and to texas. not everyone but overwhelming support to both the keystone pipeline because americans want jobs. and american families deserve good paying jobs. and americans are tired in addition to powering to mideast powers are two russian dictators about what our futures going to be. americans operate. we want to stand proud and we believe the keystone pipeline is an important first step. it's a signal. it's a symbol that represents american energy power. it's a symbol moving past gridlock. it is a deliverable on promises

that we have all made. yes, we will work together yes, but that will start late. yes, we will work together but it will be next year. yes, we work together but it will be in the spring. yes, we will work together but we can't pass keystone unless we pass these 10 other things. there's always going to be tomorrow. there's always going to be 10 other things. let's act today. tomorrow. we can do this. we can do this. we can pass the keystone pipeline. and and to the frustration of the american people so they can rest next week and say oh, my gosh, the senators of the united states of america have years and they have brains and they have hearts and they heard what we said. and we can do this.

and we have a bill that is on the calendar. i've also passed a similar bill to my committee but i'm not even asking to pass the bill i passed my committee which i think is slightly better than the one on the calendar. we can all compromised. i'm also a cosponsor of the bill, the lead sponsor of the bill cuts on the senate calendar. it doesn't have to go through a committee. it basically technically already has. it is ready for a vote and we have the 60 votes to pass it. so going to recognize in just a minute the senator from west virginia, but i will ask the senator in question because only the chicken recognize, but i'd like to ask the senator from west virginia, does any of this

make sense to them? i don't know if you've done your or i'm sure he was in his office listening to the comments of the majority leader, the soon-to-be majority leader and the good senator from texas say now is the time to work together. i don't know if you heard that but to think that maybe this bill would be the bill to start moving us from gridlock to doing the job for the american people? >> mr. president? >> the senator from west virginia. >> thank you. my good friend has been working on this for many, many years. i think even before i came up, i've been for years now. when it first came i talked to senator landrieu, my friend from louisiana and esther about this and basically i think you explain to him at the time first of all the sovereign nation of canada, country, was a producer. where does stay -- sai second production. it is going to be produced. next all it's going to go somewhere because there's demand for the product. there's a demand for it.

with all that being said it didn't take me too long to reply to i think if you call four years ago that in west virginia we have all the common sense and good people like louisiana and we felt if this product is going to be sold, why would you buy from your friends versus the enemy that we supplied resources to be used against us? that was the one that resonates with west virginians. i know it does with louisianians. the other thing is i understand 1000 american companies already a thousand american companies, and west virginia not to say but you been able to do and help the people in louisiana, all the jobs they've gotten, it would be a tremendous windfall for all of us. i can't for the life of me understand why we haven't to date been able to move this piece of legislation forward. i did hear both the minority

leader, soon-to-be majority leader, and the soon-to-be minority whip it's time for us to start working together. doethere's not a better piece of legislation to show that we heard the results of tuesday's election. we heard it. if you heard nothing more from that roar of americans, whether they voted or didn't vote they basically told us do something. start doing what you're supposed tto do. start governing. do something. we might not agree with you but we like to see this open dialogue, this transparency, this beautiful body, the senate, the whole world watches but when i see us doing nothing, it's not something we look very good at doing. that day is gone. i would ask my colleagues if you'd be so kind to give us the chance to show them that we are starting a new. it's her first day back from recess. we will have a piece of legislation that's going to help

us be more secure as a nation to that's what i'm hearing. maybe you can comment on that. the security of our nation. you have been here, seeing what's been going on, the commandment for foreign oil what it's done for us. the pace of the book is taken us too, did not have resources we are spent in blood and treasure fighting for the resources. this is a chance for us to secure the. center, if you could talk about that. >> the senator from west virginia is so right in focusing this debate at this moment on the subject of national security because veterans day was just celebrated by all of us yesterday i believe, or monday. monday. we all participate in pattern day event. so it pains me to say this but i'm going to give you all the facts, and the senator knows this, this country exports 340

