of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of m. douglas harpool of missouri, to be united states trict for the western district of missouri, signed by 17 senators as follows: mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the names not be necessary. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 583. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. mr. reid: aye. the presiding officer: all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: gerald austin mchugh jr. of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the eastern district.

mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of gerald austin mchugh jr. of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the eastern district of pennsylvania, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. reid: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor aye. opposed no. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 584. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to.

the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: edward g. smith of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the eastern district. mr. reid: i send a closings to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of edward g. smith of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the eastern district of pennsylvania, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 2 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all against say no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the banking, housing and urban affairs committee be discharged from further work on s. 1456. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1456, a bill to award the congressional gold medal to shimon peres. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceed to the measure? mr. reid: madam president? madam president? before the consent is granted on this matter, i -- i know the day is long and i feel as much if not more than anyone else, but i can't let the night go by with this resolution about to pass

without saying something about this good man. i have had the good fortune to travel the world meeting kings and presidents and prime ministers and lots of people, but i have never met anyone that's more impressive than this man. he's a visionary, and what he has done for that small country of israel, which is so important to us, is something that history books will report for generations to come. i spoke to him earlier this week about another matter, and every time i go to israel -- i haven't been there lots of times but i have been there a few times -- i make sure that i take my delegation to visit him. i always tell him this is my favorite. i think so much of this man. and it's the least we could do for someone who has done so much for world peace and so much for our country.

finally, i will be fairly quick. i traveled the -- the delegation -- i was a member of the house of representatives. it was led by tom lantos, the late tom lantos, a hungarian jew who escaped the holocaust because of sal wallenberg. met a lot of members of congress there, a lot of delegations. tom lantos said to him in that beautiful speaking voice he had, that hungarian accent, the leader of our delegation, mr. prime minister, we're so sorry to bother you. we know how busy you are, how many difficult things you have in your country, and he said to us -- and i'll never forget this -- you don't understand. i'm never too busy to meet with a delegation from the united states congress. they have done so much for my country. and he said a few other things. i have said and i want the

record to reflect this is something that we need to do as quickly as possible. i ask unanimous consent that the bennet amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read three times, passed, motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee has discharged on the various requests. the measures, they are agreed to. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. 2147. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2147, a bill to amend public law 112-59, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table

with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to h.r. 4076. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4076, an act to address shortages and interruptions in the availability of propane and so forth, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceed to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times -- a third time and passed, i'm sorry, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. any statements for this bill appear in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the indian affairs committee be discharged from further work on h.r. 2650. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2650, an act to allow the fond du lac bond of lake superior chip with a in the state of minnesota to lease or transfer certain land.

the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table following any intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 375. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 324, s. res. 375, resolution concerning the crisis in central african republic and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceed to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i further ask the committee-reported amendment be -- to the resolution be agreed to, the resolution as amended be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 325. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 325, s. res. 376, resolution

supporting the goals of international woman's day. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceed? without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the resolution be agreed to, the amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preambles as amended be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to s. res. 377. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 326, senate resolution 377, recognizing the 193rd anniversary of the independence of greece, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceed to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to immediate consideration en bloc to the resolutions numbered 388, 389, 390, 391 and 392. the presiding officer: without

objection, the senate proceeds en bloc to the measures. mr. reid: oh, i'm sorry. sorry about that. i was thinking what i had to do next. there has been no objection to proceeding to these, is that right? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. reid: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, there being no interintervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. -- to h. con. res. 93. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 93, concurrent resolution directing the clerk of the house of representatives to make technical corrections in the enrollment of h.r. 3370. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceed to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on

the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: s. 2122 is due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2122, a bill to amend titles 18 and 19 of the social security act to repeal the medicare sustainability growth rate, and to improve medicare and medicaid payments, and for other purposes. mr. reid: i object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: i am told there are three bills at the desk. i ask for their first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles for the bills for the first time. the clerk: s. 2148, a bill to provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes. h.r. 3474, an act to amend the

internal revenue code of 1986 to allow employers to exempt employees with health coverage under tricare, and so forth. h.r. 3979, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to ensure the emergency service -- services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the patient protection and affordable care act. mr. reid: have all three titles been read, madam president? the presiding officer: they have. mr. reid: i now ask for a second reading of each of these but object to each of them. the presiding officer: objection having been heard. the bills will receive their second readings. on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming recess or adjournment of the senate, the president of the senate, president pro tem tore and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to committees, boards, conferences

and interparliament conference authorized by law by concurrent action of the two houses or by order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that during the adjournment or recess, the senate from thursday, march 13 through monday, march 24, senators king, reed of rhode island, rockefeller and casey be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent, madam president, that that -- i have a brief statement here. i know everyone is excited to hear, but everyone should be advised that when we return after next week, there is so much, so much to do. we need to pass the ukrainian bill that the foreign relations reported yesterday. we have a new bipartisan unemployment insurance compromise introduced today that was put together by a group of bipartisan senators. we have the s.g.r., the called doc fix to prevent a 24% cut to medicare payments to doctors,

which will be extremely hurtful to patients. we have to do that. we have a backlog of nominations we have to do. and everyone should understand that i hope it's not necessary, but because of the enormous amount of work we have to do this month, senators should be on notice, all senators that there is a high probability that we will need to be in session the weekend of march 29 and 30 before the end of the month. i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn and convene for pro forma session only with no business conducted on the following dates and times and that following pro forma session the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session. friday, march 14 at 10:30. tuesday, march 18 at 10:30. friday, march 21 at 9:00. and the senate adjourned on friday, march 21, until 2:00 p.m. on monday, march 24. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later

in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2124. at 5:30, the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 2124. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the next roll call vote will be monday, march 24 at 5:30. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:30 a.

eliminating >> we would have 800,000 barrels of tar sand per day. later this year, the state department will determine if the project is in the national interest and that is the question we will hear testimony about from our four panelist.

