr. george stanley, mr. randy thompson, and mr. or ms., i can't say, leslie fields, please. >> good morning. i'm steve anderson, retired brigadier general from the united states army. i was a senior logistician in iraq for 15 months, directly working for general david petraeus. i want to tell you why i believe that this pipeline is against our national best interest, and why it's against our military's best interest.

[cheers and applause] this pipeline will keep us addicted to oil. and our addiction to oil gets soldiers killed. we have lost over 1000 american lives moving fuel on the battlefield in iraq and afghanistan. and i know because i was the guide was running many of those convoys, controlling that from the top. it wastes billions of dollars. this nation will stand at $20 billion this year alone on the fuel and energy to air-conditioned structures in iraq and afghanistan. that's just for air-conditioning, 20 billion in consideration of the fully burdened cost of fuel, which is $30 a gallon in afghanistan, and probably $18 or so i down in the right. we're talking about the most isolated nation in the world. it's hard to get fuel out there, folks. this pipeline will continue to fund our enemy, and our enemies

are the lighting in this pipeline because they know that their wealth will continue to prosper, and ours will be great if we will continue to send billions of dollars over to our enemies that are right now building bombs and trying to kill us. and our soldiers are dying because of it. over 3500 american lives have been lost due to ideas that were funded by our oil. this pipeline will take off the pressure to develop renewable energy. we've heard about the more compelling already that i can speak. but we need to continue that and that will get jobs, by the way, in a great economy for veterans like me. this will continue, co2 emissions, and co2 emissions really the climate change in climate change leads to instability and that would mean that soldiers like me will have to continue to fight and die in order to police the world. this pipeline will set back the

clock 25 years of energy development in this nation. it would delight our enemies, it comes at a couple things, folks. co2 emissions, clean water, and american blood. stop this pipeline. [cheers and applause] >> george stanley, please. >> good morning. two american brothers and sisters, my name is george stanley. i represent alberta region, nation committee. i come from an assembly of first nations as an advocacy body. i bring you a couple keynotes to you folks, and i'm sure that it's all to do with health,

environment, and our species at risk. but foremost i want to bring a strong message from 45 nations that i represent. we, back in 1971, we had a premier called peter lawrie that make very clear to all burdens, when they initiate open-pit mines in that it was meant for alberta. we never envisioned keystone efforts and so on. today, it's very concerning as well as leaders like myself. we bring forward to our canadian counterparts, we send strong messages that we want some

communication, consultation through our first nations that are most impacted. today, you can see the tar sands from outer space. that's a huge it is. and i come from very bad of that oil tar sands. i don't expect to live more than 15 years. if someone could come and pay my bills, the bills that are forwarded to the next generati generation, i am welcoming them to come pay for them. does we are not paid on these health issues. i'm very adamant in many ways about tar sands, as first nations we invest in some of those. it's sad to say that there's no regulation from province, let alone federal government.

i want to greet all of my brothers and sisters who are wearing orange shirts. come, visit us in alberta. you will be about six hours before you get to a tarzan, u.s. military and living there is another thing. i want to bring this message before you, obama, my brother i should say, somebody said he is the chief like myself. let's consider a dialogue before i agree to support this. and brothers, farmers, their bills are getting hired so they're making some comments. american farmers, some that agree, some disagree. we will not bring you the dirty oil if you don't want us to. thank you, and good morning.

[applause] >> i'd like to call, please, randy thompson, then -- yes, randy townsend, you are next. >> good morning. my name is randy thompson and i am from nebraska. i hear as a nebraska citizen and landowner. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. i am very proud to be a nebraska and. nebraska is a great place to live. and it's filled with many hard-working, honest good people. normally you will never hear nebraskans raising much of a fuss unless an official makes a poor call at a husker football game. but in recent months i have noticed a change in the behavior of my fellow nebraskans.

