progress is made to indians to benefit patients because of the creation of this organization? >> 84 the question i felt badly i forgot to mention it to earlier what exciting things are happening with medical device innovation. it is public-private partnership off to a good start. it was announced not too long ago and has doubled in size with the consumer groups and research organizations. . .

and also one of the things that excites me is developing computer simulations and models so that you can actually study some of these devices in that context instead of in animal models or people in the early stages so that you can really number one manipulate things and play with it more but also reduce costs and potential risks to patients but still really get

import information to again moved things that have promise into the marketplace and making a difference in peoples lives. so i think it's a wonderful public credit partnership. thank you for your leadership in helping to make it possible and we are very committed to working with it read we are seeing the benefits already and we see more importantly a foundation for lots more progress. >> well thank you for your role in that and for your excitement about it. senator enzi. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to revisit the goals you immediately identified when he took the helm at the fda modernizing how the agency considers new therapies and closing a regulatory science gap. those goals are ones we obviously all share. that said there's a continued level of frustration on patients

and manufactures that the fda lags behind other countries in timeliness and up-to-date understanding of critical responsibilities including clinical trial design, ballot in points for assessing the value of new therapies and how the risk evaluation and mitigating strategies are tools to protect haitians and allow risk products were patients are desperate for treatments. senator harkin's opening statement and questions he mentioned a case where the committee voted against it and it was overridden by the fda. i will talk about a little different situation and that's dealing with multiple sclerosis. the fda recently made a decision to break with an overwhelming advisory committee vote to support the safety and effectiveness of the novel therapy for multiple sclerosis and the agency chose not to approve the drug despite his having been approved in 30 jurisdictions based on the same dataset. can explain the logic behind the

agency's decisions? what did the fda seed that the advisory committee could not? >> well first let me address your broader question about in terms of we are i think the cutting-edge in terms of review and approval of new products if you look at drugs approved in recent years. i think about three-quarters of them approved in the united states first and on devices apart from the highest devices we are at par with comparable other countries in terms of review times etc.. we do ask for more clinical data often on the higher risks of devices so i think you know there is some urban mythology about where we stand in comparison to review times and leadership there. i would have to say the user fee programs for devices and drugs have made a real difference in our ability to be as competitive

as possible. with respect to the role advisory committees in the decision-making within the fda, the advisory committees are very a very important component of the review process but they are not determined as you well know and we seek expert advice in many ways including advisory committees. advisory committees are not used with every raw text that is reviewed of course but it's sometimes frustrating for me i have to say when people ask questions about a specific ruddock and why we didn't up prove it. that information is confidential information that we are not allowed to share with the company. but i can assure you that the fda teams take their jobs seriously going through a systematic way the data that's available to them, assessing safety and efficacy in overall risk benefit and the benefit to patients.

there are often are things that are not obvious but that make a real difference in terms of a decision that is made. >> and the advisory committee? >> the advisory committee is a very important part of our implant on a decision. i would say the majority of times our decision alliance but not always. >> that you are saying they're lacking information that the people at the fda would have so they are not getting the full story? >> you know i think there are many components to the review and the advisory committee is an important piece of it. but the advisory committee is not spending time with a the patient level data that the routine are and aspects of the review the advisory committee is not always engaged in.

but we value and take their input seriously and we try to engage subject matter experts to the greatest degree that we can. >> the only reason that i've noticed this one it had been approved and 30 other jurisdictions already by the same dataset so those other jurisdictions are considered wrong too. that is the decision i guess that the fda can make and we do want you to keep us safe. my time has run out. >> would you care to ask another question? >> well it would be your turn. >> i know but go ahead. [laughter] >> i know that the fda is underway in its implementation of the generic drug user fee act and it's my understanding that not all first generic applications have been approved on the same day as the patent

expiration. is there a reason for that? >> well this is a program as i think you know we have had backlogs, serious backlogs in. that was a big part of why the user fee program was begun with the passage. we are moving forward in implementing that, hiring up and addressing the backlog in critical ways. import may also addressing the issues of expanding our inspectioinspectio nal capacity so that we can do those critical inspections. which increasingly are often overseas but we are not where we need to be yet. we are committed to moving forward and we have made progress but there is a lot more work to be done. >> i will submit some additional information that i would like, how many applications the agency has received for the first generic products and how many

miss the approval of the earliest possible date in what you are doing to ensure that the future generic applications are reviewed. so maybe some more detail of that. again i thank you for being here today to answer our questions. we don't get this opportunity very often and you have done an outstanding job. thank you. >> thank you senator enzi. when we did the reauthorization of the fda user fees, we worked closely with you and your ranking member of this committee was chairman harkin to make sure that devices that go through the 510 process are approved for the five 10-k process didn't have to go back to the agency every time and insignificant changes made to the devices, the color or the

label or the packaging. i know just recently fda sent the five 10-k modifications report to congress and i wanted to first congratulate you on that and i understand fda held a public meeting in advance of preparing the report and engaged in a healthy dialogue with interested parties. i appreciate all you did to work with the industry and this is about working with the industry and in this case to develop the report. i think again it's another great example of fda industry collaboration and communication. what have you learned from the industry as a result of this collaboration and as she prepared to draft guidance on this topic, which i understand will be the next step, do you anticipate this sort of fda

industry collaboracollabora tion will continue? >> this kind of collaboration is key. i would add patients in as well because i think at the end of the day our goal is to provide the best medical devices for their needs but i think it has been very valuable in helping us to better understand the way in which this works. as you well know it's not a one-size-fits-all industry with small device companies and larger device companies with different needs and experience and the device, the range of device products is expanding rapidly and getting more and more complex. we really do need to work together to be able to keep progress moving forward and ultimately to deliver what patients need. but you know we have -- i would say always the interactions are easy but it's been very valuable

to listen and learn and we have tried to be as responsive as possible. i think it's making a difference. >> they shouldn't necessarily always be easy. >> right. >> and as part of now for dossey a, i worked with senator alexander on a provision that created new incentives for medical device companies who develop products to treat rare conditions. in your written testimony you noted that you approved five new products under our provision. thank you again for your work. can you explain why it's so important to report innovators for developing products to treat rare conditions and in this case you was the rare conditions that adults had if those rare

conditions were already a treatment for pediatric use and has already been approved. can you talk about why it's important to have these? >> yeah. it's very important that we have the right incentives to get companies to invest in developing technologtechnolog ies where there may not be a huge marketplace where the return on investment will not necessarily be clear but where there is essential medical need and where these products you know really will matter in addressing an individual either pediatric patient or adult patients medical needs and requirements. i think we see this on the device side and we see it on the drug side that you cannot always assume that these important health care and public health

needs will be addressed without looking at what are the opportunities, what are the barriers and are there incentives to help ensure that work goes on in these keys often underdressed areas. >> i'm glad we have had success on these five new products. senator enzi any more questions? okay, great. thank you.or hamburg for your testimony and your service. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you so much.

while the u.s. does not officially support taiwan independence it does conduct trade and maintain diplomatic ties. a state department official will testify tomorrow morning about u.s. relations with taiwan. like coverage starts at 9:30 eastern here on c-span2's.