i hope this can be a balanced and thoughtful hearing and deal with the question of what is in the national interest. i hope we can build a record that may not result in agreement but agreed upon facts. jobs and economic security are ryns why it should be proved and damage to the climates is overstated. opponents are worried about spills and downplay the advantages of the pipeline. i want to hear the facts from the witnesses and have a full-throated open discussion. before i conclude, i want to introduce a letter written on behalf of the 5,000 members on

the unions of north america signed by their president. it supports the keystone xl pipeline and there is no objection to that i will enter it into record. president sulivan made it clear about his support on the pipeline and we offered him the position to include his opinion. i call for the hearing because this is a bipartisan group and with the help of senator corker, i know we can have a rational discussion. we believe the debate we are having and i want to thank the ranking member for helping us to put the hearing together and the four witnesses for providing their insight. let me turn to senator corker now. >> thank you and thank you to a lot of witnesses being here. we have two views on the keystone and i think we can

learn from both of views. i want to thank you for the markup and the bipartisan with ukraine yesterday. it is unfortunate that the factors are not going to be explained because the committee isn't here. i hope today we can look at past determinations. i think that would be important to us and circumstances and come up with a clear picture of what it should be. both sides of this issue would agree in some respects that the united states national interest is indeed at stake here. the administration isn't going to be able to be indeceasisive

the process. the length between the completion of the keystone xl pipeline and insuring our safety is compelling. the administration is now the only thing standing in the way of thousands of american jobs with the potential for many more and access to a large supply of north american energy. based on what i understand from similar pipeline decisions, for the president or the secretary to determine that keystone isn't in the national interest, they would have to embrace the idea this pipeline, not just single fossil fuels, but this pipeline would have a clear contribution to the global climate situation.

such a determination would seem far beyond the bound of what the process was in the past and what we would expect it to be now. the president's climate standards announced in a speech last summer appears to ignore the findings of exhaustive and concrete economic and development analysis that demonstrates the benefits we would reap from the project that would strengthen ties with canada, our largest trading partner. the state determined that keystone is unlikely to affect oil sand extraction. therefore we compared to other forms of transporting oil, the pipeline is likely to provide a safer, and more environmentally friendly method. i am not sure how refusing to

allow the project will lesson the dependency on fossil fuel. i look forward to hearing more. >> we have general james jones here who is president of the jones international. he served in the marine core for 47 years. following his retirement, general jones served as envoy for middle east security and the national security advisor for the president. welcome and thank you for your service to the country. michael brune is the director of the sierra club and the rain forest national network. he is a fellow new jersey.

dr. james hansen is a director from the earth department on climate science aware ness and solutions at columbia university. he served as the head of nasa's head study and he is respected leader in the field of climate science. they have been arrested at protest of the keystone and i cannot guarantee it but i hope this proves to be a more comfortable experience. our final panelist is karen.

general jones, you will testify first. >> thank you ranking members and mr. corker. it is pleasure to be here. it is an honor to be here to share the views about the national interest at steak and the keystone xl pipeline deta m detaerm -- determination -- thanks for making my fuller testimony a part of the record. i would recommend we provide a two-year study done by the bipartisan energy council where i cochaired a study which was a bipartisan effort on tackling the overall energy future.

you requested i testify on the us strategic and national security interest with the approval of the pipeline. i hope my testimony will be useful to the committee's deliberation on both issues as they will determine the direction of the nature's future causes to which i have dedicated 42 years of my professional life, in and out of uniform. it is commendable the senate committee relations is holding a hearing on an oil pipeline. it sends the message that resinates powerfully today in light of the events playing out in the ukraine. the fact that energy security is vital to a nation's economy is established.

the crimea crisis is proving that energy is essential to global stability. mr. chairman, i am passionate about energy because it is a frontline issue. i came to appreciate it in the marine core and as national security advisor. we should understand that mr. putin going into the crimea is about controlling through energy and intimidating and manipulating populations. in venezuela, hugo chaz vez used

power to control the people as well. it a potent weapon. the greater the gap between supply and demand, the greater destruction the weapon becomes. mr. putin is yielding energy as weapon to get his goals and we look at it as a means of promoting peace, prosperity and economic stability. four al lies from eastern europe appealed to the united states to protect them from russian

domination asking them to send energy. this is the future we are facing. how many people are aware the united states will pass russiana as the largest producer of gas and oil combi combined. what a stunning change for the country. the united states is on track to produce nearly 10 million barrels of oil a day by 2016 equal to saudi arabia. the story, however, doesn't end at our borders. north america can, and in my view should be, a global hub.

as a consequence to mr. putin's behavior in the crimea, we will solve in security, trade imbalance, and a devastating national debt, all of which erode our strength and global leadership. but we cannot seize the opportunity if we continue to say no to the infrastructure requirements necessarily to use the resources. i would like to pose what i regard to be a fundamental question: why would we spend billions and put people at risk to ensure energy thousands of miles away but prevent it in our

own backyard? i respect and appreciate the fact climate change issues weigh heavily on minds of people. we should not have a discussion about energy without discussion climate impact. at later date, i would look forward to testifying about the climate issues in a realistic way through global situations to what is a global challenge. i would raise two considerations in the meantime: canceling the pipeline doesn't mean the oil will go undeveloped. the prime minister of canada promised the oil will be developed should the keystone not be approved. if the reversed results is it

will go to countries with poor standards rather than to the united states where we have enforced and strong regulations. second, in an overarching point, if america isn't strong, and dependent on energy security, we will not be in a position to give the low carb solutions the world needs or be able to exercise global leadership necessary to answer the challenges. the world is watching us. america's workers and consumers are watching, investigators and job creators are watching, our allies who need a strong united states are watching. the developing world that requires global energy to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty is watching.

the bullies who wish to use energy scarci a are watching. if we want to advance the jobs, and find solutions that don't rely on carbon, it should be proved. what we need over debates on particular projects, is an approach to united states climate. one that promotes energy and invasion. we need to develop the potential that we are blessed to have, bearing in mind the environmental impact of our actions. mr. chairman, once again, allegations are being made here and abroad that the united states is a nation in decline. my definition of that condition --

>> general, i will ask you to sum up. >> my definition of a nation in decline is which it can't bring its self to do the things it needs to do. building this pipeline is one of those things we should do. >> thank you. mr. broom. >> thank you. it is on honor to appear before you. >> is your microphone on? >> mr. chairman, ranking member corker, it an honor to talk to you today. i am michael brune, executive director of the sierra club. the sierra club and the more than 2 million people that submitted comments know the pipeline isn't in the national interest. it would cut through more than a

thousand miles of american farms and ranches with oil that is more toxing, corrosive, carbon intensive and built to clean up than conventional oil, all the way to the gulf with most of it would be exported. like many of you, i am a parent. and i am concerned about the world we are leaving for our children. one lesson my wife and i try to teach our kids is the need to need to set goals and stay focuses to achieve them. our country has a science-based goal to limit pollution, we must keep in mind that achieving that goal is not compatible with this pipeline. none of the scenario show how keystone xl could be built in a way that ensures the nation will meet those goals. in fact, it would increase climate pollution with the