like booing a corporate sponsor at a husker football game. they were booted so severely that the athletic director elected to remove the ads from the stadium. the corporate sponsor was transcanada. i've also witnessed something i have never seen before, and that's my fellow nebraskans filling the hearing halls to make their voices heard. this might bring you to ask the question, what's got you folks so stirred up out there? well, the short answer is, we feel like we are being thrown under the bus. not for a project that is in our national interest, but very much for a project that is in the

private interest of big oil companies. we feel our legitimate concerns about the sand hills and our great aquifer have gone unrecognized in environmental statement that was in part written by consulting firms with very close ties to big oil companies. we know the value of water to our state and to this great nation. we realize that water, not oil, is the essential ingredient for life. we also understand -- [applause] we also understand that water will become a critical issue for future generations of americans. and we can ill afford to waste or contaminate one drop of that

water, especially not for the sake of greed. we have difficulty rationalizing how we pipeline pushing oil across our country to some unknown destination can be in our national interest. in closing i would like to say this, history will be the ultimate judge of this project. and we are about ready to write that chapter of our history. will our descendents look back and say, thank god our great grandfathers had the foresight to protect the resources that we are now depending upon? or will they say, what with the damn fools thinking about? [applause] >> i would like to call, please, leslie fields.

lisa, mike and leslie, please. spent good morning. my name is leslie fields. i'm the environment of justice and dignity director for the sierra club. we appreciate very much this opportunity testified on this important issue. i'm just here to simply state this pipeline as many of my colleagues and our friends from all over this semester said is not in a national interest, national interest. not only that, the analysis of the pipeline is terribly flawed. and the state department failed to conduct an environmental justice analysis of the eis. and understand that president clinton was resolute in his executive order, and still serve as the guiding principles of our federal agencies should conduct their actions further environmental justice. india company memorandum for heads of the federal agencies, he emphasizes a part of every analysis, federal agencies must analyze the environment affects include human health, economic

and social effects and including effects on minority populations and low-income population. echoing his executive order the council environment equalities guidance also states plenty of the process must include an analysis of the relevant public health status as well as an announcement of multiple exposures. this guidance also requires the department state department to consider cultural, social, struggle and economic doctrines that may be asked of it by this pipeline. this was not done. we are very come your very much appreciative of sin because, the assistant minister for the office of enforcement of compliance assurance that the epa and their analysis saying that there was not enough evidence that this influx of huge amount of oil will have no environmental impact. in fact, it is most likely to add another pollution to commuters already burdened by sources of pollution. there's been a systematic

failure of state department throughout this process to give adequate consideration to the impacts of this project that poses a long-term minority by bush in any meaningful includes the population in this review. finally, sensory flawed in his conclusion that this project was no environmental ramifications. and it also fails to provide sufficient mitigation measures to remedy spills are ruptures, fails to identify the most likely it will process the type line. it fails to analyze the health impacts of the surrounding communities and avoid analysis of refining impacts by claiming the pipeline will not change the current level of heavy crude refinery. the eis seems to ignore that pipelines do still and often much more than we have heard today. in fact, the transcanada predicted that its keystone pipeline would only spill once in its first year of operation and it has built 12 times. that is result in the pipeline

has is because and safety administration issuing a directive order to transcanada finding that they continue operation without corruptive marchers would harm the army. despite this the state department claims the proposed project will not like the close significant risk around the rear. associate with those measures incorporated. epa also strongly criticized the eis analysis impacts because it's not evident that 830 million barrels a day capacity from canada to the refining without noting nations -- >> could you go ahead and wrap up your comments? >> well, the refineries in the communities in port arthur, texas, include malaria, huntsman, petrone, chevron, great lakes carbon, and also a chemical waste management facility. we are very disappointed. secretary clinton has already

made almost a determination for this pipeline and uprooted we remember when she was under clinton, she instituted at how the first ever environmental justice during in the u.s. senate hearing in july 2007. we were very encouraged backing. we believe she should heed what her spouse when he was president of his environmental justice, executive order, to make sure these impacts, these committees are protected. and we very much hope this current president will veto this pipeline. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> lisa vance austin, i'm a doctor. i'm on the advisory board of the center for health and the global indictment at harvard medical school. one month ago i was arrested at the white house in protest of the keystone xl pipeline. i am speaking about our health and what we stand to lose.