>> what are the unique challenges and defining war in cyberspace? what hostilities or military actions? >> clearly from a policy perspective we are trying to work our way through these issues. the tenets i think that are applicable here are the fact that whatever we do within the cyberraina international law will pertain. that if we find ourselves getting to a point where we believe that cyberis taking us down in an armed conflict scenario that the rules of the law of armed conflict will pertain everybody's mitch in this domain as it does in any other. i don't think cyber is inherently different in that regard. i think those sets of procedures and sets of policies and law have stood as in good stead and i think they represent a good point of departure.

next a senate panel hears opposing views on whether to move forward with the keystone pipeline project that would move crude oil from canada to texas. officials from the sierra club u.s. chamber of commerce and former national security adviser general james jones testified before the foreign relations committee. the chairman is senator but taubman and as of new jersey. [inaudible conversations]

>> this hearing on the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. we welcome our distinguished panel of experts and advocates to something that has been of political concern for many in this town and across the nation. today we are here to finance and shed more light than heat i hope on the issue. to hear the facts and the rationale on both sides. the proposed keystone xl pipeline cross-border segment would link oregon and montana with with the canadian order to steel city nebraska. would have the capacity of 830,000 barrels of tar sands per day. later this year the state department will determine whether the project is in the national interest and that is the question we will hear testimony about today from our four panelists. i hope this can be a balance thoughtful hearing, hearing that puts aside some of the politics that have surrounded this debate in deal with the underlying question of what is in our

national interest. i hope we can build a record on both sides of this debate that may not result in agreement that may result it more agreed-upon facts. opponents of the pipeline point to jobs, economic development and energy security as reasons why the pipeline should be approved and claimed that the arm to the environment is overstated. opponents raise climate change concerns about potential spills and downplay energy security or economic advantages of the pipeline. that's not to say i don't have my own views. they do but i want to hear the facts from our witnesses and have a full-throated open discussion. before i conclude i want to introduce into the record a letter written on behalf of the 500,000 members and laborers international union of north america signed by their distinguished general president. o'sullivan.

the letter strongly supports the keystone xl pipeline and if there is no objection to that i will entered into the record. president o'sullivan has made it clear about the pipeline and we offer him an opportunity to include his position on behalf of his membership. i've called for this hearing because this committee has been investing in bipartisanship when it comes to such issues in with the help with senator corchran and the ranking member i know we can have a rational discussion today. several -- senator corchran and the ranking member for helping us put this hearing together. the four witnesses who took time to provide their remarks. >> mr. chairman thank you and thanks to all of our witnesses for being here. i understand we have two very diverse and views on keystone and i think we can all learn from both of those views and i want to thank you again for the market we had yesterday this strong bipartisanship shown with

the support of ukraine. it's unfortunate that the administration declined to testify here today. it's very unfortunate. i understand they do not want to prejudice the outcome of the national interest determination process they are going through right now but i do think it would have been important and it is important that they explain to us all of the factors they will consider in making this decision. i hope today we can look past determinations. i think that will be very important and circumstances and come up with a clearer picture of what it should be. zero size of this issue would agree in some respects that the united states national interest is indeed at stake here. the administration is not going to be able to be indecisive in this process which hopefully will end very soon. i'm certainly interested to hear both sides but to me the link between the completion of the keystone pipeline and ensuring our energy security thus our

national security is clear and compelling. despite years of rigorous review and strong public support for completion of the pipeline the administration has now the only thing standing in the way of thousands of american jobs with a potential for many more in access to a large supply of north american energy. based on what i understand for secretary kerry or the president to determine keystone is not international interest they would in effect have to embrace the idea that this single pipeline, not just fossil fuels in general, but this single pipeline would have a clear demonstrable contribution to global climate catastrophe. such a determination would send far beyond the bounds of what the process has been in the past and what we would expect it to be now. the president's apparent climate

standard for the approval of the pipeline announced in his speech last summer appears to ignore the findings of exhaustive concrete environmental and economic development of alice's that demonstrate the benefits we would reap from this project which would also strengthen ties with canada, our largest trading partner. in fact the state department has already determined the keystone is unlikely to affect the oil sands extraction or demand for heavy crude. therefore when compared to other forms of transporting oil the pipeline is likely to provide a safer and more environmentally friendly method. i'm not sure how refusing to complete this project will do anything to lessen our nation's dependence on fossil fuels. so i look forward to hearing your thoughts on this and other aspects of the issue and i want to thank the chairman again for

calling this hearing. >> thank you senator corchran. let me introduce our panelists. general james l. jones is currently the president of jones group international. over his 40 year career in the marine corps general jones served as supreme allied commander europe and the 30-second, none of the marine corps. following his retirement from marine corps general jones served as special envoy for security and has the president's national security pfizer. we welcome you general back and thank you for your service to our country. michael brune is the executive director of the sierra club and formerly of the rain forest action network. mr. brune is a fellow new jersey and and we welcome him before the committee to listen to his insights. doctors james hansen is an adjunct or with us or with the institute program on climate science awareness and solutions at columbia university.

for more than three decades dr. hanft and served as the head of nasa's institute for space studies in and a scholarly work has made him an effective leader in climate science. let me say in the past dr. hanft and and mr. one had been arrested at protest at the keystone pipeline. i can't guarantee it at i hope this proves to be a much more comfortable experience. finally our final panelists in today's hearing karen harbert. she previously served as assistant secretary for policy and international affairs at the u.s. department of energy and the deputy assistant administrator for latin american and crew bean so thank you all for joining us and your full statements will be included in the record. without objection i would ask you to summarize your statementstatement s around five minutes or so so that the members can have a dialogue with

you and i will ask you to testify. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member corker. it's a pleasure to be here today and members of the committee. it's an honor to be here to share my views with you about the national interest at stake in the keystone xl pipeline determination. thank you for making my full testimony part of the record and if i could i would also recommend we provide for the committees the interest a two-year study done by progress energy counsel where i cochaired the study was senator trent lott senator byron dorgan and former u.k. administrative bill o'rielly. it was a bipartisan effort on tackling our energy future. mr. chairman you requested i testify today on the strategic and national security interests associated with the approval of the pipeline, interested in my