development of tar sands in alberta that you see here. a report from carbon tracker found that keystone xl would spur production of 500,000 barrels per day. the equivalence of 46 now coal power plants. i would like this report to be added to the record >> without objections >> although the climate impacts of the tar minds are enough, but i will talk about more. any spill could be catastrophic. it poises risk to communities and air and water. this is heavier and more toxic than conventional crude. when it spills in a waterway, it sinks. one tar sand spill in michigan failed 35 miles of river. after three and a half years and a billion dollars, it still

hasn't been cleaned up. look at this image in mayflower, arkansas, where an exon mobile pipeline busted. even without them, it would risk the health and livelihood. p p pepcoke is a by product containing lots of toxins and the piles are starting to appear in cities like chicago and detroit. further more, keystone xl wouldn't benefit american consumers. this oil is intended for export. keystone xl would deliver tar sand to refineries on the gulf coast that already export most of their refined products, have

increased exports nearly 200% in the last five years. keystone xl would be a threat to national security as well because it will facilitate one of the most carbon intensive oil it is important to consider the impacts it would have on people worldwide. key reports have indicated floods, droughts and rising seas brought on my a destablealized climate in places of importance to the united states multiple threats to the united states and people working in the areas. climate destruction affects the military directly. the single greatest threat to the forces is said sometimes to

be the instability sparked by climate issues. let's not delay. america is a land of innovators. today the factories of detroit, the laboratories of silicone valley and the next generation of american consumers are investing in and profiting from clean energy technology thanks to fuel efficiency standards, gas demand is decreasing and projections show decreases to continue. it is win-win-win scenario. keystone xl jeopardizes drinking water, farmland and our health. it is all risk and no reward is the sad truth. secretary kerry called climate disru

disruption quote the world's most fierce weapon of mass destruction. he instructed all diplomats to lead by action. we can lead on climate by saying no to the polluting pipeline and yes to clean energy. >> thank you. dr. hansen. >> my first chart is showing the carbon content of con investigational oil gas and coal and the unconventional ones including tar sands. the purple portions have been burned. the science is clear: if we want to avoid young people with a system that is spiraling out

of control, we must phase out coal burning and use the unconventional fossil fuels in the ground. tar sands are among the dirtiest and carbon intensive fuels. it makes no sense to set up a system to exploit them in a major way. my second chart shows that china is now the largest emiter of carbon dioxide. the pie chart on the left. however, it is the accumlative emissions that drive climate change. the pie chart on the right. the united states is by far the largest emitter. we have burned our fair share of the carbon budget and some of

china's and india's. we are all in the same boat. we will either sink together or find a way to float together. fossil fuels provide 85% of our energy. non-hydrorenewables provide 3% in the united states and the world. so how can we phase down carbon emissions? my next chart shows the two things that we can do. we can reduce our energy intensity and we can reduce the carbon intensity of the energy. we have been reducing the energy intensity, the amount of energy

per gdp, improving off efficien and appropriate policies can further improve that. but we want to reduce the carbon intensity. we must drive the carbon intensity down near 0 over the next few decades. there is one country that has done a good job. sweden. sweden has decarbonized its electricity which is provided by nuclear and hydro power. they have one more step: making liquid fuel from electricity. they have not developed that industry because they are a small country. why isn't the rest of the world driving carbon intensity down? it is because fossil fuels

appear to the consumer to be the cheapest energy. but they are not really. they don't pay for the cost to the water and air or climate change. the public picks up the tab. so put a gradually rising fee on carbon collected from fossil fuel companies at the first domestic sale, at the mine or port of entry. and 100% of the money should be distributed to the public so the person who does better than average limiting his carbon footprint makes money. this will provide an incentive to individuals and business people as well. it will spur our economy and make it more efficient and modernize the infrastructure and create hundreds of times more

jobs than building a pipeline to transport the dirtiest fuel on earth. with a fee of $10 per ton of co2, after 10 years it will reduce the fossil fuel use almost 30%. it will reduce the oil use in ten years three times more than the volume of the keystone pipeline. george shultzs and most economist believe the carbon fee is the way to solve the climate and energy problems. it is an opportunity to make the economy more efficient. such legislation needs to be, i think, introduced by

conservatives, because i think liberals will take to make the government bigger. not one dime should be going to the public. 100% to the people. i would like to enter into the record a description of this fee and dividant which is written by a business man. it is nice, simple summary of a fee and dividend system. one comment i would like to make is that it is crucial we begin to work with china to solve their air pollution problem and their carbon emission problem. china is now making plans for massive coal-gas operation. hundreds of times bigger, copied

some degree on the coal-gas plant in the midwest jimmy carter started, but on a massive scale. it would be difficult for our children to control climate change if that happens. so we need work with them and work on clean energies including nuclear power where we have the best capabilities. we should work with them and help them get clean energy because it is in our benefit as well as theirs. >> thank you. >> chairman menendez, and a lot of members of the community, thank for the opportunity to testify. global energy grows by 2014 and we will add 2 billion people into the climate. china, india, africa and the

middle east will be growing. our own government concluded that by 2014, 80% of the demands. we will import 40% of the oil by 2020. so we can chose the status quo by relying on oil from venezuela who has people protesting in their streets or places far away that don't share values or democratic principles. in 2002, north america are 5% of the reserves, 18% the following year and our own eia believes that could be tripped. but the oil production from the countries that are considered not free or partly free jumped

from 65% in 1985 to 77% in 2012. so we have a choice: we can choice to embellish the legacy of chavez or we can chose to have a stable supply of oil from canada and develop resources here. kxl will transport crude as well. canada is our al lie and were here were rita and katrina and there after 9/11. they made a choice to develop the oil sands and they will do it in one way or another. increasing our deeping relationship with our long-standing allies coupled with mexico, we should shift oil to north america.

jobs, it will create 42, 000 jobs and for those saying they are temporary, they don't understand the construction industry. or are against the $3.4 billion for the economy. or against the pipeline being one of the largest property tax pairs in montana and nebraska. the united states and canada have a robust trading relationship and the boarder. we don't have to fear mexico coming in like russia is doing with crimea. but 89% of a canadian good stayed here in the united states. only 27 cents comes from back the oil we buy from venezuela.

on the environment: i would suggest everyone here in the room is an environmentalist. the state department concluded important things: the keystone pipeline will have a not have a big impact. in 2011, it is equal to the venezuela crude it is seeking to replace. the oil sands will be developed with or without the keystone pipeline. our government has concluded that and the canadian government as as well. they are looking east, south and west for other investors. and alternatives to the pipeline would have a higher emission profile than the pipeline itself. so if you are in support of the

environment, you are in support of the pipeline. so the five-year review process has been exhausted hearing from people and organizations all across the country with field hearings and agencies input and people from the input of this panel here. keystone is in the national interest. it is good for the economy, jobs, tax and property revenue, investment and trade, energy security adding a more stable us source of energy, and the state department concluded it will have a negliable impact on the environment. their words. ksl will have a significant affect on improving the national security and adding more democratic molecules to the mix.

