we failed to prevent the tragic bombing and bought him. i would like to ask you, why do you think that was what can we do to correct it so we don't fail to present the next austin bombing clinics >> the reality is i don't know the specifics of the boston bombing. not an element of that occurring duty, not something i express direct knowledge of. to comment knowingly a need that knowledge. >> well, a second example deals with nidal hassan and the ford hood. hassan with and were unlucky and

a spiritual advisor of the 9/11 bombers. this is not some extraneous person. this is someone who is a major in the military's communicating by e-mail within. despite all of our surveillance capabilities, we failed to prevent that horrific that claimed the lives of 14 innocents. in your judgment, what could we have done better to prevent that? >> to be honest, i will answer that question to senator graham. the >> that may suggest more broadly on both of these that it would be a far better allocation of resources in the nsa and our efforts to prevent terrorism generally as much by resources were big to targeting those who we have reason to know are dangerous.

we have reasons to know the islamic terrorist and have less resources were devoted to broderick intersection and her valence of law-abiding citizens. it is to me for some time that the priorities have been backwards and we had to be targeting the bad guys than protect innocents from terrorist attacks and at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of every american. thank you, admiral. thank you, general. >> thank you, senator cruz. senator inhofe, and a second round of questioning? thank you as we go back and forth to go. we appreciate your service and his hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> agriculture secretary tom vilsack testified about his department's budget request. watch the hearing in its entirety tonight at a competing network on the c-span at 8:40 eastern. here are some of the secretary's testimony and exchange it with iowa congressman tom latham. >> just have to say i hear every time they meet with farmers, talk to them one-on-one, is that there is a huge change. they don't think the department is on their side when you look at things like the department of

labor when they come out with the proposed rule so that farm kids can't help their parents on the phone or, the first response from you and the department basically is in support the department of labor rather than the farm and farm families. the department -- i mean, a lot of place to reducers out there. the department talks about meatless day in the message that sends to what should be the departments constituency that you're against them, you are not with them. when they are inundated with regulations from epa, whether it be under the clean water act articulates the clean air act, we don't hear anything in opposition from the department

to support the farmers themselves in positions. renewable fuel standard coming out of it with a snow what advice or counsel or with the department's position is it's going to be devastating to a lot of people in rural iowa certainly been a lot of places across the midwest and threat the country as far as agriculture. i just say leaving here it is very, very disappointing to see the change in attitude at the department towards what should be their constituents. the farmers themselves. you know, the system cannot be sleep near and dear to my heart with that background coming from the big town of alexander 165 people living in the suburbs of a farm outside of town. there is a change. there's a huge change and i hear

it every day. i don't know if you want to respond. we have a luncheon. that's why heavy cream pie on the irish ambassador here. i don't know if you have any response, but it is very discouraging to me. >> well, congressman, i am surprised by your comments. and i do want to respond because they think they merit response. with reference to the department of labor, this department a sickly suggested that it was not the appropriate approach and that we suggested it was an opportunity to better educate folks about public via the farm safety generally and work at the labor department ticket that rule pulled and create an alternative approach.

>> it wasn't your first response. >> our first response, congressman, was to suggest that there is a better way to do this and that we worked with the department to find a better way and we are working with penn state in the land grant universities to develop a curriculum will make it easier with the farm bureau and national farmers union. dr. bob stallman and robert johnson and others in a room with me when that alternative is proposed. as it relates to meatless monday, i was critical of that effort and immediately so. it was pulled immediately. wasn't something i sanction. i would point out the livestock exports are at record levels under this administration. every dollar we spend is generated or $5 in trade. we are at record levels of farm income. in terms of the epa, we're obviously working to make sure

they fully understand and appreciate exactly what will it will not happen based on what they're looking at. we encourage the epa to talk with farmers and we've arranged for meetings to take place between five groups that are straighter and suggested administrators talk to farmers. the test will doesn't exist and you know it. as far as the rss is concerned, we are working with the epa said they fully understand and appreciate the current situation relative to gas. but rss is established established, it was based on an assumption they would be increase gas utilization at americans. but not necessarily been the case. what we're focused on is making sure there's continued opportunities to expand exports of ethanol and capacity to have higher plants. spirit has spoken directly to governor branstad and our home state about enough for to encourage more ed five tanks.

i find it interesting that congressman or difficult to do that when you essentially restricted us from using refunds for blender pumps will figure a way to help expand opportunity for higher plants. i'm happy to express disappointment to you. that's not what i hear cannot be saved must be talking to a different group. >> were probably talking to the same people. >> i don't think we are. >> i know what i know and it's very disheartening to me to see the changing relationship. there is absolute feeling out in the country that the department sites more with the epa that takes the order from above and are not advocating for farmers. that's just not true. >> perception can be a reality, but that is the reality of the

situation. >> you can watch all of the hearing tonight on our companion network, c-span at 8:40 p.m. eastern. >> this dish is when we say freedom of choice, let people go their own way. what i think we often mean is they know best.

the government doesn't know best. the notion of autonomy, pretty elaborate word is basically a way -- a one-word way of saying that people are no better than outsiders to about what will make their lives go well. this sounds academic and abstract, but i think the stakes are real and concrete. the question really when we think about our policies, at least a lot of the question is are people going to be sick? are they going to be miserable? are they going to be dead? if we have some policy, whether it involves savings for retirement or if it involves privacy on the internet or if it involves air-quality, if we can think of some way that makes them less likely to be sick or mr. boll or dad while also

letting them ultimately go their own way if that's what they want. that's a good bargain. >> yesterday the senate foreign relations committee held a hearing on the keystone text oil pipeline. a former national security adviser to president obama said the pipeline would improve america's energy security. a former nasa physicist who studies climate change to the ui shouldn't that focus on developing clean energy sources. [inaudible conversations] >> the of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. we welcome the distinguished panel of experts and advocates to address something that has

long been an issue of practical and political concern for many in this town and across the nation. today we're here to financiers and shed more light than heat i hope on the issue. here are the facts in a rationale on both sides. the proposed keystone exxon pipeline segment would make mark in montana the canadian border to steel city, nebraska. whatever capacity of 830,000 barrels of tar sands per day could 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 balanced, thoughtful hearings for pesticide politics that has surrounded this debate and 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 in more agreed upon facts.

proponents of the pipeline to jobs, economic development and energy security is reason why the pipeline should be approved. the alleged harm to the environment is overstated. opponents raise climate change concerns about potential spills can downplay energy economic advantages of the pipeline. that's not to say i don't have my own views. i do. our two-year facts from eyewitnesses and have a full throated open discussion. before i conclude, i want to introduce into the record behalf of the 500,000 members of the international union of north america signed by their distinguished general president of material sullivan a letter strongly support the keystone axel pipeline. if there's no objection to that, lanter into the record. he's made it clear that he supported the pipeline and we

offer of a pipeline to his position. i call for this hearing because the bipartisanship when it comes to such issues and with the help of senator corker the ranking member we can have a rational discussion today. senator corcoran i believe this is the debate we're having i know what to think the ranking member for helping us put this hearing together with the four witnesses before his take time to provide good insight. with that, let's return to senator corker for his remarks. >> mr. chairman, thank you in angola for witnesses for being here. i understand we have two divergent these on keystone of the kevlar for both of those fears. i want to thank you for the markup we had yesterday minestrone bipartisanship showed with the support of ukraine. it's unfortunate the administration declined to testify here today. very unfortunate.