view are intrinsic to america's energy security and leadership. i hope my testimony will be useful in the committees to liberation on those issues as they will largely determine the reaction of our nations future which you pointed out i dedicated my 42 years of professional life in and out of uniform. it is both significant and i think highly commendable that the senate foreign relations committee is holding a hearing focused on an oil pipeline. i think it speaks volumes about international affairs. the message that resonates is especially powerful today in light of events playing out in the ukraine. the fact that energy security is vital to our nation's domestic economy is well-established. the crimean crisis however is proving once again that energy security is also a central pillar to mobile stability. this current crisis serves as one more example of how tension

rivalry over access to energy plays out in conflicts across the international landscape. mr. chairman i'm passionate about energy because there's no data my mind that frontline security issue. the reality i came to appreciate in my service is commandant of them rain for nato commander security adviser. we should understand clearly that mr. putin's encouragement in the crimea is among other things about exercising political power through the control of energy and brandishing scarcity to intimidate and manipulate vulnerable populations. for the very same purpose as the iranian regime threatens the flow of energy through the straits of hormuz and in venezuela hugo chavez use energy to keep its population in check for decades. it's also the same reason saddam hussein 20 years of tension and conflict and why one of osama bin laden's last decrees was to

attack the global energy infrastructure. energy scarcity is a potent strategic weapon. the greater the gap between global supply and demand the more destructive that weapon becomes. the difference between mr. putin and that's however is that he wields energy as a weapon to achieve his geostrategic goals while we look to energy, to energy flow and free markets as a means of promoting international peace prosperity and economic stability. less than a week ago for nato allies from the eastern allies from the eastern part of europe hungary poland slovakia and the czech republic appeal to the congress of the united states to protect them from russian domination not by requesting future arms but by sending energy. this is the future we are facing and fortunately we are blessed with a capacity to rise to the challenge if we choose to do so. how many americans aware within

the next year the united states will surpass russia as the world's largest producer of oil and gas combined? >> can be sure mr. putin is well aware of that fact. what a stunning change of fortune for our country whose energy narrative over the past 40 years has been dominated by dependence vulnerability and peak oil. the u.s. is on track to produce nearly 10 billion -- million barrels of oil a day by 2016 equal to that of saudi arabia. the story however does not end at our borders. and neighbors to the north and south are also blessed with energy abundance in with the proper resolve and strategy north america can in my view should become a global energy hub. energy supplied in europe can service a lynchpin in the revitalization of the transatlantic dialogue with nato and is the consequence to mr. putin's aggression in the crimea.

members of the committee within our reach is a historic opportunity to harness energy sufficiency to solve some of our country's most significant challenges in security, joblessness. imbalance and the devastating national debt all of which he wrote strength and global readership. we cannot seize this incredible opportunity if we continue to say no to the infrastructure requirements necessary to develop and utilize these resources. so i would like to pose a fundamental question. why would the united states spends billions of dollars in place or military personnel at risk to ensure the flow of energy half a world away to neglect an opportunity to enable the flow of energy in our own backyard creating jobs, tax revenue and greater security? i both respect and appreciate the fact that climate change concerns weigh heavily on this issue and on the minds of us all as they should.

we should not have a discussion on energy without discussing climate impacts. at a later date if you would like i look forward to testifying on the climate issues in a strategic conference of an realistic way through global solutions to what is clearly a global challenge. in the meantime i would simply raise two considerations. canceling the keystone xl pipeline does not mean the oil from canadian oil sands deposits will go undeveloped sparing the world modest increment of carbon emissions. the prime minister of canada has promised that the country's oil sands will be developed should the keystone not be approved. in fact if the keystone pipeline is not approved the reverse result would be that the hydrocarbons would go to countries with core -- poor environmental records rather than united states were regulations and comprehensive our comprehensive strong and enforce.

second, overarching and more significant point of this i'm convinced if america does not remain prosperous and strong independent on in their -- energy security we will not be able to secure the low-carbon solutions the world needs nor will we exercise global leadership necessary to answer climate change and challenge. the decision on the pipeline is a litmus test of whether america is serious about national regional and global energy security and the world is watching. america'america' s workers and consumers are watching, investors and job creators are watching. our allies need aids from united states and reliable trading partner watching. hundreds of millions of people out of poverty is watching in the international police who wish to use energy scarcity as a weapon against us all are watching. so if we want to make this we

should reject keystone beer. went to gain an important measure of energy security jobs tax revenue and prosperity to advance our work on the spectrum of energy solutions that don't rely on carbon than it should be approved. what but we need more than symbolic over politicized debates on particular projects is the more strategic approach to u.s. energy and climate policy one that promotes energy diversity, sustainability productivity and innovation and we need to develop the vast array of energy potential that we are blessed to have international disposal bearing in mind the umar metal impact on our actions. mr. chairman once again allegations are being made here and abroad that the united states is a nation in decline. by definition. >> general i will ask you to sum up. >> my definition of the condition is that our nation is didn't decline we can no longer do those things at the down

knows it needs to do for its own good. as a national and international security issue will think this pipeline is one of those things that we should do for our own good and i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. >> thank you. >> ranking member corker mr. chairman. [inaudible] >> is your microphone on? >> mr. chairman ranking member corker and members of the committees and honor to appear before you today to discuss whether keystone xl is international interest. i am i am michael brune executive director of the sierra club. the more than 2 billion people is submitted comments to the state department know that this pipeline is not in our national interests. the keystone xl tar sands pipeline would cut through more than a thousand miles of american farms and ranches carrying oil that is more toxic,

more corrosive more carbon-intensive and more difficult to clean up the good national oil all the way to the gulf where most of it will be exported. many of you i'm a parent and i'm deeply 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 set goals and to stay focused as they strive to achieve them. our country has a clear science-based school to limit carbon pollution. we must keep this in mind and recognized in achieving that goal it's incompatible with permitting this pipeline. none of the scenarios in the state department's analysis show how keystone xl could be built in a way that ensures our nation can meet those climate goals. in fact keystone xl was significantly exacerbate climate pollution because it would increase substantially development of tar sands in alberta that you see here. a report last week found that

keystone xl would spur additional production of roughly 500,000 barrels per day the emissions equivalent of holding 46 new coal-fired power plants. i would like that this report be added to the record please. >> without objection. >> although the climate impacts of tar sands are sufficient reasons to reject this project there are others a few of which i will say. first in a spill from his pipeline could be catastrophic create transporting tar sands crewed into the united states poses a heightened risk to communities in their air and water through conventional oil. deluded budha meant is heavier and more toxic than conventional crude. when it spills in a waterway it sinks. just one tar sands bill in michigan fell in 35 miles of river. after three and a half years and more than a billion dollars is still has not been cleaned out. if we look at this image of the neighborhood in mayflower arkansas where an exxonmobil pipeline ruptured spilling more