50 square miles of lakeside bodies of toxic wastewater have been formed from oil sands operations. these dirty waters are spilling into our watershed. for chip away and is one downstream cancer hotspot. our brothers and sisters there are three times more likely to be stricken with leukemia and lymphoma. lung cancers are on the rise, and rare cancers, sarcomas extremely lethal cancers of the soft tissues. bile duct cancers, the land of sarcomas, seven times more frequently diagnosed. too, just two of the substances in these toxic waste waters, the potent carcinogen benzene linked especially to the kenya and lymphoma. the canadian government acknowledges that developing the

tar sand in 2007 alone caused 40,000 pounds a benzene to be dumped into the river. arsenic, once released into the environment, cannot be recaptured. it damages the health of humans and animals at great distances from where it was initially dumped, causes infertility, and her logic damage, liver damage, cancers of the lung, bladder, kidney, liver, also linked to lymphoma. 14 months ago the keystone pipeline spilled a million gallons of tar sands into the kalamazoo river. the acute phase, bombing, seizures, skin rashes, memory loss. what will happen long-term? and then there's what happens to us when we breathe bad air, which will worsen with tar sands that produce even more carbon dioxide than conventional fossil fuels. i am a psychiatrist. i just deny it for a living. think about it.

where will we be safe? how will we feel? the rest of the world will know how much of the carpet budget we can for ourselves, and the destruction that this has caused. we will be pariahs. to the state department, secretary clinton, deny this permit. [applause] >> hello. my name is mike richter become a three-time u.s. olympian and coherent as a entrepreneur. a lifelong athlete i understand well the connection between my health and my ability to perform at high levels. and reach my potential. as a father three young boys, the husband and a son to an elderly parent, i also understand the connection that each of us has between our level of health and the quality of

life and the environment -- environment in which we live. if we are going to fulfill our potential as people come as a nation, and even as a species, there can be no higher priority than take every measure possible to ensure that the health of our air, water and natural resources on which life depends is taken care of. the question of the department of the tar sands and the construction of the xl pipeline offer such opportunity i want to stress two points. first the tar sands as environmental disaster on many levels. secondly, the environment never just about the environment. the greenhouse gas emissions for tar sands are estimated at three times the conventional oil. whatever the level, given the best science that we know, in increase should be avoided. and these levels are simply reckless. tar sands crude contains more heavy metals, more carcinogens than a conventional oil. they have 11 times more nickel,

six times more nitrogen, simply put, we will suffer more respiratory diseases and more cancer. the pipeline as you heard crosses through five states in our nation hard line. which is 30% of our agricultural water and drinking water for 2 million americans. tar sands carries more corrosive ago, must be transported at high temperatures and high pressure. the likelihood of catastrophic spills along 1700 miles, it's just unacceptably high. ironically the economy national security had two reasons proponents used to support the tar sands. this is a mistake. first increasing the concentration measured in greenhouse gas will destabilize the climate, compromises 52, increases extreme weather events, environmental refugees and undermines global security. trading strategic that is just shortsighted. we learned one thing with

deepwater horizon exploded, it's that one environment catastrophe, the economy and social fabric of an entire region can be destroyed as effectively as a terrorist attack. .. effort of homegrown clean energy industry the united states has a potential to reignite its economy, create and invest in jobs bolster national security and the health of its

people. we'll only realize this potential if our leaders realize there's and stop the tarzan's. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> i'd like to call now lesley weeks, number 24. danny marshall, number 25. larry shwagger and number 26, rachel. and remind you if you could spell your last name and give your affiliation. thank you. >> i am leslie and i am turning my time over. >> my name is dena h-u-b-b-a--r-d and we represent retirees nationwide. our members for an airline, public transit, on a rail, gaming, utility and universities. we respectfully call the state department not to recommend approval of a presidential