65% of the american people support the pipeline. we live in a dangerous time. approving the pipeline stregthens the economy, decreases the energy risk, respects the commitment to the environment, and furthering the trade with our democratic ally to the north. it is, in the words of canada's prime minister, a quote no brainer. >> several people have offered for have things entered to the record. they shall be included. mr. brune, i understand the seriousness of climate change. i have seen it with hurricane sandy. and i believe we should put a price on carbon and support the president's plan to cut the carbon emissions. however, it seems strange to

regulate carbon by means of transportation which is what denying the keystone pipeline would lead to. we don't limit the amount of carbon on roads to power plants, so why through the pipeline? >> the reasons to oppose this pipeline are as varied as the reasons to promote fuel efficiency efficiency in cars. we will take oil loth all the way through the country to be exported and it is far more toxic than conventional oil. it has polluted waterways and posed a significant risk to air quality across the country. when we have a policy decision before us, where we have a choice of putting $7 billion

into this or investing in clean energy and fuel sources that would create more jobs. it is important to thing about think about the economy today and into the future. this isn't a step to regulate carbon. but a step to promote clean energy. >> what about, just to continue, on this mode of transportation versus the other issues, which i generally agree with you, the state's department final eis concluded if the pipeline expansion is blocked and pro producers are forced to ship by rail overall emission would increase and result in

accidents. so is approving the pipeline better? >> that is what the state concluded >> i wasn't asking you, sorry. >> we believe it is a false choice. we believe shipping tar sand by rail isn't safe. we have seen more accidents in the last year than previous decades. it has been proven that shipping it through pipelines isn't safe. the first tar sand pipeline spilled 12 times in the first three months. so accepting the increased risk through rail or pipeline isn't the question but rather to take the oil from the ground to begin with. the world's top climate scientist said to keep global

warming down, we have to keep 2/3rds of the fossil fuel reserves in the fuel in the ground. that is a tall order for it the global economy and the american economy. the best way to do that is to start with the most carbon-intensive fuel sources such as the tar sands in canada. >> ms. harbert, we have heard testimony about jobs and the number of jobs this will create. transcanada claimed 20,000 jobs in construction and manufacture and almost half a million throughout the united states economy. tom donohue, your boss lowered it to 250,000 and in previous testimony you upped the construction jobs to 25,000 and lowered the intrect jobs to

116,000. but the state department conclude the project would create about 2, 000 short-term jobs and 50 ongoing jobs for maintenance. so how is it that you are so different from where they are? >> that is a very good question. let me address that in two ways >> we only ask good questions here. >> that is why we are here. the larger numbers were entire span from canada to the gulf of mexico. so the numbers are smaller now. >> so the state department numbers are what you would say

for what is under consideration? >> we will take it at its word they believe those are the numbers. we would like to see the 42, 100 to be exact is what they put forward in the final environmental impact statement. we would like to see them big. but we will use what the government put out. i would have to say those are good paying jobs for construction workers. i will say one thing about mr. brune's testimony. the question is whether we should take them out of ground and i would like to submit that is not the united states' decision. that is canada's decision to make. not ours >> let me ask you since i listen to your testimony. your testimony suggests that the chamber of commerce is an

environment environmentalist organization. does that mean that the chamber agrees that one, climate change is real and caused by humans? >> the chamber has a long record on climate. here is what it is. we support addressing our environment and things that work. we look today at what is happening in the united states and the emags emissions are coming down and we are not doing what europe is doing. europe's emissions is going up and they have a hard and difficult cap-and-trade system that is not working. we are in favor of things that work. technologies that work and put americans back to work. we believe in improving the environme environment. >> i asked a simple question and that wasn't responsive. does the chamber believe climate

change is real? >> we believe we should do everything in our power to address the climate. >> that is great. is climate change real? >> chthe climate is warming. >> is it caused by humans? >> and the other part is it warming as much as colleagues said in the past and the answer is no. >> i am getting to that. is it caused by humans? >> it is caused by lots of different things. you cannot say only caused by humans. i think the science is what you are pointing to and we have a debate in the country and those saying everything is settled undercut science. >> does the chamber believe a price on carbon is needed to reduce emissions?

>> you could argue we have a price already in that we are pushing efficiency into the vehicles and house. >> is that the chamber's argument? >> that is a fact. not an argument. >> that is the chamber's fact? >> no, an economic fact. >> if you say there is a price by greater efficiency than the arguments that there is a price that is paid, i think dr. hansen said, there is a price to be paid that collectively as a society we pay for in the cost of health care and other elements would be fair to include as well. there are prices on both sides. >> let's see if we can follow the logic. you say there is a price as a

result of greater efficiency and that efficiency creates greater cost? and you say therefore, we could argue, in your words, there is already a tax. >> if you are going to build a residence that is energy efficient, there is a cost associated with that. if you are buying something more expensive, there is a cost associated. but i don't agree with the fact you thing the chamber lacks the compass on the environment. we have been a big supporter on energy efficiency legislation. >> you made the comment. i didn't say the chamber lacked a compass. i asked specific questions related to climate change. now the question simply is should we not include a cost of

what happens when we allow any person or industry in our country to ultimately operate in a way in which it creates a collective consequence on our health and well-being? that is subsidized by the government through health care, medicare, medicaid, and a whole host of other things. it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. senator corker. >> i thought it was going to be conten contenious on our side. i appreciate the witnesses. dr. hansen, i found like-mindedness in your testimony. but it seems like you are a strong proponent of nuclear

energy. you used sweden as an example and most of their energy is nuclear energy. so i find us to be like-minded. >> i am a strong proponent of carbon-free energy. and letting the market chose the energies. we ask not be specifying that electricity has to come from renewable energy. let's the alternatives compete. it is likely nuclear would compete well. it isn't going to be easy in the united states because it has been made difficult and takes so long to build a nuclear plant. that is why we should work with china because they will build to scale and drive down the unit cost. and then it can circle back to the united states, if in fact, we want to have more nuclear

power, and i think we should. >> and i found your comments, if your nation was ever to get to a point where it was going to put a price on carbon, the carbon tax would be a much better way than the rube gold berg mechanisms the senate looks at a few years ago. if that was ever to come about, even though we are not there, i would agree that is a much better way, especially a revenue neutral way of doing it than what was thought about in the past. >> i agree with that. it better come about pretty soon or we are not going to solve the problem. that is the only way you can do it. as long as you allow the fossil fuels to get by scott free, we are going to keep burning them. you are burning dirt. >> i will withstand from