than 7000 barrels of tar sands in residence backyards and driveways. even without spills keystone xl would risk the health and livelihood of communities living near each stage of the project. pets could visit byproduct of tar sands production and is a major health hazard for communities. field grade pet coat contains toxins toxins like mercury mercury led arsenic selenium and chromium. huge piles from refining processes that began to appear in cities like chicago and detroit. for the more keystone xl would not even benefit american consumers. this is oil is intended for export. keystone xl would deliver tar sands tube gulf coast that already export most of their refined products and increased exports nearly 200% in the past five years. and they are planning to

increase these exports further into the future. keystone xl would also be a threat to national security because it would facilitate the development of one of the world's most carbon-intensive sources of oil. it's important to consider the impacts these additional greenhouse gas emissions would have on people worldwide and on america's national security. since 2010 key national security reports have indicated that floods droughts and rising seas brought on by you destabilize climate and places of geostrategic importance to the u.s. multiply threats and the risks for americans working those areas. climate disruption directly affects our armed forces and samuel locklear head of this pacific command believes the single greatest threat to his forces is the instability sparked by climate disruption. finally clean energy will power a new american century. let's not delay. america is the land of innovators.

today the manufactures detroit the laboratories of silicon valley in the next generation of american consumers are already investing in and profiting from clean energy technology. thanks to fuel efficiency standards as laid demanded the united states is decreasing and projection showed decreases in 2040 and beyond. investing in a clean energy economy is supported by american businesses american workers and all who care about clean air, clean water and stable climate. that is a win, win, win scenario. compare this to keystone xl which jeopardizes our drinking water farmland climate and health. the sad truth is that keystone xl tar sands pipeline is all rest get no reward. secretary kerry is called climate disruption the worlds quote the most fearsome weapon of mass destruction. he instructed all u.s. diplomats and employees around the world to lead by example through

strong action at home and abroad to fight the climate crisis. america can lead on climate i say no to this polluting pipeline, by saying yes to clean energy. thank you. >> thank you dr. hanft in. thank you for the opportunity to discuss climate and energy and the significance of the keystone pipeline. my first chart shows the carbon content of conventional oil gas and coal and the unconventional fossil fuels including tar sands. the purple portions have been burned already. the science is crystal clear. if we want to avoid leaving young people a climate system that is spiraling out of control the additional fuel burned must be less than that already burned. that means we must phase out

coal burning and leave most of the unconventional fossil fuels in the ground. tar sands are among the dirtiest and most 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 emitter of carbon dioxide. the pie chart on the left. however, it is cumulative 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 on the same boat. we will either sink together or find a way to sail together.

my next chart shows that fossil fuels provide over 85% of our energy. nonhydrorenewables provide only 3% of our energy. the in the u.s. and in the world. so how can we possibly 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 efficiency and appropriate policies can further improve that.

however the principle requirement is to reduce the carbon intensity. over the next few decades we must drive the carbon intensity down near zero. there is one country that has done a good job, sweden. sweden has decarbonize its electricity but which is provided by nuclear power and hydropower. they have one more extent to make, to make liquid fuels from electricity. that is actually not difficult but they are small country and have not developed that industry. why is the rest of the world not not -- it is because fossil fuels appear to the consumer to be the cheapest energy. fossil fuels are not really the cheapest energy. they are not required to pay for

the human health costs of air pollution or pollution or for the cost of climate change. the public picks up the tab. so they required policy is to put a gradually rising feed on carbon collected from fossil fuel companies at the first domestic sale at the domestic mind or port of entry. 100% of the money should be distributed to the public, equal amounts to all legal residents of the person who does better than average and limiting its carbon footprint will make money. this will provide a huge incentive for individuals and a huge incentive for entrepreneurs and business people. it will spur our economy and make it more efficient and it will modernize our 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 cor 10 years it will reduce our fossil fuel use almost 30%. according to the simulation by the carbon tax center. it will reduce our oil is used in 10 years, three times more than the volume of the keystone pipeline. george shultz and a conservative economist and in fact most economists agree that a rising revenue-neutral carbon fee is the way to solve the climate and energy problems. in fact it's an opportunity to make our economy more efficient. an important point is that such legislation i think needs to be introduced by a conservative because i'm afraid liberals will try to take part of the money to make the government vigor. what -- not one dime should go to the government.

100% should go to the public. i would like to enter into the record a specific one-page description of this dividend which is written by jim miller a boston businessman. he gave me a copy yesterday. i think it's a nice simple summary of the dividend system. one final comment that i would like to make, it is crucial that we began to work with china to solve both their air pollution problem and they're carbon emission problem. china is now contemplating and making plans for a massive coal gasification operation. hundreds of times bigger than copied to some degree on the coal gasification plant in the west. but on a massive scale. if that happens it will be very

difficult if not impossible for children to control so we need to work with them. and work with them on clean energies including our nuclear power where we still have the best. with our university system and our free enterprise system we should work with them and help them get clean energy because it's in our benefit as well as theirs. >> thank you. ms. harbert. >> chairman menendez and ranking member corker by 2040 energy global demand will grow by 50% but 90% will be in the developing world and we will be well underway to adding 2 million people to this planet. china india africa and the middle east will be growing in their energy demands and suppliers will be looking to sell to them and not to us. our own government has concluded by 204080% of the world standards demand will be met i

fossil fuels. that means we have to do more in energy demand. the unrest in ukraine has shown that energy vulnerability equals geopolitical vulnerability. despite an increase in supply coupled with modulating demand we will still import 40% of our oil by 2020 so we can choose the status quo by relying on oil from venezuela which has people today but our testing in their streets or from places far away that don't share our values or our principles. in 2002 north america has 5% of the world's reserves, 18% the following year when oil sands in canada were or added in our own aie believes that could be controlled or the global share production of oil from those countries that are considered not free or partly freed by freedom house has jumped from 65% in 1985 to 77% in 2012 so we have a choice.