i understand they do not want to prejudice the outcome of natural interest determination process they're going through right now. i do think it would have been a port and its import explain to us all the factors to consider making this decision. i hope today we can pass determinations. that would be important to us and circumstances have come up with a clear picture of what it should be. i said that the issue would agree in some respects of the united states national interest is indeed at stake here. the administration is not going to be indecisive at the end of this process from which hopefully will end soon. i'm certain interested to hear both sides, but to me the link between the completion of the keystone pipeline and ensuring our energy security best our national security is clear and compelling. despite years of rigorous review strong public support for completion of the pipeline

committee administration is not the only thing standing in the way of dozens of american jobs with the potential for many more and access to a large supply of north american energy. based on what i understand from similar pipeline decisions for secretary kerry or the president, to determine that keystone is not in our national interest, they would in effect have to embrace the idea that the single pipeline, noxious fossil fuels in general, but the single pipeline would have a clear demonstrable contribution to the global climate catastrophe. such a determination within far beyond the bounds of what the process is that in the past and what we would expect it to be now. the president's appearance climate standard for the approval of the pipeline announced in a speech last summer appears to redefining of exhaustive concrete environmental and economic

development analysis that demonstrate the benefits we would reap from this project, which would also strike entices canada, our largest trading partner. in fact, the state department has determine keystone is unlikely to affect the rate of distraction of demand for heavy crude. therefore be compared to other forms of transporting oil, the pipeline is likely to provide a safer and more environmentally friendly. i'm not sure how refusing the 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 of the senator corker. let me introduce our panelists. general james l. jones is to present the charms group

international over his distinguished 40 year career in the marine corps, general jones served as allied in europe. the commandant of the marine corps following his retirement general jones circus echelon would for security and is the president's national security advisers camus welcome you and thank you free service to to our country. michael brune is director of the sierra club and the rainforest action network. mr. brune is a fellow new jersey in and we him before the committee to listen to his insights. doc or james strand 10 as an adjunct professor and director of the earth institute program on climate science awareness solution that columbia university. more than three decades to hear hansen search for space studies and scholarly work has made him respect in the field of climate

science. let me say in the past both dr. hansen and mr. brune have been arrested at protests at the keystone pipeline. i can't guarantee it, but i hope this proves to be a more comfortable experience. finally, our final panelists today is caring harbert, president and ceo the u.s. chamber of commerce. she previously served as assistant secretary for policy and international affairs at the u.s. department of energy that deputy assistant for latin american and caribbean at at usaid. we thank you for joining us in your false statements will be printed in the record without objection. i'd ask you to summarize received them in five minutes or so so the members can have a dialogue with you and alaska to testify in the order in which i introduce to you. >> it's a pleasure to be here today. members of the committee, it's

my honor to share about the keystone axel pipeline determination. thank you for making my fuller testimony of part of the record. if i could, i would also recommend we provide for the committee's interest a two-year study done by the bipartisan energy council, where i cochaired the study of the senator trent lott, byron dorgon and former epa and the straighter, bill o'reilly, which is a bipartisan effort on taxing our overall energy future. mr. chairman, you request a testify today in the u.s. geostrategic and national security interests associated with the approval of the pipeline. interest in my view are intrinsic to america's energy security and leadership in the century. i hope my testimony will be useful to the committee

celebration on both issues as they will let you determine the direction of our nation's future, a cause to which as you pointed out i dedicated my 42 years of professional life within and out of uniform. it is thus significant and highly commendable the senate foreign relation committee is holding a hearing focused on oil pipelines. it speaks volumes about energy's role in honor and international affairs, a message that resonates especially powerfully today in light of the events playing out in the ukraine. the fact that energy security is vital to the nation's domestic economy is well established. the caribbean crisis is proving once again energy security is also essential pillar to global stability. this current crisis serves as one more love how tension and rivalry over access to energy plays out in conflicts across the international landscape. mr. chairman, passionate about energy because there's no data

may not get the frontline 21st century issue. the reality i came to appreciate in my sources, not to the record, nato commander national security adviser. we should understand that mr. peart encouragement in the crimea is among other things about exercising the control of energy and about reid should the threat of energy scarcity to intimidate and manipulate vulnerable populations. the very same purposes of dealing with gm habitually threatens the flow through the streets of format and in venezuela hugo chavez uses energy abundance to keep its population in check for decades. it's also the same reason saddam hussein invaded kuwait sparking 20 years of international tension and conflict and why one of osama bin laden last decrease was to attack the global energy infrastructure. energy be is a potent strategic

bidding. the greater the gap between global supply and demand, the market struck it the weapon becomes. the difference between mr. putin and sec achieves the geostrategic goals while they look to energy flow in free markets as a means of promoting international peace, prosperity and economic stability. less than a week ago, for nato allies in the eastern part of your, hungary, poland, slovakia and czech republic appeal to the congress of the united states to protect them from russian domination by requesting troops arrived some of that by sending energy. this is the future we are facing unfortunately we have blessed with a capacity to rise to the challenge if we choose to do so. how many americans are aware within the next year the united states will surpass russia has the world's largest producer of oil and gas combined? we can be sure that mr. putin is well aware of the fact.

what a stunning change of fortune for a country whose energy narrative of the past 40 years has been dominated by terms such as dependents, vulnerability and peak oil. u.s. is on track to produce nearly 10 billion -- million barrels of oil a day by 2016 people to that of saudi arabia. the story however to not end at our borders. our neighbors to the north and south are also blessed with energy abundance of a proper risotto strategy north america canon in my view should be, global energy had. energy supply to europe serves as the linchpin of the revitalization in the dialogue with nato members said the committee, within our reach as the historic opportunity to harness efficiency, to solve some of our countries must if you can challenge in security,

joblessness, trade imbalance and a devastating national debt all of which he would strengthen global leadership. we cannot seize this incredible opportunity if we continue to say no to the infrastructure requirements necessary to develop and utilize these resources. i would like to post what i regard to be pretty fundamental question. why would the united states spent lands of dollars to place our military personnel at risk to ensure the flow of energy have cowrote away, but neglect an opportunity to enable the flow of energy in iberia dockyard, creating jobs, tax revenue and greater security. i both respect and appreciate the fact climate change concerns weigh heavily on this issue in the minds of the saw has a shed. we should not have a discussion on energy without discussing climate impact. at a later date, if you apply,

or the court to testify on the importance of tax and climate issues in a strategic, comprehensive and realistic way to global solutions of what is clearly a global challenge. admitting time, hudson erased two considerations. canceling the pipeline has not been oil from canadian oil sands deposits will go on the ballot comes. the road on his temperament of carbon emissions to the prime minister of canada has promised the country's oil sands will be developed should the keystone not be approved. in fact, if the keystone pipeline does not approve the perverse result would be that the hydrocarbons would go to countries with poor environmental record spread than united states were regulation and comprehensive -- comprehensive strawman forest. second, and he or she and another saying convinced that if america does not remain prosperous and strong, imperative dependent on energy

security will not be in a position to engineer the energy solutions world needs. nor will the exercise of global leadership necessary to answer the climate change. the decision on the pipeline as a litmus test of whether america is serious about national, regional or global energy security in the world is watching. america's workers and consumers are watching, investors and job creators are watching. allies who made a strong united states and reliable energy partner are watching. the developing world which requires global energy abundance of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty is watching and international bullies who she is energy scarcity as a weapon to saw our watching intently. if we want to make mr. putin stated strictness hand, we should reject keystone. if we want to gain an important measure of energy security, jobs, tax revenue and prosperity to the insert on the spectrum of