comments about what people might do with the money. the transportation issue, what i don't get about the keystone pipeline and the resistant and the transportation is expensive. it is carbon intensive. and i guess i would ask you this question: the canadians are going to develop this rather it is transported south or not. i have met with them directly and i am sure you have. they are going to build a pipeline to the west going to china if we don't do this. i guess i don't understand how someone like you, that has such environmentally credentials would oppose a more efficient way of that oil making it to markets. >> it is a question of how much of the tar sand is going to be taken out of the ground. if we build this expensive

pipeline it will facilitate the extraction of much more than if we don't. as soon as you put a price on carbon that is significant and rising, one of the first things that falls off the table is tar sands. and canada knows that. that is why they are desperate to get the united states to approve this. the world is going to realize pretty soon that we have got to limit the amount of carbon we put in the atmosphere and it is going to have to do that via a price on carbon and that is going to cause the most carbon intensive things to get left in the ground and that includes tar sands >> this pipeline has been beyond belief to me it generated this much opposition when it seems like as was mentioned by someone to be a no-brainer. but we have 19 pipelines crossing between canada and the

united states, and i am curious if your organization opposes to all of those in the same way you are opposing this one? >> i appreciate your comment about the carbon tax and the sierra club would look for an opportunity to move that forward. >> i wasn't suggesting, but i do think if it were going to be a draft, it is more transparent and what we considered a few years ago was ridiculous. >> i understand you were not preparing to introduce legislation, but when the moment comes perhaps.

there are two pipelines that have been proposed to the west through british columbia. and there are two pipelines being proposed to the east. and there is the keystone xl pipeline to the south and other projects that are being considered. each face resistant. the two in the west are dead in the water and have opposition coming in.

increasing the divarsity of supplies from among the worldwide supply of crude oil in a time of considering political tension in the other major oil producing countries and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non mopack producer. just asking you the question, would the same factors that led to a successful determination for the alberta clipper apply for this case? >> absolutely. the only thing changed is the demand for oil has gone up. so we must do more to supply to the market. >> thank you for your testimony. >> senator boxer. >> thanks to all of you. i ask consent to place in the

record the statement from the state department showing the 50 permanent jobs. i want to say, mr. harbert, you are a great advocate, but don't speak for the environmentalist. and let me tell you when you say you are an environmentalist. and in my brain, this isn't a no-brainer. so the national nurses united representing 185,000 nurses have joind me in calling for a thorough health impact study on the people of america when you look at the immediate 45%

importation of tar sand. 300% of this dirty oil. some of the nurses are here in the audience. 85% of the people give them an approval rating, next to the 8% in congress. when i stood next to them today, i hoped a little would rub off. but i want to thank them. they understand the impact on the health of our families. i want to show you two pictures. this is pet coke. you to take a look at this. a lot of this is going to be stored around the nation. already, we have seen it coming. this is just a sample of what americas going to look like when you see this sar sands dirty oil. this is what remains after it is refined. it is stored just like this.

we had testimony from people in chicago who said kids were having a picnic in chicago, the stuff blew around and they were covered in suite -- soot -- and had to leave. this is port arthur, texas. this is what is going on by a playground. when our friend the general talks about our national interest, we have to weigh in on a health impact study because the national interest should include if kids will suffer asthma, cancer and the rest. i would ask my friend from the chamber, are you familiar that the fact that doctors serving the community in canada where the tar sand is continues to be

burden with blood, lymphatic and rare cancers that are linked to the petroleum studies? >> senator, we agree. >> are you familiar with the study. if you could stick with this. >> if there is a particular study, you want us to review. >> yes. i am going to send it to you. i'm also going to send you the 2010 article called oil sands development contributes toxins to the river. and mr. brune, is it in our national interest to support an industry that increases the chemicals that lead to cancers and nervous systems toxins such

as mercury in the lake? >> absolutely not. it must include protecting the health of the american families. >> i would say mr. brune, is it in the nationalt interest to expose the american communities to higher levels of toxic and cancer-causing air pollutants. is that in the national interest? >> absolutely not. particularly when we have clean energy alternatives that will protect our health, clean up the air and water, and put more people to work. >> absolutely. we need to be fair and look at everything. but for me, take an oath to protect and defend the people. that includes their health. and the nurses testified today from these areas where they already see and let's put up the

refinery picture. they see who is coming into the emergency room, what is happening. these are the forgotten voices in the debate. and i ask consent to place in the record the letter from the record in which way call on secretary kerry to look at a health impact study before there is any decision made >> without objection. >> okay. and i want to say this, and i am going to stop before my time is up. if you have ever met a child with a breathing problem, and i am sure you all agree with this, you just want to do everything you can to help them. why is it when it comes to this project why told is no-brainer, if you are an environmentalist just do it. no! let's look at what is happening in canada. i will tell you, i stood shoulder to shoulder to doctors from canada who have seen 30%

increases in rare cancer. i think that issue is being swept under the rug. and i am just one senator. i am just one voice. but now i have a 185,000 nurses behind me. and i am just saying to you i am going to do everything in my power to protect the health and safety of the people. i want energy security. if you look at california, we are moving toward clean energy. it is exciting. and the jobs are growing ex exponentially. but we cannot do something that cost us the health of our families. so i will keep pressing on this. >> senator johnson. >> dr. hansen, do you offhand know the average price of

electricity per kilowatt hour? >> i don't have a specific number. >> do you have a concept of it? >> certainly. >> just throw a number if you know about where if is at. >> no, it is more important to note the relative cost of one source versus another. >> i will get to that. >> mr. brune, do you know the cost per kilowatt hour? >> it depends on the region. >> about 10 cents. senator obama said because of his cap-and-trade proposal that electricity rates would skyrocket. dr. hansen, do you agree with that? >> cap-and-trade isn't something i would advocate. it would indeed cause an

increase in cost. what we need is an economically sensible approach to put a simple fee on carbon >> how would that prevent rates from skyrocketing? you will impose cost on energy -- >> it will impose cost on carbon-based fuels, yes. presently the cost are there but born by the public >> president obama's energy secretary made the comment we need to figure out how to get our gas levels up like europe. they were $8 per gallon back

then. these are the stated goals and policies. let me finish. these are the stated goals of president obama's energy secretary to get the electricity rates to skyrocket or get gasoline prices to increase. do you disagree? >> of course. there are health and other costs. you are dumping that on the people. >> this is my question period here. i am talking about what families would feel in wisconsin in terms of their montly utility bill would skyrocket if the policies supported by individuals like

you. i think we are environmentalist here. i get my water from a well. >> what you are saying is false. you can show you put an honest flat fee on carbon, 65% of the people get more money than they would pay in increased electricity. the economic models show that clearly. only the high income people pay more. >> i come from a manufacture background. ms. harbert, isn't it true to manufacture goods you need power? >> germany has electricity power prices four times as high and they are coming to the united states to invest now.