permit for the construction of the keystone xl pipeline. [applause] the objection of the pipeline is not in the national interest of the united states. we share the concerns conveyed by the epa to the state department on two occasions, most recently june 6th. these concerns come as you know, include first the potential impact to the united states ground water resources from pipeline spills. second, a high level of a greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project which will just make worse the job killing components of the climate crisis and third, the inevitable damage to the health of communities in the united states affected by the increased refinery emissions. approval of the project would in our view be reckless given the epa's assessment of the environmental risks. more importantly from a union perspective, approval of the project would impede our country's critical effort to create the jobs that we need to transition to a more sustainable

economy. this is a transition that science tells us and we must meet immediately in order to prevent irreversible harm to the climate. to help us make that transition, there is no shortage of water and sewage pipe lines that need to be fixed or replaced, bridges and tunnels in need of emergency repair and transportation infrastructure that needs to be renewed and developed. there are jobs that can be created in energy conservation and of greeting the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation, jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency. it's past time for major new deal public investments in infrastructure modernization and repair, energy conservation and climate protection as a means of putting people to work and fleeing the foundation for a more sustainable economic future for the united states.

[applause] this is just sound science and sound economics. increasing our reliance on the oil would take us in the opposite direction. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. my name is danny r-u-t-h-e-n-b-e-r-g if a st a st collision and organic farm worker from southern maryland. when i look at the d.c. i see the front lines of politics of the political system where money buys power and the people are ignored. a system where a so-called public servant and corporations assist them with the long-term well-being of the public trust is ignored in favor of short-term profits of the already wealthy. it is a flawed system that we cannot fix immediately but we can take a step in the right

direction. you have an opportunity to break the cycle and say no to the corporations. you can say to our environment it's more important in corporate profit and we will not sacrifice it. you can give the country back to the people who love it dearly. say no to corporate greed and yes to public need. say no to the keystone xl pipeline and yes to true energy independence. say yes to a clean energy future based on renewables built in this country by an american labor creating temporary jobs and shipping energy abroad is not conducive to building a productive america. nor is it conducive to the energy security and independence. break the political cycle, brick the collusion between the corporate interest in a government decision makers and build a better and brighter american future. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> i am larry and president and ceo of the national wildlife federation. the federation is a nonpartisan,

nonprofit organization supported by 47 state affiliate's and 4 million members across america. the keystone xl pipeline is a dangerous and unnecessary project that jeopardize america's conservation heritage, the livelihood of landowners across its path and the precious resources upon which many in this country depend. and a presidential permit should not be granted. the question being asked is whether this pipeline is in the national interest. the answer is pretty simple. from me as a father and grandfather spoiling the planet for the future is not in the national interest. addicting americans to the trillions of dollars of expense of canadian oil is not in the national interest. leaving our kids with a superheated planet with a super sized oil spill is not in our national interest. i wonder what national interest means to the administration. our measuring stick is very clear what we should be doing

this for our kids and grandchildren and the natural world that we leave them. i have trouble with the state department seems to be using as its measuring stick. the e-mail traffic that has been covered makes clear the relationship with the corporations pushing this project and cicatrix clinton passed judgment long ago that this pipeline is a good thing for america without ever talking to the landowners who are affected by the project without ever talking to the first nation people, without talking to the experts who know that this is a dangerous pipeline and a terrible idea. it says a lot that she is not here today. i don't think she has ever sat down with the opponents of this pipeline but she is meeting today with corporate leaders including the court rhaetian encouraging investments and the tarzan pipeline. keystone xl is a critically important environmental legacy decision for the obama administration. the state department's final environmental impact statement concluded it would increase

america's carbon pollution output, the equivalent of adding 4 million new cars to the roads. president obama should stay the course and be remembered as the clean car president cannot change years and become the dirty fuel president. president obama needs to step in on this and make a decision based on the evidence and not allow this decision to be made by the secretary of state or anyone at the state department who has obvious conflicts of interest. it's the right thing to do for wild life and for families along the pipeline route and most especially the right thing to do for our children's future. i personally witnessed tarzan's in fact in canada and solve the unclaimed mining sites that have been talked about here, the polluted rivers and the destruction of the force water contamination and error contamination for the first nations people and more importantly, for their future. >> i regret to say we are almost out of time here.