energy solutions that are planned carbon, it should be approved. we need more than symbolic politicized debates on particular projects is a more strategic approach to u.s. energy and climate policy. one that promotes energy diversity, sustainability, productivity and innovation annuity to develop a vast array of energy potential that we are blessed to have better national disposal. 90 environmental impact tamar actions. mr. chairman, once again allegations are made here and abroad that the united states is a nation in decline. by definition -- >> i'll ask you to some. >> my definition is a nation can no longer bring himself to do those things that deep down it knows any city would sound good. as the national and international security issue building the pipeline is one of those things we should do for

good. i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i am back [inaudible] >> is your microphone on? >> mr. chairman, ranking member corker, members of the committee, it's an honor to appear before you whether keystone xl is in our national interest. i am michael brune of the sierra club. more than 2 million people submit comments last week the state department who know this pipeline is not in our interest. the keystone xl pipeline that cut through more than a thousand miles of american and ranches, carrying oil that is more toxic, more corrosive, more carbon intensive and more difficult to clean up the conventional oil out of the typical for most of it would be exported. like many of you, i am a parent

in it deeply concerned about the world we are the poorer children. what 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 gold to limit carbon pollution. we must keep this in mind of recognizing achieving the goal is incompatible with permitting the pipeline. none of the scenarios in the state department's analysis show how keystone xl can be built in a way that shows our nation can meet those goals. in fact, keystone xl is significantly exacerbate climate pollution because it would increase substantially the development of tar sands in alberta that you see here. they're apart last week from carbon tracker found the keystone xl would spur additional production of roughly 500,000 miles per day. the mission equivalent to building 46 new coal-fired power plants. i'd like that this report be added to the record, please.

although the climate impacts are sufficient reason to reject the project, their other city officials say. in a spill from the pipeline could be catastrophic. transporting tar sands crude into the united states poses a high risk of communities in the air and water and conventional oil. diluted the domain is heavier and more toxic and conventional crude. when it snows in a waterway, it stinks. just one tar sand is still in michigan by more than dirty five miles of river. after three and a half years, more than a billion dollars still has not been cleaned out. if you take a look here, do image of the mayflower, arkansas for an exxonmobil pipeline ruptured spleen went inside and as a dose of tar sand into residents driveways.

even without those, keystone xl would risk the health and livelihood of communities living near each stage of the projects. pet coke is a byproduct of tar sands production and a major health hazard for u.s. communities. feel great aye contains high levels of options including mercury, lead, arsenic and chromium. huge piles had begun to appear in cities like chicago and detroit. furthermore, keystone xl but not even benefit american consumers. this oil is intended for export. keystone xl would deliver tar sinister refineries on the gold coast and already export most of the refined products, have increased exports nearly 200% the past five years and are planning to increase exports further into the future. keystone xl would also be a thought to national security because it would facilitate the development of some of the world's most carbon intensive sources of oil, it's important

to consider impacts of the addition of greenhouse gas emissions and people worldwide and on america's national security. since 2010, keep national security reports have indicated that floods, drought and raising fees brought on by destabilized climate oppressive geostrategic burdens for the u.s. multiply threats and the risks for americans working in this area is. climate disruption directly affects our forces. samuel locklear, head of the u.s. military's pacific command believes the single greatest threat to these forces is the instability sparked by climate disruption. finally, clean energy will power a new american century. let's not delay. america's island of indicators. today the factories of detroit, laboratories of silicon valley and the next generation of american consumers are offered investing in and profiting from clean energy technology.

as to the fuel efficiency standards, gasoline demand is in the united states decreasing in projection showed decreases through 2040 and beyond good investing in the clean energy economy supported by american businesses, american workers and all who care about clean air, clean water and a stable climate. it is a win-win when scenario. compare this to keystone xl which jeopardizes drinking water, firemen, climate and health. the sad truth is the keystone xl pipeline is all risk and reward. secretary terry scott climate disruption the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction and last week 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 they not planted by or to the polluting pipeline, by saying yes to clean energy. thank you.

>> thank you. dr. hansen. >> teaneck for the opportunity to discuss climate and energy invested because of the keystone pipeline. my first chart shows the carbon content as conventional oil, gas and coal in the end conventional 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 acclimate system spiraling out of there can troll, the additional fuel burned must be less than that already burned. that means we must phaseout coal burning families 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 the keynote of 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 image he is. we are all in the same boat. we will either sit together or find a way to sail together. my next chart shows that fossil fuels provide over 85% of our

energy. non-hydro renewables provide only 3% of our energy in the u.s. and in the world. so how could we possibly face down carbon emissions? my next chart shows the two themes 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 and 50, the amount of energy per gdp, improving efficiency and appropriate policies can further improve that. however, the principal requirement is to reduce the carbon intensity. over the next few decades, we must strive the carbon 1050 down

near zero. there is one country that has done a good job. sweet. sweden has dhi qar been nice to be, which is provided by nuclear power and hydropower. they have one more take steps to make, teaneck liquid fuels from electricity. that is actually not difficult, but they are small country and are not developed the industry. why is the rest of the road not driving carbon intensity down? it is because fossil feels superior to the could number to be the cheapest energy. fossil fuels are not really the cheapest energy. they are not required to pay for the human health cost of air pollution and water pollution were for the cost of climate change. the public picks up the tab. set the required policy is to

put a gradually rising fiat carbon, collected from fossil fuel companies at the first domestic sale, at the domestic minor port of entry. 100% of the money should be distributed to the public. equal amounts to legal residents. the person who does better than average in limiting his carbon footprint will make money. this will provide a huge and sent to four individuals in the huge and sent to for entrepreneurs and business people. it will spur our economy, make it more efficient and 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 co2, rising $10 each year, after 10 years it will reduce our fossil fuel use almost 30%.

according to simulation, economic stimulation by the carbon tax venner, it will reduce oil use in 10 years, three times more than the volume of the keystone pipeline. george shultz and conservative economists -- in fact, most economists agree a rise in revenue neutral fee is the way to solve the climate and the energy problems. in fact, it is an opportunity to make our economy more efficient. an important point if such legislation, i think needs to be introduced because i'm afraid liberals will try to take part of the money to make the government take her. not one dime should go to the government. 100% should go to the public. i would like to enter in the record a specific one-page description of the ca dividend, which is written by jim miller, a boston businessman.