so investment from europe is coming here. and their emissions are going up, not down. >> so if electricity rates were to skyrocket that would hamper the manufactures. and would what it do to jobs? >> hurt our competitiveness and it is regressive. it would hurt the people with are the least amount of disposable income paying the post. >> and dr. hansen, are you familiar with the estimates from the laboratory? you are mentions all of the jobs with green energy. it showed the government spent $9 billion on energy jobs and created 900 jobs. this is the midpoint in terms of

the cost between the studies >> i disagree with such policies. i say put a simple, honest fee on carbon. don't say you have to buy renewable. i have never agreed with so don't blame those policies on me >> i am just talking about the policies being pushed by the administration are not creating the jobs and the jobs created are expensive and the policy is hampering the bill to create new jobs >> that is why i'm asking you to stop and think about the conservative solution. >> the president said on november 14th the temperature around the global is increasing faster than ten years ago. but in march of 2014, it was said temperatures haven't risen over the last ten jeers the bbc reported since 1998, there has been a standstill with the

heating in the atmosphere. >> no, the rate of increase has been lower. it isn't unexplained. there is natural pacific oscillation and the pacific tropical temperature hasn't warmed. >> let me ask a final question. mr. brune, dr. hansen, are you familiar with a fellow named patrick moore? >> yes. >> the founder of greenpeace. he said he left the group because the group became more interested in politics and took a sharp turn to the political left. he made the statement saying we don't know if the present was will remain or go up or done, we do know that climate is always changing and between pauses we are not capable with limited knowledge of predicting which

way it will go next. in wisconsin, there were 200 thick foot glaciers. how do you explain before the carbon input? >> that the statement is false. >> how do you explain climate change that occurred 10,000 years ago before man had a carbon foot? >> there are variations in theing earth's orbital elements. the orbit and the time in the season which is closest to the sun. >> so now it is all manmade? >> no one said it is all manmade. >> that is the tact that mose most environmentalist take. >> the manmade is dominant now. we can measure the energy balance of the plant and we see there is nor energy coming in than going out so the plant is going to get warmer. doesn't mean each year is going

to get warmer. but this decade is going to be warmer than the last one and the following one will be warmer. >> i agree with ms. harbert, the science is far from settled. >> expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the committee. i am going to ask senator mccain to preside while i go to vote. i do have other questions for the panel so i will come back and you will have as much time senator mccain as you need. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and to the panel, that can -- thank you -- for being here. i am going to put myself in the camp that doesn't believe this is a no-brainer. while the testimony of the panel is divergeant, you put two

important interest on the involve, energy security and the climate damage we could dwi doing, and i think those are very compelling interest. this project, in and of itself, i don't believe the support of it is game over for the planet. i don't pretend to have expertise on this but i am starting with the skins science. in virginia, i feel comfort in that. ...

i have a hard time time taking that position seriously. i think the chamber ought to have a position on whether human activity affects climate. i think any organization should yes or no. you can make knowledge some continuing debate but i think people ought to take a position on the science and an

unwillingness to take a position on the science troubles me. those of us who who are mick and the decisions have to start there. we have to take a position on science and i think the science is clear. i have lived it and i'm seeing it in virginia. the second-mosecond-mo st vulnerable community in the eastern part of the united states with sealevel rise. there are people that live in homes that they cannot sell them now. homes that were built 150 years ago that weren't able to be sold these homes are now in floodplains and they weren't earlier. we see it in extreme weather events. and we have an obligation to try to do something about it i believe. consistent with promoting the security that some testify. i agree with general jones. the disapproval of this particular project it forward just this project, might have an incremental effect on climate but i also believe the disapproval of this project is

going to have an incremental effect on the global security status. i think you testified in a think it's correct the united states is going to be number one over russia whether or not because we don't count tar sands oil is american energy. we have a lot of energy we are producing here and continuing to produce i strongly support but i strongly believe you have to grapple with the science and answer that yes or no question and make policy decisions based on it. the way i look at it is this. i would have loved to have had this hearing before it had to vote on this matter but i are devoted. i can change my mind. we have to grapple with this last march and my staff and i dug deeply into the science question. my review of the science leads me to conclude that we have a pie chart of the way we produce energy in this country and in this world and there are elements of the pie chart that are heavy carbon and elements of the pie chart that are lighter carbon and elements of the pie

chart that are small or growing carbon. my strategy is make it clean today for tomorrow. to grow the pieces of a pie chart that are low-carbon and grow the pieces that are no carbon into take the pieces of the pie chart that are heavy carbon and reduce them in size progressively over time, not immediately but also reduce the carbon intensity of those portions of the pie chart. oil is a portion of the pie chart. tar sands i virtually all accounts is significantly dirtier. could it be made cleaner? sure it could lead is still significantly dirtier in other missions and other lead and other kinds of petroleum. i grapple with this question we have so many other alternatives both low-carbon and no carbon but also fossil fuels like natural gas that it enabled us to fuel switch and as ms. sub to indicated we have been improving our emissions in this country without congressional action.

there's an innovation in the natural gas area and that moves us down the carbon density scald like but it's moving us down the carbon density scale. we are showing for american innovation that we can get cleaner tomorrow than today and move down the carbon density scale. why would they backslide to tar sands? i acknowledge your point and it's absolutely correct that this is a decision for candidates to make and they will make that decision but the u.s. sends a very powerful message about whether we want to lead on this issue or deal with climate change or not by whether we embrace and support tar sands oil or whether we say that's a bridge too far. we don't want to be dirtier tomorrow than today and we are going to focus on cleaner alternatives. while i acknowledge the laborers have a great point of view. our scientists have a great point of view. our military is a great point of view. i am just struck by the need of

this body to take leadership on an issue and i think we have waited too long to take leadership on it. when one of my predecessors john warner knew the end of his 30-year career in the senate decorated combat veteran of two service branches the navy and the marines and the secretary of the navy and the 30-year armed services committee member. the biggest security challenge we face as a nation is not energy that climate because of its distracted nature pushing migrants across borders destabilizing countries and affecting natural resources. he reached that point at the end of his career and was and remains a proud champion for american leadership on climate. i think it would be very hard for us to be a leader in tackling climate if we embrace tar sands oil and say it's fine. that is not a question obviously but it's an explanation. they are people in the room i

care about who care a lot about this issue who have seen the way have voted and have it hurt my full explanation of it and that is why i have come to the conclusion that i don't think this is a good idea. it's funny we talk about it as a pipeline. pipelines are fine. pipelines are fine. i was with the gas utility and we build pipelines. it's really about tar sands oil from low-carbon heavy carbon and dirty carbon. that's the challenge with this. i think sometimes the pipeline confuses everybody about what the relation is. i think it's the carbon density. i have taken my time with the statement out of question. senator markey you are up. >> thank you mr. chairman very much. talking about the dirtiest oil in the world coming through the united states almost using us as a straw.