>> let me conclude by simply saying that this is an important decision for not just america's future the future of the world and president obama needs to show leadership on this urgent issue. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> my name is rachel e-g-g-b-o from grand cooperative in south dakota and i am here to voice my support for the keystone xl pipeline. i come along with a general manager and board of directors at grand electric, believe the pipeline will enhance the development of our natural resources in our area and ensure the development of u.s. resources. we believe purchasing oil through transcanada from a friendly neighboring nation is far better than to continue to purchase oil from unstable unfriendly middle east countries. i agree all safety issues need to be addressed and protocols

need to be implemented. however, i also believe that the federal and state agencies have done their job and will place adequate restriction requirements on transcanada to ensure that the pipeline does not pose unreasonable risks or exposure. what does the pipeline do for domestic energy production? in january, 2011, transcanada closed a successful open season which resulted in a long-term commitment of 65,000 barrels of oil per day that would be moved into this pipeline at an on ramp that would be built near baker montana. the 65,000 barrels of oil will be pumped from the formation within the basin of north dakota. in a september 22nd edition of the oil hot line which is an online newsletter that reports on the oil activity in the north-central united states,

north dakota governor stated that within the next two years north dakota could be producing as much as 700 barrels of oil per day. if north dakota does indeed produce 700,000 barrels per day and 25% were to be moved into the pipeline, we would be moving approximately 175,000 barrels of north dakota oil down the pipeline everyday. what does this do for south dakota? i won't quote the statistics i can say i have personally seen the numbers impact in the state of south dakota, and in terms of increased employment, income and taxed revenue. and it is definitely good for south dakota. and it is definitely a step toward energy independence and oil we don't have to purchase from an unstable middle east country. therefore, i respectfully urge you to conclude the review

process and improve the presidential permit. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. now i would like to call number 27, dave collier, number 28, charles bernard, number 29, doug hardee and number three, jack. >> good morning. i am dave c-o-l-l-o-u-r. but me start by being clear about why i am here. it's clearly for the u.s. to decide whether it is in america's national interest. our interest is in making sure that this decision is based on objective analysis and is aspelin from as possible. i would like to offer five points for your consideration. first, in our view this is not tall about the u.s. using more oil.

the question is where is it to be sourced from? canada or elsewhere. in our opinion, you are much better served by sourcing that increased oil, increasing in terms of the portion of oil that is being used in the u.s. from canada rather than foreign sources. second this is about energy security for north america. canada is the third largest reserves of crude oil and we currently supply about 20% of the world's imports. we've got the opportunity to significantly grew that volume over the next 10-15 years, and we would like to do so and sell it to the united states. third, this is about job creation. the result of the oil sands and the related infrastructure has the potential and is currently creating tens of thousands of jobs in both canada and the united states. we've identified in excess of 2400 companies in 49 states in the united states that currently supply goods or services to the

oil sands development or really the structure and there's an opportunity to grow that number with the approval of this project. fourth, this is about continuous improvement in environmental performance. we stand by our record in canada in the oil and gas industry and environmental performance and we are going to continue to improve the performance. i must come a while i respect the concerns expressed with respect to health impacts on the local communities must point out that there have been several reputable health studies conducted with respect to the impact of the oil sands on the help of local communities and there has been no demonstrated linkage or relationship between the two. [laughter] i also want to highlight independent, the analysis has been conducted by an independent expert has also concluded the oil sands quality has no impact, no detrimental impact on pipeline unruh any different or can be differentiated from that