we can choose to embellish the legacy of hugo chavez or ignore the geopolitical manipulation of energy or we can choose to have a secure and stable supply of oil from canada and develop our own vast resources here. let's not forget the k. excel will transport you as cute crude. canada is one of our most doll word allies. they were there for us after hurricanes katrina and rita. they were there for us after 9/11 9/11. accompanied us into war against terrorism. it is in their national interest and they will do it one way or another. increasing our existing deep relationship with their long-standing ally canada coupled with reforms in mexico and production here at home we can shift the gravity of the oil market two north america. jobs. the keystone-will create 42,000 jobs and for those who say those are tempore they don't understand the construction industry or they are simply against the $2 billion that will

be put in labour's pockets. or they're against the $3.4 billion additional gdp for our economy or they are against the pipeline being one of the largest property taxpayers in montana south dakota nebraska for schools fire police services and infrastructure. today the u.s. and canada enjoyed a fairly robust trading relationship. i don't think we have to fear the canadian mounties encircling her bases like russia is doing to crimea but if that. relation pays off for every dollar we spend buying a canadian good, 89 cents returns to the united states. that is my distaste for the benefit of our economy. that is not like our other oil suppliers. only 27 cents comes back for more leap i from venezuela. on the environment. i would suggest everyone of us in this room is an environmentalist. we enjoy and like and support clean air water and land in the

state department has concluded important things in its review. and when the keystone pipeline love the next civil impact on the environment. today the oil sands production accounts for only .1% of local greenhouse gas emissions and their carbon footprint is going down and in 2011 and a sequel to the venezuelan crude it seeks to displace. the number to the oil sands will be developed with or without the keystone pipeline carried out government has concluded that, the canadian government has concluded that and they are looking east west and south for options and producers are investing to make that a reality. and third alternative to keystone pipeline would have a higher emissions profile than the pipeline itself. put plainly given her practical energy reality if you are in support of the environment you are in support of the pipeline. in conclusion the five-year review process has been exhausted here in from people

and organizations across this country. it is included agencies input and in fact it's received input from the people on this panel and the conclusion is clear. keystone is in our national interest as well as its predecessor the keystone pipeline. keystone is good for the economy, jobs, tax revenue investment and. it's good for our energy security adding a more stable and secure source of energy. the state department has concluded the keystone will have a negligible impact on the environment and the oil sands will be developed one way or another. k. excel and developing the resources in north america will have a significant effect on improving our national security by adding more molecules to our mix. 65% of the american people support this pipeline. we live in a dangerous and precarious time. approving the pipeline will strengthen our economy decrease energy risks, respect their

commitment to the environment while also furthering our. of bilateral relationships as it democratic ally tonight. the keystone xl pipeline is in our national interest in the words of canada's prime minister is a quote no-brainer. thank you very much. >> thank you all for your testimony. several witnesses have asked for documents to be entered into the record. without objection they shall be included. let me start off. mr. brune i understand the seriousness of climate change and i have seen its effects with superstorm sandy. i personally believe in acting on climate by putting a price on carbon and support the president's plan in cutting carbon emissions with power plants. by means of transportation which it would amount to. why do we not limit the amount

of carbon leading to power plants and we don't limit the amount of carbon from power plants so why should we limit the amount of carbon through this pipeline? >> thank you mr. chairman. the reasons to to oppose this pipeline are as varied as the reasons to promote fuel efficiencies and cars and trucks. for the pipeline again we would be taking oil from the most carbon-intensive fuels source on the planet taking it through the country and most of it to be exported. this is a fuel source that has been talk of it to be much more carbon-intensive than conventional oil. it's also a fuel source that has through experience we have seen polluted american waterways and pose a significant risk to air quality across the country. when we have policy decisions before us for we have a choice between putting $7 billion into this pipeline are investing instead in clean energy and the fuel sources that would create more jobs it's incumbent upon us

to think what would strengthen our economy today but would also protect and strengthen our economy into the future. from our perspective this is not a step to regulate carbon. it's a step that could be taken to promote clean energy and energy efficiency. >> what about ms. harbert to continue this as a mode of transportation versus the other issues which i generally agree with you, the state department concluded that if the pipeline expansion is locked and producers are forced to ship by truck or rail instead overall transportation issues could be greater than that of the headline by 28 to 42% and would like the result in additionaadditiona l accidents accident so is approving the pipeline actually more environmentally sound and safe? >> that is what the state department concluded. >> i'm sorry. i wasn't asking you.

i was referring to mr. brune that you made that comment. >> we believe it's a false choice. what has been proven as the shipping tar sands oil by rail is not safe. we have seen more accidents by rail in the last year it may have in the past previous decades. shipping tar sands and oil through pipelines is not safe. the first tar sands pipe line spilled 12 times in the first 12 months so the choice is not whether to accept the increased risk through rail or to accept increased risk through pipeline but whether to take the this oil out of the ground to begin with. the world's top climate scientists have said in order to keep global warming below two degrees celsius or 3.6 degrees fahrenheit we have have to keep at least two-thirds of our fossil fuel reserves around the world in the ground so a reasonable person would

suggest that the way to do that, and that is a tall order for the global economy. it's a tall order for the american economy. the best way to do that is to start with the most carbon-intensive fuels sources such as the tar sands in canada. >> ms. harbert your testimony and we have heard a lot of testimony about jobs. i have heard a variety of figures around the number of jobs the project will create. transcanada has claimed the project will create 20,000 jobs in construction and manufacturing in almost a half a million, 465,000 jobs exactly throughout the u.s. economy. tom donohue your boss lowered the direct jobs number to 250,000 in previous testimony you lowered the construction jobs to 116,000 hour the state department's eis concluded it

would provide 2000 construction jobs and 50 ongoing jobs for maintenance. so how do you justify even within your own organization on numbers and if one is looking to the eis is a compelling reason for approval as it relates to jobs how was it so disparate from where they are? >> that's a very good question. those larger numbers for the entire span of the pipeline from canada all the way to the gulf of mexico and as you all know half of that pipeline or the lower third is under construction being put into operation also the numbers for what we are looking at now are smaller. >> so the state department numbers are what you would say under consideration? >> will take the state department at its word that it believes in those numbers.

we would like to see the 42,000 jobs at the site in their eis, 42,100 to be exact as what they put forward in the final impact statement. certainly we would like to see those and certainly our friends in the labor department are hoping their bigger but we will use with the government has put out. as i i said it might testimony 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 these oil sands out of the ground and i would like to submit i don't think that's a united states decision. that's canada's decision to mak. >> let me ask you since i listen listened to your testimony with interest your testimony suggests the chamber of commerce environmental organization. >> did you say environmental less? >> environmentalist. i'm sorry i'm sure going with the cold. does that mean the chamber reads

with one that climate change is real and is caused by humans? >> the chamber has a long record on climate in here's what it is. number one we support addressing our environment and things that work. we look today what is happening as states and their emissions are coming down and wide. we have had a recession and that's important that we have increasing efficiency in our economy and we aren't doing what europe is doing. europe's emissions are growing up and they have a hard and difficult cap-and-trade system. we want to be in favor of things that were. technologies that work and put americans back to work. we strongly believe in improving the environment while protecting the economy. >> i asked very simple question. does the chamber believe that climate change is real and caused by humans? >> yes or no. >> we believe we should be doing everything in our power to address the environment. >> that's great. is climate change, is it real?