down to port arthur texas and exporting that oil around the world. with no restrictions. the chamber of commerce opposes him where the oil can go. they say we have to do everything we can to help energy independence in north america but when we say how by the restriction in taking all the soil and make sure it stays in america? oh no they say. also they support exploitation of american gas. do that too they say but meanwhile they are sending hundreds of thousands of young men to the middle east. we know what the core is. oil is fueling the revolutions over there and oil imported into the united states. by the way right now we import in the united states six-point 3 million barrels of oil a day. 6.3 million barrels. that is our achilles heel. that is what makes us weak so what does this proposal say? takes the dirtiest oil in the world build a pipeline have the

u.s. take all the environmental risk bring it to port arthur texas and then export it. by the way we are having a big debate yesterday about exporting natural gas that could be used to move our vehicles from oil over to natural gas and have it be here in united states. what do the people who are on this committee say? we should start exporting our natural gas too but we are to export our young men and women over to the middle east so we can protect imports. we don't have self-sufficiency and natural gas in united states. we import it. we don't have self-sufficiency and oil. we imported so this is a national security issue. it's an economic issue, it's a any fixturing issue. it's a climate issue. now i heard the senator from tennessee say earlier that talking to mr. brune there is a bill he supported that was utterly ridiculous. i assume he is talking about the

waxman-markey bill. i didn't take it personal but i like the company i'm with. we have the edison electric institute endorse it, the nuclear industry dow chemical dupont united auto workers united steelworkers dow corning applied materials utility workers all the way down the line. we had the industry on our side. the chamber of commerce wasn't with us, no question about it. i like who we have. i don't think the edison electric institute was with us. i think they understood where we have to go to could are checked the climate in greenhouse gases by the year 2015. so this is a further extension of what's going on. the oil industry is pushing to reverse four decades of law prohibiting the export of american crude oil so that our crude oil can be shipped to china. there is a crude oil band right now.

they want it lifted. as we debated here yesterday the natural gas industry is pushing to use the crisis in ukraine as a basis for unleashing natural gas exports to china because that's where it's going. it's 15 bucks in china they pay in only 10 bucks in europe. who do you think exxon is going to send it to? to china. imagine the mantra of the chamber of commerce ,-com,-com ma drill here, drill now in payless has morphed into drill here export to china pay more here in the united states as we export our own natural resources that is what it has morphed into and we are supposed to accept it as we are in orwellian 1984 and we can just change the language. this keystone pipeline to export it while we take the environmental risk and the planet takes an environmental risk? that's utterly ridiculous. it just is.

and so ladies and gentlemen we have a huge debate here and i think everyone who is here and participating and i apologize for the roll calls which are on the floor right now but the senator from wisconsin raised the question earlier about higher energy prices and what it would do to our manufacturing sector. this natural gas export issue towards anything we are talking about today. the energy information agency said if we allow for an export to one more terminal it would lead to a 62 billion-dollar increase in costs for american consumers for year. that will just devastate this return on manufactumanufactu ring from china and other countries to our own shores. it would just devastate the revolution. their two major costs in manufacturing, labor and energy so we are here debating these issues is that they are unrelated to the real economy that we live in but also the

responsibility of the united states has to be the leader in climate change issues. the world is looking at us, you know. they are saying you can't preach temperance from a barstool. you have to be lowering greenhouse gases, not raising them. you have to show that you are serious about this and i think we had an incredible corporate coalition who are ready to get serious about it but then we were stymied in the senate in 2009 in 2010. i guess what i would ask from you ms. harbert would you support as part of this keystone approval a ban on any of this oil leaving the united states so in your own words we can have north american energy independence? would you support that going in as part of language? >> thank you very much for the question because it's very important to understand the contractual part of this pipeline. 100% of that oil is under contract to refineries to refine it here in the united states so therefore no molecules have the

ability to be exported in the raw. >> and again here's the bottom line on all of this. it's great, it's great. just so we understand this is in the hands of the oil companies. whether we talk about natural gas exports, it's not going to the ukraine. it's going to china. 15 bucks versus 10 bucks. so that's really what this whole debate is about is the oil company agenda and they just want to refine it and send it around the world. we needed here in america. we need the low-priced oil. if we are going to take the environments are risk and raise the risk of asthma and climate change and if it leaks out of the pipeline the least we should be allowed to do is to keep that oil here and that refined product could be in fact kept here because right now there is no restrictions on it being kept here. we have a restriction on crude

oil being exported and we could put a restriction on the refined products being exported. we owe price to boston, lower price to communiticommuniti s across america that could use it for their purposes. that is why i'm going to be introducing legislation today to ensure that the keystone pipeline if it is approved for the oil has to stay in the united states. we should not be a middleman to transport the dirtiest oil in the world to the thirsty as foreign nations who are our economic rivals. i mean that just fails the test in so many different levels. national security economic and environmental. it just makes no sense so i'm going to file that legislation so we have a vote on that. all the talk shows funded by american petroleum industry, candidate canada the united states keystone pipeline north

american energy independence. let's vote for this amendment or stop running those ads because those ads are deceptive. you don't want the oil to stay in united states then what's the point of us participating in this? what's the point? these young men and women are over serving our country. they take great risk every single day. the least we should have as a policy to square up what we do here with what we are expecting those young men and women to do overseas. let's not export the soil or otherwise we have to continue exporting our men and women. we are importing 6.3 billion barrels of oil a day so let's make this truth in the legislature truth entreaties and make sure that we guarantee we are protecting those that we are most interested in protecting. thank you mr. chair. >> thank you senator. appreciate the panels for parents. i think we can finish up shortly. i just want to follow on the one

question and i'll have have senator markey's full engagement. for the record general jones, you argued that if we fail to grasp the enormous opportunity presented by keystone axel pipeline we will miss out on a chance to improve energy security of the north american alliance for the question is what assurances do we have that this crude oil shipped through our country to the gulf coast will stay in the united states and contribute to our energy security? my understanding is that the energy market is global in nature and so there is no guarantee that even if we put up the pipeline and have the tar sands flow to the gulf coast that at the end of the day it's