of other crude oil transport in the u.s.. fifth, this is about a comprehensive federal regulatory system in canada. as an industry we are held to a high standard. that's what we expect of ourselves, that's what our government expects and that's what we believe customers in the united states expect, and we will continue to be held to that high standard and continue to perform to that standard. so in closing, in your review of the projects national interest, i ask you to consider environmental performance, economic benefits and energy security and reliability. our view to this approach stands up extremely well on all of those counts. we ask you to consider each one of them. thank you very much. [applause] >> good morning. my name is charles b-a-r-n-a-r-d

speak on my own behalf. i now from virginia but grew up in montana within 40 miles of port morgan where the keystone xl pipeline is proposed to enter the u.s.. i'm here today in support of the pipeline. i believe that keystone xl -- [applause] is in our country's pipeline. i believe that keystone xl -- [applause] is in our country's national interest. it will improve our national security, contribute to a long-term stable energy supply for the united states and create jobs. the pipeline will provide oil to the refineries along the texas gulf coast. we do think that our dependence on oil imports from unreliable overseas sources. bye supporting domestic production and by importing oil from canada instead of from overseas countries, we will strengthen both our national security and our energy

security. the pipeline is expected to create thousands of u.s. jobs in the near term as well as provide billions in tax revenue in the corridor state. keystone xl will join thousands of miles of pipeline already working efficiently and productively in the u.s.. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. i am doug triet i appreciate the opportunity today. i'm testifying on behalf of myself as a resident in montana, as a manager of central montanan electric cooperative based in great falls montana, feeding the supply to the rural electric cooperatives. i will not quote the statistics of the tens of thousands of jobs created directly and indirectly

but will share for reasons the i believe this pipeline is in the nation's interest. one is energy independence. i will paraphrase been so how that was hit hard. it's not just about canadian oil. the on ramp in the baker area has some of the nicest way you would ever like if you could like oil. it's on ramp many thousands of carroll said day. we look at that as a way to get oil to market and a decrease dependence on foreign oil. but clearly, if we could decrease dependence throop less usage, that's great. we still need input. we could increase or decrease the use it on more domestic. we still need imports. let that imports come from a friendly nation, one that supports, not one that wants to see the demise of our society. energy is the driver of the economy. energy prices go up, the economy goes down. short of any other factors. jobs are lost when energy prices go up.

we've seen that in our area. it's a fact that low-cost energy has attracted many industries to be cut through the pacific midwest. through the standpoint of jobs, having affordable energy is just critical to maintain the economy and not lose jobs. on the local level, much of our educational funding in montana is pre-tax from homeowners, for industry all-around. the tax basis would create tremendous and that dollar not only funds university systems, it funds also the state and local schools and helps people afford what they are doing and it's properly educating our countries. and in education it is a never ending issue. bottomline, tankers bringing oil from other countries that have environmental risk but they don't pay any taxes to local communities for schools. the pipeline brings the oil too and absolutely helps the local

schools and county governments that it goes through. and you know, in our area we have got hundreds of easements we haven't condemned. the people have been supportive. it's interesting that we find how unsupportive people are in montana from people who may have never been there. last as jobs relate to family and it's my last point and it's critical to me. i am no expert as to what to say what brings self-esteem to a person to be a good member of the family. i do know i've seen people that appear to have very high self-esteem that are wonderful productive members of society who upon job loss lose self-esteem and are no longer as productive in society and the weak economy give societal problems all over the place in regards to self-esteem i want my daughters and my grandkids to have jobs that our quality as we ran ourselves to more independence. thank you. >> thank you very much.