he gave me a copy yesterday. i think it's a nice, since all summary of the system. one final comment that i would like to make. it is crucial that we begin to work with china to solve those their air pollution problem in the carbon emission problem. china is now contemplating and making plans for a massive core gasification operation. hundreds of times bigger to copy some degree, cool classification of the midwest that jimmy carter started, but on a massive scale. if that had been, it will be very difficult and impossible for children to control climate change. we need to work with them and

work with them on clean energies including nuclear power, where we still have the best capabilities. with our university system and free enterprise system we should work with them and help them get clean energy because it is in their benefit as well as theirs. >> chairman menendez and ranking member corker, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. by 2040 global energy demand booklet there were 50%, to 90% will be in the developing world and well in a way to edit 2 billion people to this planet. china, india, africa and middle east will grow in energy demand in traditional suppliers looking to sell to them and not to us. our government has concluded by 2040, 80% of the world demand will be met by fossil fuels. that means we have to do more here at home to meet energy demands. the unrest in the ukraine has shown energy vulnerability

equals geopolitical vulnerability. despite an increase in supply coupled with modulated demand, will still import 40% of our oil by 2020. we could choose the status quo by relying on oil from venezuela, which has people protesting in their street or from places far away they don't share our values or democratic suppose. in 2002, north america at 5% of the world's reserve, 18% the following year when oil and canada were added in our own pa police that could even be tripled. however, the publisher production of oil from those countries considered not for your partly free 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 our geopolitical energy or have a secure and stable supply from

canada and developer resources here. let's not forget the kx out was to transport u.s. crude. canada is their most important supplier of ready and one of our most stalwart allies. they were there right after hurricane katrina and after 9/11 they accompanied us into war against terrorism if they've made a choice to develop their oreos is. it's in the national interest and they will do it one way or another. increasing our relationship with long-standing ally, canada, coupled with reforms in mexico and production here at home, we could share the gravity of the oil markets in north america. jobs. the keystone pipeline will create 42,000 jobs and for those who say those are temporary, and they don't understand the construction and street where they are simply against the $2 billion that will be put in labor's pocket. or they are against $3.4 billion in additional gdp for our economy that is sputtering. or there against the pipeline

being one of the largest property taxpayers in montana, south dakota, nebraska which will support schools, fire, police services and infrastructure. today the u.s. and canada enjoy robust trading relationship in the most peaceful border. i don't think with the spirit of the canadian mounties centerpieces like russia doing to crimea. a trade relationship pays off for every dollar we spend buying a canadian good, 89 cents returned to the united states. that is why this easier for the benefit of our economy. that is not like a rather oil suppliers. only 27 cents comes back from oil we buy from venezuela. on the environment. i would suggest everyone of us here in this room is environmentalist. we enjoy them i could support clean air, water and land in the state department has concluded very important things in its review. number one the keystone pipeline will have a negligible impact on the environment. today the oil sedan production

account for .1% of global greenhouse gas emissions and their carbon footprint is going down and a 2011 is not equal to the venezuelan crude is 60 displaced. number two they will develop with or without the keystone pipeline to our government has concluded that. the canadian government has concluded that they are now looking east, west and south are options and producers and has to make that a reality. third, alternatives to the keystone pipeline would have higher emissions profile than the pipeline itself. put plainly given a practical energy reality, if you're in support of the environment, you're supporting the pipeline. in conclusion, the five-year review process has been exhausted doing for people and organizations across the country. this included field hearings and cabinet agency in it. in fact, it's received input from people on the panel and the conclusion is clear, keystone is

in our national interest as with its predecessor, the keystone pipeline. houston is good for the economy, jobs, tax revenue, property revenue, investment and trade. it's good for energy security and a stable and secure source of energy and state department has concluded the pipeline or have a noticeable impact on the environment. the oil sands will be developed one way or another. kxl them were probably taught resources will have a significant effect on improving national security and adding more democratic molecules to make. 65% of the american people support this pipeline. we live in a dangerous and precarious times. approving the pipeline will strengthen our economy to decrease energy risk of our sector commitment to the environment while also furthering trade and bilateral relationship with democratic ally to the north. the keystone pixel pipeline is

in our national interest and the worst of canada's prime minister is a no-brainer. thank you very much. >> thank you for your testimony. several witnesses have asked for documents to be entered into the record and without objection they shall be included. let me start off. i understand the seriousness of climate change. the superstores can be sandy devastated new jersey. i personally believe in acting upon it and i support the president's plan to cut carbon emissions. however, it seems strange to regulate carbon or transportation which is what defined the pipeline would amount to. why do limit the power plants and why -- we don't limit the amount of carbon power plants, so why should we regulate carbon on this pipeline?

beanbag thank you, mr. chairman. the reasons to oppose this pipeline are as varied as the reasons to promote fuel efficiency. for the pipeline, we would be taking oil from the most carbon intensive field service on the planet only to the country, most of it exported. this is a fuel source document and to be much more carbon intensive than conventional oil. it's also a fuel source that has through experience polluted american waterways and post a significant risk to air quality across the country. when we are policy decisions before us where the choice of $37 billion into this pipeline are investing clean energy into services that create more jobs, it is incumbent upon us to think will strengthen our economy today and also protect and strengthen our economy into the future. from our perspective it is not a

step to regulate carbon. this tactic taken to promote clean energy and energy efficiency. >> this is a mode of transportation versus the other issues, which i generally agree with you. this state department finally i asked to pay plaintiffs and should have to pay for expansion is often producers that oil or rail or truck bed and overall transportation emissions could be greater than that of the pipeline by 28% to 42% of every dollar in additional accident. so is improving the pipeline more environmentally sound and safe than the alternatives? >> that is what the state department concluded. >> i'm sorry. i wasn't asking you. i knew said that. he made that comment. i expanded upon it. >> we believe is a false choice. what has been proven, tar sands

oil by mail is not safe. using the accidents in the last year than we have in the past previous decade. it's also proven its shipping tar sands, oil to pipeline. the first i played these 12 times in the first 12 months. the choice is not whether to accept an increased risk for rail were to accept increased risk for pipeline, but whether to take the oil out of the ground to begin with. the eyepiece ec, but with top client sites is had said in order to keep bobo warming alert two degrees celsius for 3.6 degrees fahrenheit, we have to keep at least two thirds of our fossil fuel reserves around the world in the ground. so reasonable person would suggest that the way to do that -- that is a tall order for the global economy. the best way to do that is to start with the most carbon intensive fuel sources such as the tar sands in canada.

>> your testimony -- you heard a lot of testimony about jobs. i heard a great variety of figures around the number of jobs the project will create. transcanada has claimed the project will create 20,000 jobs in instruction in manufacturing and almost half a million, 465,000 jobs throughout the u.s. economy. tom donohue, your boss for the indirect jobs number to 250,000 in the previous testimony that the construction jobs to 25,000 in the rectangular jobs to 100 xt doesn't. however, the state department concluded the project would only create about 2000 short-term construction job that only 50 had going jobs for maintenance. so how do you justify the

widespread, even within your own organization on numbers and if one is looking to the eis has a compelling reason for approval then as it relates to the jobs, how is it you're so desperate for more they are? >> that's a very good question and let me address it. [inaudible] >> of course, that's why we are here. the larger numbers. tires and of the pipeline from canada all the way to the gulf of mexico. as you well know, half of the pie plate or the lower 30s 30 being put into operation. the numbers from what we're looking at our smaller. were happy to take the state department numbers. the members of what he was safer for that under consideration haired >> will take the state department has repeatedly says that the numbers. we would like to 42,000 jobs the site in the eis. not to pass income of 42,100 to be exact. certainly would like to see

those. i know in the labor community hope they are bigger. i would have to say as i said in my testimony, those are good paying jobs for instruction workers that we should be against them. i will say one thing that he just put on the table. we should take the os x side of the ground. i would like to submit i don't think that the united states decision. that's canada's decision to make, not ours. >> that they ask you since i listen to your testimony with interest, your testimony suggested chamber of commerce is an environmentalist organizations. >> and environmental left? >> environmentalist organization had been struggling with the cold. does that mean the chamber agrees the climate change is real and caused by units? >> here's what it is. number one, addressing our

environment and things that work. i emissions are coming down abaya? we've had a recession that's unfortunate, we have increasing efficiency and we're doing that europe is doing. europe's emissions are going out and they have a hard difficult cap-and-trade system, which is that working. we want to be in favor of things that were. that put americans back to work. we strongly believe in improving the environment. >> thank you. i asked a very simple question. does the chamber believed that climate change is real and caused by units? yes or no? >> we believe we should do everything in our power to address the environment. >> that's great. just climate change -- is it real? >> the climate is warming without a doubt. >> climate change is real. if the cost by units? >> the other parties is it

warming as much as some of my colleagues on this panel had predicted in the past? the answer is no. >> you've got to give me your answer. is it caused by humans? >> it is caused by lots of different names. you can't say climate change is only caused by humans. science is what you're pointing to than we had a robust debate going on in this country as we should and those that see everything so undercut the integrity of science as an ongoing discussion. >> is the chamber blew the price on carbon is needed to reduce emissions? >> one could argue today we have a price on carbon and that we are pushing efficiency into our vehicles and it's for electricity, which is raising prices. we have entered price on carbon already. >> is that your argument? is that the chamber's arguments? >> that is a fact. not an argument. no, the economic act.