is it real? >> the climate is warming without a doubt. >> so climate change is real. is a caused by humans? >> other part of the answer is that warming as much as some of my colleagues on the panel of predicted in the past and the answer is no. >> i'm getting to that but you have to give me your answer. is it caused by humans? >> is caused by lots of different things and you can't say that climate change is only caused by humans. i think the sciences with peoplo and we have a robust debate going on in this country as we should and does i would say everything is civil undercuts the integrity of science. >> does the chamber believe that a price on carbon is leading to reduced emissions? >> one could argue today we are to have a price on carbon and that we are pushing efficiency into our vehicles and into our electricity so we have an

interact price on carbon already >> is that your argument? is that the chamber's argument? >> that is a fact. it's not an argument. it's the economic facts. >> if it is a fact then you say they were surprised by greater efficiency and any arguments that were made earlier that there is a price that is paid and i think it was dr. hanft and that said they were surprised that collectively we as a society pay for the admissions in the consequenconsequen ce of health costs, agricultural problems and other elements. there are prices on both sides. >> i'm not sure that logically flows through. >> let's try and see. >> okay. you said there is a price as a result of greater efficiency and that efficiency creates greater costs. you said therefore we could

argue, your words not mine but there is already a tax. >> if you're going to be building of residence or a building that is going to be more energy visions and most materials are more expensive there is a costs associated with that. if you're going to be buying something that is more expensive bears the costs associated with that but i have to tell you i don't agree with the fact that you think that the chamber lacks a compass on the environment. we have been a proponent on research and development on advanced technologies, the biggest supporter in energy legislation. >> you made the comment. i didn't say the chamber. i asked some specific questions as it related to climate change. the question simply is should we not include a cost of what happens when any person or industry or country to ultimately operate in a way

which creates a collective consequence on their our health and well-being and that is subsidized by the government through health care, through medicare and medicaid and through a whole host of other things. if it's good for the goose is good for the gander is my point. senator corker. >> thank you mr. chairman. i thought i was going to be contentious on our side of the aisle. it's been a very good hearing and i appreciate all the witnesses. dr. hansen i have to say i actually found like mindedness in your testimony and i appreciate you being here but it seems to me number one you are a strong proponent of your energy. i know you were using sweden as an example and most of their energy comes from nuclear energy so i find this to be very like-minded in that regard.

>> i'm a strong proponent of clean energy, carbon free energy and wedding the market choose the energy. we should not be specifying that electricity has to come from dual energies. it has to be cleaned carbon free energy and lets the markets compete. it is likely that nuclear would compete well. now it's not going to be easy in the united states because it takes so long. that is why we need to work with china. if we do they are going to build a scale and they will be old to drive down the unit cost and then it can circle back to the united states if in fact we want to and in fact i think we should >> also found art your comments

of our nation was ever to go to a point where we could put a price on carbon, the carbon tax would be a much better way than the goldberg mechanism that the senate looked at a few years ago so i just want to tell you while that is not where we are if that was ever to come about i would agree with you that is a much better way especially a revenue-neutral way of doing it than what was contemplated in the past. >> i agree with that and it had better come about pretty soon or we are not going to solve this problem. that is the only way you can do it. as long as you allow the fossil fuels to get by scott rewithout paying their costs and we are going to keep burning them, basically burning dirt. >> i understand the comments you made about what people might do if they are burning but let me ask you the transportation issue i know this chairman mentioned that. what i don't get about the keystone pipeline and the

resistance is that the transportation as was mentioned is very expensive. it's hugely carbon-intensive and i guess i would ask you this question. the canadians are obviously going to develop these whether we transported south or not. and i have met with them directly and i'm sure you have too and certainly they will build a pipeline to the west which will go to china if we don't do this. i guess i don't understand how someone like you that have such credentials environmentally would pose any more efficient way of that oil that fossil fuel making it to market. >> it's a question of how much of that tar sands is going to be taken out of the ground. if we told this expensive type line it will facilitate the extraction of much more than if we don't build it. 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. canada knows that. that is why they are so desperate to get the united states to approve this. if we don't approve it a lot of the tar sands will never be developed. 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's going to have to do that via price on carbon and that's going to cause the most carbon-intensive things to get left in the ground and that includes tar sands. >> let me ask you this question. again this pipeline is beyond belief to me that it has generated this much opposition when it seems like as was mentioned by someone to be such a no-brainer. we have 19 pipelines between canada and the united states and i'm curious as to whether the organization opposed all of those in the same way that you are opposing this one?

>> i appreciate your earlier comment about the carbon tax and should there be a moment where there's an opportunity to move that forward in this era club would look an opportunity to do that. >> i wasn't suggestinsuggestin g. >> i understand that. >> there is a way to make it revenue-neutral and what we considered a few years ago was utterly ridiculous but go ahead. >> i understand you weren't preparing to introduce legislation that when the moment comes. regarding the question, i'm not sure if this sierra club has taken a position against all 19 and i would be happy to get back to on that but to be clear we are opposed to the expansion of the development of the tar sands in to the extent the soil would come for the united states where opposed to those types of projects. part of the reason that needs to be shared here today as we don't

agree with the assumption that the soil will come out of the ground anyway. as you know albert is lands producing 2 million barrels of oil per day. the vision for the industry coming from the prime minister is to have that production grow to 6 million barrels of oil per day. there are two pipelines that have been proposed to the west through british columbia. there are two pipelines that are being proposed to the east and there's the keystone x. -- xl pipeline and other projects being considered. each of those faces significant resistance. the two pipelines going to the west are dead in the water. they are not moving forward. they have opposition from the provincial government in d.c. as well as the first nations native community who have legal standing to oppose those pipelines. the ones from the east are facing significant difficulty so you may or may not believe the voracity of what this sierra

club is saying that if you look a what the oil industry in canada is saying and if you look like the oil industry analyst firm cibc, rbc and other banks in canada are saying this oil will not come out of the ground if the tar sands keystone xl pipeline is not dull. >> i think everyone for being here and general thank you for your service. i appreciate your testimony and i just want to ask one specific question of ms. harbert. in august 2000 this administration determined that all part of clipper crude oil pipeline was in the u.s. national interests are the pipeline was designed to bring large qualities -- quantities of crude oil to oil markets in the midwest and u.s.. in particular the national risk factors cited by the state department's determination of the pipeline would be in the national interest included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the united states worldwide crude oil sources at a time of considerable political tension

and other major oil provision countries, shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies, increasing crude oil supply from a major nonopec producer. just asking you this one question. would these same factors that led to a successful national interest determination for all vertically for applied to the ksa okays -- k. excel case? >> absolutely. the demand for oil has gone up so he must do even more to ensure we can supply more from north american tour market. >> thank you all three for your testimony. senator boxer. >> thanks to all of you. i ask unanimous consent to place in the record the final supplemental environmental statement on keystone from the state department showing that the 50 permitting job straight i would like to put that into the record. i want to say ms. harbert u. r.