going to stay in united states or for that fact even in north america. >> well mr. chairman i think these are obviously business decisions and economic decisions that will have to be made and the same argument could be made in saudi arabia. why should they export their oil why not just keep it? >> they have an overwhelming abundance and they want to sell it. it's really what the marketplace is all about. >> by 2016 we will be producing as much oil as the saudi's from our own sources. my perspective on this is first of all i really enjoyed listening to the testimony of the colleagues at the table. i learned something. i have always believed that the united states is last by having an abundance of energy sources and they all are important and they all should be developed and they all should read developed in such a way as to be

respectful of the environment and impact on the climate and the technologies that we are preeminent as a country in being able to develop technologies that make our energy future so optimistic are very encouraging. i believe that we are in a transformative period in our history and the american people should be fully aware of the fact of just how enormous this potential is and what it means for the future of our country. just in not only the united states and by the way i am not an advocate for the term energy independence because i think it's protectionist and isolationist. we live in a globalized world and energy leadership demonstrated by this country with this responsibility towards the climate and the environment and also the wealth of energy

that we can influence will have significant ramifications for the rest of the century with regard to american leadership in the developing world. so this is an enormous opportunity that is truly historical and transformational. if done right and i think the keystone is part of it. it's not the sine qua nonbut it does reinforce the fact that a very close neighbor and ally to our north that also includes mexico, the new oil, the new energy group if you will north america can dramatically affect geopolitical issues on the planet. this committee has unbelievable influence over it and i think it should the developed and i think it should be a fact her. i think the keystone pipeline is something that would add to it. >> i appreciate that.

i used your words, you mentioned energy security from north north american alliance and my only question is here that in fact energy is a global marketplace and so there is no way to confine that energy here within the united states. as a matter of fact when i proposed legislation that says when we have it did push and let's drill for everything we have if we are going to drill it, we should keep it. there was strong opposition to that so the problem is that there is no guarantee that energy transported in this case through keystone to the gulf ultimately doesn't end up in a global marketplace. and that may be an economic equation that we want to consider but we should be honest with the american people that in fact that energy that is created

from tar sands doesn't necessarily mean it stays in the units -- united states and benefits american consumers or manufacturing or anyone else. i think that is an ominous statement to be made. >> mr. chairman i was simply respond by saying i believe the united states is in a historically different position. this has been something that happened very quick late and i'm not so sure we fully understand the ramifications that i am convinced that in the case for example of the ukraine and european dependence on russian energy that energy and how we use energy and how this country and canada and mexico together use this energy potential you can actually have geopolitical ramifications to prevent future conflicts. the europeans are overly dependent.

i was in europe as a nato commander in 2006 when mr. putin played with the energy pipelines into europe and he uses it as a weapon. so we have an opportunity now to play in that game. we are not as dependent as we were and for the foreseeable future we control our energy future which is something that for 40 years we have been trying to get control of. it's a great opportunity. >> let me ask my final question. it is somewhat different in nature but the same in my effort to deduce a set of facts here. one is to you general jones and the other is to you dr. casey. general you said that the keystone pipeline is not approved we are in decline of our global leadership and in terms of our ability to compete in the 21st century. you made that sentiment today in your testimony.

why would the denial of a single pipeline permit request for make foreign corporations signify a decline in u.s. global leadership and to dr. hansen along the same, somewhat the same lines i understand the seriousness of climate change but is it really true that canada tapping into its tar sands research would be a quote game over for the climate is you have claimed? isn't that an exaggeration imposed by this one project? couldn't we lower emissions and other sectors to compensate and i would like to hear from both of you on this. >> thank you sir. the world watches with the united states does and in proportion the keystone pipeline has become a litmus test for how people will determine what the united states, how the united states presents itself in the energy -- the global energy

arena. and i think that -- and i said that in the context of a lot of talk about energy independence. energy sufficiency sufficiency i'm poor but to use energy as something that we poured and treasure and not export and not play in the leadership role that we have and have been blessed with i think is a tragic strategic mistake on the global playing field. so the decision on the pipeline particularly as it relates to one of our closest friends and allies and the possibility of the energy future of the north american alliance if you will is something that is transformational in the glow -- growing playing field read even little gestures sometimes cause

people to draw conclusions that are far out of proportion to the judgment itself. for that reason i think that we should go forward with it. in my research i just quoted the professor of energy of economics at m.i.t. and he says in a quote greenhouse gas emissions will if anything go down. any oil will displace the most expensive oil on the market today and the venezuelvenezuel an crude that results in more carbon monoxide emissions end quote. >> i'm glad you asked me that question because mike, and continues to be misinterpreted. my first chart shows showed how much carbon there is in conventional oil and gas and in cold and in the unconventional fossil fuels. it was clear, it has been clear

that conventional oil and gas were probably close to peak oil for conventional oil so the science was clear that we cannot earn all the coal. we are going to have to face that out and that's a solvable problem coal is used mainly for electricity production. we can generate electricity in other ways including the leader power which is carbon free. there and there's this other huge source of carbon, the unconventional fossil fuels and my statement was that if we are going to now open up that other source unconventional fossil fuels that is what tar sands are. the first big step into that unconventional fossil fuels but the science tells us we can't do that. we are our children and grandchildren and all the young people and future generations if we think we can use that unconventional fossil fuel.

the science is crystal clear on that and the world is just ignoring the science. scientists are saying you can't do that and that is what i was saying. this is game over if you don't understand that we have to leave that extremely large amount of carbon in the ground. >> so i have now the greater definition and i personally don't think the approval or disapproval of the pipeline is a decline in global leadership nor do i believe that specific approval or disapproval is necessarily game over. i understand what you are saying. there's a broader context which is when you have access to that fuel and you start down that road. i just want to refine this is a relates to the question before the committee, which is requesting approval of the

pipeline. senator barrasso. >> mr. chairman i want to follow up on senator corker's comments of the unwillingness of the administration to testify here today. i think it's clear the demonstration knows its failure to permit a pipeline after five environmental reviews is an embarrassment and a disgrace and it cannot be defended. general jones, in your testimony you discussed the recent events in ukraine three do explain mr. putin's incursion into the crimea is about brandishing the threat of energy scarcity to intimidate and manipulate a vulnerable population. you know that four of our nato allies appeal appealed to congress to protect them from russian domination not by requesting troops or arms but by energy. ..

we did analysis to such attack, and we found u