i'm just quoting the facts. >> if it is a fact to say they're surprised that greater the comedy arguments made earlier that there is a price i think dr. hansen said there's a price to be paid that collectively we as a society pay for the admission and the consequent of abu cultural problems and other elements would be then fair to include as well. their prices on both sides. >> i am not sure if that actually flows through. >> let's see if we can follow along. >> okay. >> you say there is a price as a result of greater efficiency and that efficiency creates greater cost. you say therefore we could argue, your words not mine, but there's already a tax. >> if you're going to be building a residence or building that's more energy-efficient and

the materials are more expensive, there's a cost cost associated with that. if you are writing something more expensive, there's a cost associated with that. i have to tell you i don't agree with the fact you think the chamber? a compass on the environment. it's quite the opposite. we've been a proponent of research and develop innovative technologies. is the biggest supporter of legislation. >> i did not see the chamber? i have some specific questions as it relates to climate change. the question simply is, should we not in food a cost of what happens when we allow any person or industry in our country to ultimately operate in a way in which he creates a collective consequence on our health and well-being and that is subsidized by the government health care, medicare, medicaid,

a whole host of other things. it is good for the goose, good for the gander. that's my point. senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thought it was going to be contentious on our side of the aisle. it's been a very good hearing. i appreciate all the witnesses being here. dr. hansen, i have to say that i actually found some like-minded missing your testimony and i appreciate your being here. ..

and it is likely that nuclear would compete well. now, it's not going to be easy in the united states because it has been made so difficult, it will take so long to build. that's why we need to work with china. we do they will build the scale of and there will be able to drive down the unit cost. and then it can circle back to the united states. i think we should. >> i also found your comments. if our nation was ever to get to a point where it can 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 i just want to tell you, that is now where we are. that was ever to come about, would agree with you that that is a much better way, especially the revenue neutral way of doing it than what was contemplated in the past. >> while i agree with that, and it had better come about producer now we're not going to be older solve this problem. that is the only way you can do it. it basically burning dirt. >> i will let stand the comments made about what people might do with the money. but me ask you, the transportation issue, now the 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 is hugely carbon intensive. i guess i would ask you this

question. the canadiens are obviously going to develop these whether we transported south or not. i have met with them directly. i'm sure you have to. certainly there will build a pipeline which would go to china if we don't do this. i guess i don't understand how someone like you that has such credentials, environmentally would oppose a more efficient way of that oil, that fossil fuel making it to market. >> it's a question of how much of that will be taken out of the ground. if we build this expensive pipeline it will facilitate the extraction of much more than if we don't build it. as soon as you put a price on carbon, significant and rising one of the first things that falls off the table is tarzan's. in canada knows that. that's why they're so desperate to get the united states to approve this.

if we don't approve it a lot of that will never be developed. the world is going to realize producer and we have got to limit the amount of carbon we put an atmosphere. it's going to have to do that via a price on carbon which will cause the most carbon intensive thing steve left in the ground. >> let me ask you this question. beyond belief to me that it is generated this much opposition. as was mentioned by someone to be such a no-brainer, but we have 19 pipelines that cross between canada and the united states. i'm just curious as to whether your organization opposed all of those in the same way you are opposing this one. >> we appreciate your earlier comment about the carbon tax. should there be a moment where

there is an opportunity to move that forward with a look for an option to do that with you. >> i was not suggesting. but i do think if it were going to be addressed as far more transparent. as a way to make it revenue neutral. what we considered a few years ago was utterly ridiculous. go ahead. >> i understand you were not preparing to introduce legislation, but when the moment comes. regarding your question, i'm not sure that they had taken a position against all 19. i'm happy to get back you on that. we are opposed to the expansion of development. to the extent that this oil would come through the united states we are opposed to those types of projects. part of the reason that i think needs to be shared your today is we don't agree with the assumption that the sole command of the ground anyway. as you know, alberta is landlocked, currently producing 2 million bottles of oil per day the vision for the industry coming from the prime minister

is to have that protection grow to about 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. there is the keystone xl pipeline to the south and another, other projects that are being considered. each of those faces significant resistance. the two pipelines going to the west a debt in the water. they have opposition coming from the provincial government in b.c. as well as the first nation, the native communities to have legal standing to oppose those pipelines. the ones to the east also are taking -- facing significant difficulties. you may are may not believe the veracity of what the sierra club is saying, but a few look at what the oil industry in canada as saying and what the oil industry analysts from cibc, rbc kind of the banks open canada, the soil will not come out of the ground if the keystone xl

pipeline is not built. >> thank everyone for being here thank you for your service. it is always good to see. i just want to ask one specific question. in august 2009 the administration determined that the alberta crude oil pipeline was in the u.s. national interest. the pipeline was designed to bring large quantities of crude oil from the oil sands of alberta, canada to oil markets in the midwestern u.s. in particular the national interest factors cited by the state department and is determination that the pipeline within the -- would be in the national interest included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the united states worldwide crude oil size to five sources in the time of considerable political tension and other major while producing countries shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies increasing crude oil supply from a major

non-opec producer just asking you this one question, with the same factors that led to a successful national interest determination for alberta apply to the knx of case? >> absolutely. the only thing has changed is the demand around the world for oral has gone up so we must do even more to ensure that we can supply. >> thank you all for your testimony. >> senator boxer. >> thank you so much. thank you. i ask unanimous sent -- consent to place in the record the final supplemental environment on keystone from state department showing that the 50 permanent jobs -- pilot like to put that in the record. >> without objection. >> all right. and i want to say, you are a great advocate, but you do not speak for environmentalists. and when you said it 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. don't speak for lots of folks here don't see it that way. and i appreciate some people saying it is a no-brainer. maybe in some brains it is, and the respect that. in my brain is not. so i want to tell you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank both of you at this hearing, the national nurses united representing 185,000 nurses have joined me in calling for a thorough health impact study on our people, the people of america. when you look at the immediate 45% in importation eventually 300% of this filthy, dirty oil. and the nurses, some of them here in the audience, want to thank them. by the way, 85 percent of the people give them an approval rating next to 8%. when i sit next to them today i

helped a little ruboff. i just want to thank them because they understand the impact on the health of our families. i want to show you to pictures. it does not matter which one first. this is that coke. you have to take a look at this. a lot of it will be stored around our nation. already we have seen it coming. this is a sample of what america will look like when you see the filthy dirty yellow. this is what remains of it. we have testimony from people in chicago who said kids were having a picnic in chicago. stuff blue around. there were covered in soot and had to leave. what it looks like when the step as refined. here it is. this is what the people -- this

is what's going on. i friend talks about our national interest. i personally believe we have to weigh in on the health impact study. 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 when asked my friend from the chamber, are you familiar with the fact that doctors serving the community continues to be disproportionately burden, links to chemicals produced by petroleum industry. are you familiar with the study? >> senator, we agree with you. we agree we should protect our air and water. >> you could just take to this.