great advocate that you do not speak for environmentalists and when you said if you are an environmentalist you are in support of the pipeline. let me just say that is ludicrous on its face. please don't speak for me and don't speak for lots of folks who don't see it that way. i appreciate some people saying it's a no-brainer. maybe in some brains it's a no-brainer and i respect that but they might rain it's not a no-brainer. i want to tell you mr. chairman and i want to thank both of you for this hearing the national nurses united representing 185,000 nurses have joined me in senator whitehouse and calling for arrow health impact study on our peep all the people of america when you look at the immediate 45% importation tar sands eventually 300% of this filthy dirty oil.

the nurses some of them are here in the audience and i want to thank them. by the way 85% of the people give them an approval rating next to a person in congress. when i said next to them today i i hope the little would rub off what i just want to thank them because they understand the impact on the health of families. i want to show you two pictures. this is that coke mr. chairman. you have to take a look at this because a lot of it is going to be stored around our nation. already we have seen it coming. this is just a sample of what america is going to look like but when you see the tar sands filthy dirty oil. this is what remains after its refined and 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

work howard and soot and i want to show you port arthur texas what it looks like when the stuff is refined. here it is. this is what the people right by a playground. this is what is going on so when my friend the general talks about our national interest, i personally believe we have to wait and on the health impact study because personally i think our national interest should include if our kids are going to suffer more asthma, cancer and the rest. so i guess i would ask are you familiar and i would ask my friend from the chamber, are you familiar with the fact that doctors serving in the community in canada where this tar sands is continues to be disproportionately burdened with lymphatic and rare cancers that have been linked to chemicals

produced by the petroleum industry. are you familiar with the study's? >> senator we agree with you. we agreed we should protect our air and water. >> are you familiar with the subject? >> it there's a particular study would like us to review i would be glad to. >> i'm also going to send you the 2010 article entitled oil sands development contributes toxins at low concentrations to the river up there and mr. brune is it in our national interest to promote an industry that is increase the levels of carcinogens such as ph and i'm going to try to say it. poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. pah's and nervous system toxin such as mercury and the river and into our lakes. is it in the national interest? >> have so we now appeared in national interest must include health of american families. >> okay.

i would say mr. brune is it in the national interest to expose national communities living close to tar sands which is port arthur texas to higher levels of toxic cause or -- cancer-causing air pollutants? is that in the national interest? >> of salina particularly when we have clean energy alternatives that will protect or help clean up air and water and put more people to work. see absolutely. you know i think we need to be fair and look at everything and i think we have to weigh everything up for me taking 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 and what is happening.

these are the forgotten voices in this debate and i ask unanimous consent to place it into the or do letter from the nurses in which they called secretary kerry to look at the health impact study before there is any decision made. >> without objection. >> i would just want to say this and before my time is up. if you have ever met a child with a breathing problem and i'm sure that you all agree with this, you just want to do everything it can to help them. why is it when it comes to this project we are told it's a no-brainer. no, let's look at what is happening in canada. i will tell you i stood shoulder-to-shoulder with doctors from canada who have seen 30% increases in cancer. i think that issue has been swept under the rug.

and i'm just one senator. i'm just one voice but now i have 185,000 nurses behind me and i'm just saying to you all i'm going to to everything in my power to protect the health and safety of the people. i want energy security desperately and if you look at california we are moving quickly toward clean energy and it's exciting. the jobs are growing exponentiexponenti ally as we can't do something and remained in national interest where it winds up costing us the health of our families. i thank you for your time. >> senator johnson. >> thank you mr. chairman chairman. dr. hansen you a fan of the average price of electricity per kilowatt hour? >> i'm sorry. i don't have a specific number.

>> you have some concept of that? >> certainly and i know that. >> let me just throw out a number. mr. brune do you know? >> it's more important the relative cost of one source versus another. >> i will get to that. mr. brune do you know the cost per kilowatt hour? >> depends greatly on the region you are taught about. speaketh me a close out -- answer. senator obama was the candidate said because of his cap-and-trade proposal electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. dr. hansen did you basically concur with that? >> cap-and-trade and i would not advocate indeed would cause an increase in costs. what we need is an economically sensible approach and that is to put a simple fee on carbon.

>> how would that prevent prices from skyrocketing like cap-and-trade would? you talked about it dividend system. you are going to impose costs on energy. will that increase the price of energy? >> it will impose costs on carbon-based fuels, yes. presently those fuels, the costs are there but they are borne by the public. >> president obama's energy secretary steven chu made the comment that somehow we have to figure out how to get our castling prices up to the level and i think you made the comment when our gasoline prices were below $2. let me finish my question. european gas prices were $8 a gallon so these were the stated goals. mr. hansen please let me finish. these are the stated goals of

president obama and the energy secretaries to get gasoline prices to basically quadrupled. do you disagree with those policies? >> certainly. what i have said is keep the costs on us. their health costs. there are climate costs and those are borne by the public. let's add them to fossil fuels. >> this is my question period. i understand the externalities and i'm talking about what families will feel in wisconsin in terms of their energy price their monthly energy utility bill would necessarily necessarily skyrocket of the policies supported by individuals like you -- i agree with ms. harbert. i think we are all environmentalists. i get my water out of the well and i love to fish and i love the outdoors. >> what you are saying is latently false.

what you can easily show is if you put in honest flat fee on carbon 65% of the people will get more money than they pay in increased electricity and other prices. the economic model show that very clearly. only the high income people will pay more. >> i come from a manufacturing background. as ms. harbert isn't it true that if you want to manufacture goods you need powered? >> they are the largest consumer power in the country and if you look a what is happening in germany which has electricity prices four times as high as we have here in the german industrial community are investing in the united states. why likes because we have poured affordable natural gas so investment coming out of europe because of high prices in coming here so we don't have to look far to a model that is not work and by the way their emissions are going up, not down.