[applause] >> now we would like to call jack. >> j-h-e-k-o-c-h-s-k-i. i am representing franciscan network which is a leading voice in the united states advocating for environmental justice. i'm also representing the national interfaith power and light. both of these organizations oppose granting the permit for the keystone xl pipeline. we find this project morally indefensible. the project will lead to a massive expansion of the obstruction of them on conventional fossil fuels. this is a very dangerous move. our prolonged addiction to the dirty fossil fuel has put us on the cusp of radical and irreversible changes to the

earth's atmosphere. we are already low but missing glaciers melting, sea levels rising, increased floods, droughts, millions of people being displaced, a rapid loss of biodiversity. the survival of billions of people also as much as half of the earth is being wiped out can be wiped out by the end of the century. there's another reason why the tarzan pipeline is morally inexcusable. will endanger the indigenous community cannot threaten one of the largest aquifers and the planet in imperil the lives of the people that depend on it. also, it is the poor, the vulnerable and the voiceless that are bearing the brunt of the global climate change that

would be intensified by the full-scale tarzan's operation. people could face under all over the world of. approving the keystone xl pipeline runs the risk of condemning the poorest of the world to desperate struggle for food and survival. the tradition holds up the sacredness of all life, got a's creation has a profound value and meaning. we humans share with the rest of god's creation only the origin the destiny. the christian tradition teaches that human family can find true peace, security only when we live together as brothers and sisters and integrity, and justice and harmony with the earth. a debate over the keystone xl pipeline formed by the values of love and solidarity, of special concerns for the poor and most vulnerable. the common good of all of god's

predation. the keystone pipeline is being free is a solution to america's's energy needs that would spur job creation. is a dangerous iran should. the economy exists within the limit -- >> offer, the time is coming to an end. i would invite you to put your comments to the table. >> on behalf of the network and interfaith power light i urge the department and president obama to denied a permit for the pipeline. per won the deadly addiction to fossil fuel will be devastating for life on the planet. for people into the economy. this is immoral. and it's not in the national interest of the united states. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> now number 31, mary. number 32 machine. number 33, robert.

and number 34, kate. thank you. >> brann ocs dtc six buenos dias. think for the opportunity to speak to this hearing. i am mary c-a-s-t-e-l-l-a-n-o-s and i am a christian minister in the united church of christ. i come not only as a clergyperson but as a former scientist, a bird watcher and someone who passionately loves god's blessed creation. i also come on behalf of the many children who might your loved -- ideally left to rely want them to create enjoy nature as i have in all of the glory and beauty that god made. in a recent letter to president obama, am i and nobel peace

laureates wrote, and i quote, the night you were nominated for president you told the world that under your leadership the rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet would begin to heal. if the president gives consent to the keystone pipeline, he would break not only his promise, but the hearts of millions as well. when i study moral theology or christian ethics, we were taught to look at issues through several criteria under different lenses. i can assure you that this issue the father just explained so well sales at every level in the every criterion. how can the destruction of the forest north america for the sake of profit to be ethical? how can we justify pushing all

the birds that nest to extinction which would surely happen because so many of them are already threatened. or injuring the source of drinking water for millions of people or endorsing an extraction process that costs high levels of greenhouse gas pollution and leaves behind enormous deposits of toxic waste and is permeated by the stench of corporate greed. this is not moral, this is not ethical. this is what we are. as a nation we like to think of ourselves as a high moral ground people. approving this pipeline would surely question our perception of ourselves. over this year, the fourth of july weekend, a 12-inch pipeline

broke a the bottom of the yellowstone river, spilling crude that covered more than 10 miles of the same waterway. what was an oil pipeline doing believe the yellowstone river? i frantically asked when i found out. >> unfortunately time is at an end. may i ask you to finish up with the sentence? >> i would like to say there's a racial divide in this room, and it breaks my heart because study after study, sponsored by my church, the united church of christ, tells you that the waste of all toxic developments usually winds up in african-american, latino and native american communities don't allow a false sense of

gain to divide the people of color on this issue. we always stand to lose. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> hello. my name is jane and i'm from hastings, nebraska. i stand here today with the daughter of a rancher i hope he will allow me to split my time with. we are the pipeline fighters. we are the sand hills lovers, we are the talk with her lover's and we are begging you, not asking, we are begging you to deny this pipeline permit. every day we fight and askari elected officials to stand up for us to do the right thing and change the path of this pipeline. it is going through the most