>> i'm also going to send you the 2010 article toxins. promoting an industry that has increased the levels of carcinogens such as the hpv polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. nervous system toxins such as mercury in the river, is it in the national interest? >> our national interest must include protecting the health of american families. >> i would say is it in the national interest to expose u.s. communities living close to refineries such as port arthur

taxes to higher levels of toxic and cancer causing air pollutants. is that in the national interest? >> absolutely not, particularly when we have energy alternatives . >> absolutely. i think we have to weigh everything. for me taking up to protect and put -- defend the people. this see who's coming into the emergency room. what is happening? these are the forgotten voices in the debate. i ask unanimous consent to place in the the record a letter from the nurses in which they call on secretary to look at a health impact study before there is any

decision made. >> without objection. >> okay. i'm going to stop before my time was up. if he ever met a child with a breathing problem -- and i am sure that you will agree with this, you just want to do everything you can't help them. why is it it is a no-brainer, if you are an environmentalist, just to. let's look at what is happening in canada. i stood shoulder to shoulder with doctors i think that issue has been swept under the rug. and just one senator. i'm just one voice. now i have 185,000 nurses by me and very do everything in my

power to protect health and safety of the people. if you look at california, we are moving quickly toward clean energy and it's exciting. we can't do something in the name of national interest it winds up costing as the help of a family. i will keep pressing on this. >> to you off and of the average price of electricity per kilowatt hour? >> i don't have a specific number. >> some concept of that? >> certainly. >> our number.

>> it's more important to know the relative cost of one sorceresses another. >> to you know the cost? >> it depends very close. captain trade proposal did you concur with that? >> i would not advocate it. will we need is an economically sensible approach, to put us simple fee on carbon. >> how would that prevent electricity rates from skyrocketing? >> you talked about a fee and dividend system.

impose costs on energy. >> it will impose costs on carbon based fuels. yes. >> presently those fuels are there. they're born by the public. president obama's energy secretary made the comment that somehow we have to figure out how to get our gasoline prices up. i think he made that comment when our gasoline prices were below $2.

their missions are going up, not down. >> that would put a real -- that hampers manufacturing's ability to be competitive in the world. what would that do to the number of jobs created and available?

>> it would hurt our competitiveness to reduce investment, hamper jobs, but that is regressive. it would hurt the lowest part of the -- bill least amount of disposable income will pay the most. >> dr. hansen, are you familiar with the estimates from the national renewal will energy laboratory? all the jobs of be created with clean energy. the government spent $9 billion over the last few years on green jobs and created 910 new jobs which means that cost just under $10 million. are you aware? and i have seen three or four different studies. this is the midpoint. >> don't say you have to buy >> don't say you have to buy renewable. >> i have never agreed with. so don't blame -- >> and not blaming you.

policy being pushed by this administration. the jobs are enormously expensive and policies will hamper the ability to create new jobs. that's why i'm asking you to stop and think. what is the conservative solution? >> president obama on november november 14th said temperatures around the globe -- temperatures around the globe is increasing faster than predicted even ten years ago. an article in the economist of march 2013 said temperatures have not really risen no lasting years. since 1998 there has been an unexplained stance. this is far as the correct. energy -- temperatures have remained flat. >> the rate of increase has been lower. it is not explained. there is a natural decay. it has not warm. >> let me ask a final question.

are you familiar with a fellow named patrick more? >> yes. >> he was the founder of greenpeace. >> and disavowed three decades ago. >> disavowing. he said that he left the group because he said the group became more interested in politics than science to take a sharp turn to a political left. he made the statement, we do not know where the present laws and temperatures will remain of weather will go up and down in the near future. what we do know decline is always changing. which way it will go next. i live in wisconsin. there were 200 glaciers. howdy you explain that? >> the statement is blatantly false. >> how do you explain climate change that occurred ten dozen years ago before man had a car

and print? >> there are variations in the earth's orbital elements. the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, the time in this season at which its closest to the son. >> those variations just and right now. it's all man made? >> the attached. >> however, the man-made effect is not dominant. we can measure that because we can measure the energy balance of the planet. we see that there is more energy coming in and going out. the planet is going to continue to get warmer. does not mean each year will get warmer because their natural fluctuations. this ticket will be warmer than the last one. in the following one will be still warmer. >> i agree. science is far from settled. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to -- expressions of approval are not permitted in

the committee. >> i'm going to ask senator cain to preside well i go to vote. i have other questions for this panel. i intend to come back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. i may get an error 15 minutes which is fantastic. i'm going to put myself in the camp that does not believe this is a no-brainer while the testimony of the panel is kind of diversion you put too important interests on the table, energy security of the nation and multiple ramifications. and the importance science about climate and the damage that we may be doing to the planet which kids and grandkids will be the ones who will have to figure it all out if we don't take the appropriate role. i think those are two very compelling interest.

this project in and of itself i do not believe the support of it is a game over for the planet. i do not believe that opposition ford is coming. it is a hard question that requires careful thought. and i don't pretend to have the expertise on this, but i think you have to start with the science. i will be blunt. they're people like care about. on both sides of this issue. you have to start with the science. in virginia i feel comfortable. our quintessential virginian was the preeminent scientist. so i say grapple with the science and masters of the basic question. i think the scientific consensus is quite clear. it is not unanimous. it is not unanimous, but it is overwhelming. it is an overwhelming consensus that the climate is changing in ways that negatively impact the planet and that humans have a significant effect on, not the

only effect. there are plenty of others that will continue. the human a fact is significant. when i hear from witnesses or anybody who contact me about this too will grapple with the science alighted denies the science or pretends that there is essentially an equivalence among the scientific debate i have hard time taking that position seriously. the chamber ought to have a position on whether human activity affects climate. i think in the organization should. yes or no. you can acknowledged some continuing debate, but i think people ought to take a position on science. an unwillingness to take a position troubles me. those of us to make a decision, we have to start there. we have to take a position. at the science is clear. i'm seeing in virginia. the second most vulnerable community in the eastern part of the united states. there are people i know who live in homes to cannot seldom cause

of were built 100, 150 -- 150 years ago. they cannot sell them now because the homes are in flood plains. we see it in extreme weather events. we have an obligation to try to do something about it. i believe consist of a promoting the security goals. i agree with the general. the disapproval of this particular project if it were just this project might have an incremental effect on climate. i also believe the disapproval of this project will have an incremental effect on the global energy security status. i think you testified and it is correct, the united states will be number one of russia because we don't count tarzan's well as american energy. we have a lot of energy we are producing here and will continue to produce that i strongly support. but i do strongly believe that you have to grapple with the

science and answer that yes or no question and make policy decisions. the well again it is this. i would have loved to laugh at this hearing before had to vote on this matter, but i have already voted. we have had to have the vote, have to grapple with this. my staff denied dug deeply into the science question. my review of the science leads me to conclude that we have to apply chart of the way we produce energy in this country and in this world. there are elements of the pie chart that are heavy carbon and elements that are better carbon and elements led a small. the right strategies make it cleaner tomorrow than today. to grow the pieces of the pie chart that are low carbon, to grow the pieces that are no carbon, to take the pieces that are heavy carbon and reduce them in size progressively over time, not immediately but also reduce the carbon intensity.