>> is electricity rates were necessarily to skyrocket that would hamper any fractures ability to be competitive in the world and what would that do to the number of jobs that would be created and available in united states? >> would hurt competitiveness and hamper jobs but let's not forget that is regressive. it would hurt the lowest part of the people with the least amount of disposable income would pay the most. >> dr. hansen are you familiar with the estimates for the national renewable energy laboratory? you were mentioning all the jobs it would be created with green energy. the government spent $9 billion over the last few years on green jobs and created 910 new jobs which means that costs $9.8 million per job. are you aware of the statistics? i have seen three or four different studies and this is the midpoint in cost of green energy jobs. >> i strongly disagree with such policies. i say put a simple honesty on

carbon. don't say you have to buy renewables. i've never agreed with, so don't blame. >> i'm talking about the policies being pushed by the sickness ration. they're not creating jobs in the jobs that have been created are enormously expensive than the policies have hampered the ability to create more jobs. >> that is why in asking it to stop and think what is the conservative solution to this? >> president obama november 14 at temperatures of around the globe are increasing faster than was predicted 10 years ago yet an article in the economist in march of 2013 and i "and i quote said temperatures have not risen over the last 10 years three to month earlier the bbc news reported since 1998 there has been an unexplained standstill in the heating of the earth atmosphere. this is correct that temperatures have remained flat over the last 10 or 15 years? >> the rate has been lower and

it's not unexplained. there is a natural oscillation in the pacific tropical temperature has not warmed during that period. that is effective global temperature. >> let me ask a final question of mr. brune and dr. hansen are you familiar with a man named patrick moore? he is the founder of greenpeace. >> he was disavowed of that three years ago. >> he said that group became oranges in politics than science and took a sharp turn to the political left but he made the statement we don't know where the present pause in temperature will remain are whether will go up or down. we do know with extreme certainty that climate is always changing. between pauses we are not limited with her knowledge in predicting which way it will go next. i live in wisconsin. there were i think 200-foot glaciers in wisconsin. how do you explain before man

ever had a carbon footprint? >> the statement that you just made is latently false. >> how do explain climate change that occurred 10,000 years before man had a carbon footprint? >> climate, there are variations in the earth's orbital elements. the eccentricity of the first orbit, the time in the season when it's closest to the sun. >> so now it's all man-made? >> no one has said it is all man-made. however the man-made effect is now dominant and we can measure that because we can measure the energy balance on the planet and we see there is more energy coming in than is going out so therefore the planet is going to continue to get warmer. it doesn't mean each year it's going to be warmer because there are natural fluctuatifluctuati ons but this decade is going to be warmer than the last one in the following one will still be

warmer. >> i agree with ms. harbert that i believe the science is far from settled. thank you. >> expressions of approval or disapproval are not committed on the committee. i'm going to ask senator mccain to preside wallach go to vote. i do have other questions for this panel so i tend to come back and ask you and you will have as much time as senator kaine will give you. >> thank you mr. chairman to the panel thank you for being here today. i have 10 or 15 minutes which is fantastic. i'm going to put myself in the camp that this is a no-brainer. i don't think that is the case because while the testimony of the panelist of urgent it puts important interest on the table energy security at the nation and its multiple ramifications. and important science about

climate and the damage that we may be doing to the planet which our kids and grandkids will be the ones who will have to figure it all out if we don't take the appropriate leadership role. i think those are two compelling interest. this project in and of itself i do not leave the support of it is game over for the planet and i do not believe that opposition for it is -- it is a hard question that requires careful thought and i don't pretend to expertise on this but i do think you have to start with the science. i will just be blunt. there are people that i care about and people in this room armed both sides of the issue. i think you have to start with the science. ..

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 >> i think those of us who make decisions have to take

a deposition of the science and i think it is clear. i have seen did in virginia with the sea level rising there are people i know who live in homes they cannot sell themt now that werethat built 150 years ago could so many times but not now because they are in a flood plain but they were not earlier. also with extreme but consistent with promoting security goals. i agree with general jones the disapproval of this mig project is just this project would have an incremental effect but on the global energy security status thebe united states will be number one over russia because we

don't count the oil sands as energy we have the energy we will produce that is strongly support. you have to do grapple with the science then makeit decisions. based on that. i looked at it like his seventh love to have this hearing that i have already voted. i can change my mind and i dug deeply into the science question and my review of science leads me to conclude we have a pie chart the way we produce energy there are elements better heavy car bin and others are lighter carbon and the right strategy is making a better today. those that are low carbon

crew of the pieces that are i no carbon to take the pieces of the pie chart that are heavy car been to reduce them in size progressivelypie but with those portions of the pie chart. >> is significantly youco dirtier but it is significantly during the year not only carbon emissions with other kinds of petroleum and i grapple with the question when we have so many alternatives low carbon in no carbon like fossil fuels and natural gas as indicated we are improving our emissions without the kyoto according and congressional action natural gashe that moves the stem of the carbon densities' scale.

now just to move down that scale why would we backslide to the tar marcion's? i acknowledge your point this is a decision for canada to make they will make that decision but we dealing with that or not with the tar sands this is the average too far we don't want to be dirtier tomorrow we will focus on feweri alternatives. while i acknowledge the labors have a great point oftary view, a military, a scientist, i am struck on this issue in we have waited too long to take leadership. pr when my predecessor john

warner near the end of his 30 year career with thethe nerve it is -- navy andnd marines and 30 year member of the armed services committee he concluded the biggest security challengeenge we face as a nation is not energy dependence but climate because of themigr destructive nature to destabilize countries affecting natural resources.ched he reached that point at the end of his career i think it would be very hard to beat the leader to embrace the sales of oil that is not a question obviously but an explanation and becauseabou people that i care about care about this issue to seeed the way i have voted. but to say this is not a

good idea. the pipelines are fine. i was mayor of the city with a gas utility it is about the tar t sands oil from low carbon or no carbo n or heavyh h or dirty car been.line sometimes about the pipeline confuses everybody about the real issue. senator you are up. >> talk about the dirtiest wheel in the world coming through the united states as a straw to poland through texas then exporting around the world. what did the advantage of the united states to export out of the united states with no restrictions?

they say we have to do everything we can to help the energy independence but what about restrictions on? no. oh no. by the way they also supportt exportatiexportati on ofof american natural gas.y meanwhile we're sendingiddl hundreds of thousands of young men to the middle east. the oil bill is fuelling the revolution.ut oil that we import. by the way right now we import 6.3 million barrels per day. 6.3 million barrels.wh that makesat us week. what does this proposal say?ild take the dirtiest will fill the pipeline the u.s. take the environmental risk put it in texas then export. by the way we had a debate

yesterday about exporting natural gas that could be used to move cover vehicles from oil to natural gas here in the united states. most of the people on this exp committee said we should start exporting natural gas also. 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 our infrastructure was extremely vulnerable. we started a process, at least in my own conversion, started my own education coming to the conclusion how important energy