oil is a portion. by virtually all accounts it's significantly dirty your in conventional petroleum. can it be made thinner? short. is still significantly during your. lead and other concentrations. and i just grapple with this question, when we have so many other alternatives, low carbon no carbon but also fossil fuels like natural gas that have enabled us to fuels which has indicated, we have been improving our emissions in this country without agreeing to the accords and congressional action. innovation in the natural gas hearing. and that moves us down the carbon densities gail. not as fast as someone like, but it's moving is down the scale. we are showing through american innovation that we can the clinton tomorrow and move down the carbon density scale, why would we ???? why would we backslide.

acknowledge your point. absolutely correct that -- this is a decision for canada make to rebut the u.s. sends a very powerful message about whether we want to lead on this issue or , by whether we embrace and support or whether we say that's a bridge too far. want to be cleaner tomorrow today. it will focus on clear alternatives. so while i acknowledge the labors have a great point of view among scientists have a great point of view, our military as a great point of view, i am just struck by the need of this body to take on an issue. i think we have waited too long. when one of my predecessors decorated combat veteran and to service branches, the navy in the marines and secretary of the navy and 30 a number of the armed services committee, he ended up concluding that the

biggest security challenge we face as a nation was actually not energy independence but climate because of its destructive nature, pushing migrants across borders, destabilizing countries, affecting natural resources. and you reach that point of view . was and remains a proud champion for american leaders. i think it would be very hard for us to be a leader in tackling climate if we embraced tar sands oil and say we think it's fine. that is not a question obviously, but it is an explanation because there are people like care about to carol lot about this issue. probably have not heard my full explanation. that's why i've come to the conclusion that i don't think it's an idea. it's funny. we talk about as a pipeline. it's not about the pipeline, was the mayor of a city with a gas utility. we build pipelines.

charlie when the oil is in the continuum of energy sources that is the challenge to be nothing sometimes the pipeline confuses everybody about what the real issue is. i think it's carbon density. i had taken my time with the statement. era. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're talking about the dirtiest oil in the world coming through the united states, most using us as a straw, can it down to port arthur, texas. were taking advantage. with no restrictions on it. they said we have to do everything we can to help energy independence. how about a restriction on ticking on the soil and making sure it stays here in america.

and they also support exploitation of american natural gas. meanwhile we are sending hundreds of thousands of young men. we know what they're looking for . oil. fueling the revolution. by the way car right now we import in the united states 6 million barrels of oil a day bats our achilles' heel. that makes this week. so what does this proposal say? did the dirty is tomorrow in the world will build a pipeline command the u.s. take all the in burma to rest, bring it down to port arthur, texas and exported. by the way, or having a big debate about exporting natural gas. natural gas that can be used to move our vehicles from oil which in its more greenhouse gases over to natural gas.

we should start exporting natural gas. we already export yen men and women over to the middle east so we can protect imports. we don't have self-sufficiency in natural gas. we imported debate we don't have efficiency and oil. we imported. this is a national security issue, an economic issue, manufacturing issue, climate change issue. now, i heard the senator from tennessee say earlier, there was a bill that he supported that was utterly ridiculous. i assume he's talking about the waksman markey bill. and did take it personally. i like the company and with. we have the edison electric institute in dorset, the nuclear energy is too endorsed it, general electric and dow chemical, dupont, united steelworkers, applied materials, utility workers all the way down the line. we have industry on our side of

the chamber of commerce was one. i like to we had. i don't think the edison electric institute was of it ridiculous. they understood where we have to go to protect the climate this is an extension. the oral 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. the crude oil ban right now. they want to lift it. as we debated yesterday, the natural gas industry is pushing to use the crisis in ukraine as a basis for unleashing natural -- natural gas exports. fifteen bucks in china. ten bucks in europe to be ready you think exxon mobile will send it? to china. the mantra of the chamber of

commerce five years ago drill here, drawn-out will pay less as morton to drill here, exports to china, pay more year in the united states as we export our own natural resources. that is what it is more often to we are supposed to accept it as though somehow or other we are in an orwellian 1984 and you can change all language. in this keystone pipeline down to port arthur taxes the exporters, we take all the environmental risk, that's utterly ridiculous. it just is. and so, ladies and gentlemen, we have a huge debate. i think everyone who is here and participating. apologize for the locals 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.

well, this natural gas export issue dwarfs anything we're talking about here today. the energy information agency said that if we allow for an export, one more terminal is approved, it will lead to a $62 billion increase in costs for american consumers per year which will devastate this return of manufacturing from china. just devastate that revolution. there are only two major costs in manufacturing, labor -- we are here debating these issues as though they are related to the real economy, but also the responsibility that the united states has to be the leader in climate change issues. the world is looking and us. you can't preach temperance from a bar stool. you have to be a lowering greenhouse gases. show the you're serious about this. i think we have an incredible corporate coalition ready to give serious about a. it was then stymied in 2009 and

2010. i guess what i would ask commute , would you support as part of this keystone approval of ban on any of this or leaving the united states of that in your own words with kenaf north american energy independence. would you support that? >> thank you for the question. i think it's very important to understand the contractual part of this pipeline. 100 percent of that oil is under contract to refineries to refine it here in the united states. therefore no molecule has the ability to be exported in a row. >> and here is the bottom line. it's great. in straight. 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. fifteen bucks. you don't have to go to harvard business school to bid that's

really what this debate does. an oil company agenda. they just want to refine it and send it around the world. we need here in america. we need low price of oil. for going to take the environmental risk, raise the risk of asthma and climate change and damage the pipeline, the least we should be able to say to the oral industry is keep the oil your. the refined product could be, in fact, capture because right now there is no restriction on it being kept year. we ever restriction on crude oil being exported. we can put a restriction on the refined product. lower prices in boston, a lower prices in communities all across america that they could use for the purposes. that's when going to be introducing legislation today to ensure that the keystone pipeline, if approved, 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 coronations who are our economic rivals. i mean, that just fails the test on so many different levels, national security, economic and environmental. just makes no sense. i will file the legislation so we have a vote on that. all the ads we see on sunday morning in the talks as a bonded by the american petroleum industry, canada, the united states, keystone pipeline, north american energy independence. either vote for this amendment or stop running those ads. they are deceptive. if you don't want that oil to stay in the united states them was the point? what's the point? what's the point? these and men and women are over there serving our country. they take great risks every day. the least that we should have is

a policy that squares up what we do here with what we are expecting as in men and women to do overseas. let's not exploit this oil a we have to continue debt export and men and women. let's just make this truth in legislation cannot treat injuries and make sure that we guarantee that we are protecting knows that we say we are most interested protecting. thinking. >> thank you, senator. appreciate the panel's forbearance. at think we can finish up shortly. i want to follow up on the one question. you engagement here, not know if he specifically asked the question, but for the record you argued that if we fail to grasp the enormous opportunity presented by keystone xl

pipeline will miss out on a chance to improve the energy security of the north american alliance. but the question is, what assurances do we have that this crude-oil shifting to 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. 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 the united states or for that attack even of america. >> mr. chairman, i think these are obviously business decisions and economic decisions that will have to be made. the same argument could be made in saudi arabia prewashed they export to royal. one not just keep it.

>> they have an overwhelming abundance and they want to sell it. >> shore. >> that's really what the marketplace is all about. >> and by 2016 we will be producing as much oil as the saudis. so my perspective on this is that first of all i really enjoyed listening to the testimony of the colleagues here at the table. i learned something. i have always believed that the united states is blessed by having an abundance of energy sources and they all are important and they all should be developed and they all should be 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, very encouraging. i believe that we are in a

transformative time in our history. in the american people should be fully aware of the fact of just how enormous this potential is and what it means for the future 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 is protectionist and isolationist. we live in a globalized world. energy leaders as demonstrated by this country with this responsibility toward the climate, environment, and also a wealth of energy that we can influence will have significant ramifications in -- for the rest of the century with regard to american leaders. so this is an enormous opportunity that is truly historical and transformational. if done right at the keystone is a part of it, not -- but it does

reinforce the fact that a very close neighbor and ally to the north and also including mexico, a new energy groups, north america can dramatically affect the real political issues on the planet. this committee has unbelievable influence over. at think it should be developed and should be a factor. the keystone pipeline is something that would add to it. >> i appreciate that. i use your words not energy independence. my only question is here. in fact, we have energy as a global marketplace. and so there is no way to confine that energy here within the united states. ..

that energy that could be created from tar sands doesn't necessarily mean it stays in the united states to the benefit of american consumers or manufacturing or anyone else. i think that's an honest statement we could make. >> mr. chairman i was simply respond by saying i believe that the united states is in a historically different position,

that this is done something that happened very quickly and i'm not so sure we fully understand the ramifications but i am convinced that in the case for example of the ukraine and the european dependence on russian energy, that energy and how we use energy and how this country and canada and mexico together used as energy potential you can actually have geopolitical ramifications to prevent future conflicts so the europeans are overly dependent. and 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 for 40 years we have been trying to get control of so it's a great opportunity. >> let me ask a final question that is somewhat different in nature but the same in my efforts to deduce a set of facts here. one is to you general jones and the others to your your doctor hansen. general in 20 levy said of the keystone xl was not approved we are in a period of decline in terms of arc what'll -- global leadership in our ability to compete in the 21st century why would the denial of a single pipeline permit request from a foreign corporation signify a decline in the 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 the tar

sand reserves would be a quote in your words game over for the climate is you have claimed? isn't that an exaggeration of the threat posed by this one project? couldn't be lower emissions and other sectors to compensate and i would like to hear from both of you. >> thank you sir. the world watches what 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 i am for but

to use energy as something that we treasure and not export and not play in the leadership role that we have been blessed with i think is a tragic strategic maching -- mistake on the global pet 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 something that is transformational on the global playing field in their huge ramifications so even a little gesture causes people to form conclusions that are far out of proportion to the judgment itself so for that reason i think that we should go forward with it. my research, i just quoted professor nagl a professor of economics at m.i.t. and he says

i'm a quote complete build keystone gas emissions will if anything go down. the oil that comes from it will displace the most expensive oil on the market today have the venezuelan crude that presents more carbon emissions. >> i'm glad you asked that question because my comment continues to be misinterpreted. my first chart showed how much carbon there is with conventional oil and gas and in coal and an 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 burn all the coal. we are going to have to face that out and that's a solvable problem because coal is made --

used mainly for electricity production. we can generate electricity in other ways including nuclear power which is carbon free. then there's this ledger huge source of carbon in unconventional fossil fuels in my statement was 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 in future generations if we think we can use that unconventional fossil fuels. the science is crystal clear on that and the world is just ignoring the science. scientists say wait 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.

>> i have now the greater definition and i just personally don't think the approval or disapproval of the pipeline is a decline in global leadership nor do i believe specific approval board disapproval is necessary game over. i understand what you are saying. there is a broader context in what you have access to this fuel so i just wanted to refined as this relates to the question of the pipeline. senator barrasso. >> mr. chair want to follow up on senator corkers comments and the unwillingness of the administration to testify here today. i think if they're the administration knows that its failure to that in a pipe line after five environmental reviews is an embarrassment and a disgrace and cannot be defended.

general jones in your testimony discussed -- discussed the recent events and ukraine and putin's incursion into ukraine is to manipulate vulnerable populations. you note that for nato allies appealed to congress to protect them from russian domination not by requesting troops or arms but by sending energy. he explained that north america can become a global energy hub providing not only for our own prosperity and security but also serving as a reliable energy source for allies and global energy markets. finally you state energy supply to europe can serve as a lynchpin in the revitalization of the transatlantic dialogue with nato so my question is would you please discuss and i have five minutes left in this is my only question. can you please discuss how experts at american natural gas to our allies in europe will

enhance u.s. national security interests? thank you. >> thank you senator. during my time as the supreme allied commander of the north atlantic treaty organization still arguably one of the most in port and security organizations on the planet we paid a lot of attention to the threat of terrorist organizations and the soft underbelly of what makes our economies work and that's our energy infrastructure. we did some analysis about the vulnerability of the nations but to such attacks and we found our infrastructure was extremely vulnerable. beyond that we started the process at least my own conversion i started my own education coming to the conclusion of just how important energy is in terms of our national, international leadership and i came to the

conclusion that the future for the united states was not only bright but incredibly bright and that it would be highly advantageous for the united states to set the example to develop our energy future responsibly in the way that sets an example for the rest of the world. we know that in different parts of the world energy is in some cases started conflicts and in other cases with people who have an abundance of energy prevented them is how you use your assets was really important here. to me, energy is a national security issue that deserves its rightful place along with cybersecurity, along with the conventional dangers and threats that we face in the united states. and where europe is concerned, this could serve as a

revitalization of the transatlantic dialogue with our longest and oldest partners. we could be of assistance to them making them less dependent on mr. putin's energy exports and that will have a behavioral change in my view on russia's tendency to be aggressive towards its neighbors. the russian economy is roughly fourth of the united states economy and maybe not even that but it has two components. nuclear weapons and energy. thankfully we have held for nuclear weapons in check but now we have to i think do what we can to also come to the aid of not only the four countries but to help our european allies become less dependent. there are many ways to do that. we are a globally influential

nation in i presume most americans by the year 2050 would like us to remain that way. there are other ways we can do that using energy. we could champion a pipeline, transmission lines from basra through turkey to the part of safe on. there are other ways in which you can use energy in coalition with our arab friends. many of our arab friends have concluded that because of our own energy future we are now less interested in the persian gulf and in their problems the middle east peace peace process in serious and so on and so forth to my personal view is this is the most dangerous place on the planet. energy can play a key role for superpower and a nation of global influence to not only use its own resources but to show the world how the flow of energy can help the developing world prevent future conflicts. thank you. >> thank you general.

let me thank you all and let me in make a comment for the record. i've heard several of my colleagues suggest that the administration refused to testify. we inquired about an administration witness and they thought it inappropriate to testify on attending -- after listening to that i did not consider a refusal and clearly when the administration makes the decision that can be the subject of a hearing at which time we would expect the administration to testify. but since it is pending many times in which we have matters which the state department is pending in its review we don't have witnesses from the administration and that is true of both past and present. i appreciate the testimony from all of you and the dialogue that has been had. i think we have gotten flushed out a lot of the issues that are pertinent to the specific issue

of the pipeline and in some cases beyond. the record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow. this hearing is adjourned. today air force officials testified at a house hearing on the president's 2015 budget. it would allocate $109.3 billion to the air force and it proposes reducing troop levels by 20,000. the air force secretary and air force chief of staff discuss how the budget would affect military readiness. congressman buck mckeon chairs the three-hour hearing.