-- imports 340 million barrels a day rob exports 340,000 barrels of oil a day. keystone, that's a lock. canada which is a friendly country, an ally of ours with the keystone pipeline would bring in 870,000 barrels to the u.s. the american people think what is wrong with this picture? we could be taking oil from our friend canada, creating jobs in north america, good paying jobs. not only building the pipeline, maintaining the pipeline. this pipeline doesn't come to

louisiana. i fought for it like a tiger in the pipeline doesn't even come to my state. it goes to texas. the pipeline goes -- i have refineries in louisiana and louisiana most of the and the compass in louisiana will benefit. this pipeline doesn't connect canada and louisiana. it connects canada and texas. i'm sorry that majority leader, the senator from texas had to scamper off the floor and ensure he had a meeting to go to, but this is clear about refineries in texas that are waiting for this oil. and moving this oil as the senator knows the most safe means possible to these refineries off of the highways, off of the road roads and supporting a relationship with canada as opposed to countries in other parts of the world that

always don't show our values and we have to spend a lot of our defense money protecting. this makes no sense and that's why i think this pipeline has such overwhelming bipartisan support across the country spend i think basically come to touch on something important i want to go back to the. transportation of the oil today. the oil is coming down into the refineries anyway. we've had some explosions by our rail carriers. it's coming by truck and this coming and so may different forms. we've been told this is the safest way to transport it. when people talk about safe transport, this is not the first pipeline we have in america. if you had the map and i think it had the map after before, we have five lines all over america. i think that's the perfect map to see. the bottom line is it's something we've got. if you take the harshest environment, the alaskan pipeline that meets so much to us in american has been done in

the harshest of environments and done safely. i'm concerned about it. and you said about directly going to texas but you all benefit, everybody benefits. and the other thing i wanted to say, yesterday i know you're in a raid for veterans day. i can only imagine your schedule. it's got to be unbelievable. but with that being said people still want jobs. all they want is jobs and opportunity to work. this gives america a lot of certainty about jobs and future economic goods or country. >> absolutely. just this morning to prepare for offering this unanimous consent which i will be in a very short period of time, and ask for a couple of hours of debate tonight and senate vote sometimes tomorrow, i spoke to the leader of the building and trades council for the training of america. and he was very strong in his words to me about how

disappointed he has been in some members here who have not stood up for the building and trade. these are men and women that worked in every state. all they want to do is go to work and have jobs or he was extremely disappointed in the gridlock over this piece of legislation. and that is exactly what he said to me. he said, we are about fed up with elections and with politics. because what my members want our jobs. that's what the families want. they are tired of fooling around with such common sense projects that bring so much wealth to middle-class families. i know that the majority leader on our side is concerned about the flat line of middle-class income in this country.

i know that his heart is working toward increasing income for all families. this is the first step. i'm going to put the amount in the record. it is 20 billion estimated. it is almost the size, slightly less than the state of vermont's entire gdp. this one project is like and output of one of our state. albeit a small state but vermont is an important state. i've never in my life seen a project with so much economic benefit. i've never seen an infrastructue project supported by a broader base from the left, to the sender to the right. i've never seen a labor and business come to get in my life like they have on this issue. i've never seen so many senators

cosponsored a bill, and yet because of something i can't quite put my finger on, we haven't yet passed it. and i think that we can do that now today, and that would send, or tomorrow, a very positive signal that we heard the voters. we do understand this cry for breaking the gridlock, moving forward together, getting the job done. and i could not think of a better bill that symbolizes what we're trying to do in terms of jobs, economic security, energy security, and looking to the future in our country than this bill that would build this pipeline, get this oil which is going to be produced anyway, off the rails, off of a highways come into refineries. and may i say, the senator from west virginia knows this, and

the senator from north dakota who is my right hand on this, with the senator from west virginia, we have additional pipelines to build because we got to build these east west. the real need for the supply is the west coast and east coast, as the senator knows that you can produce all the oil and gas you want all the energy and you can produce and generate that power but if you can't move it to the places that it needs to be, it's as if you haven't produced a. i know something about this as chair of the energy committee. after we get used to which we're going to do tomorrow, we've got to build some of the pipelines to go east and west. this is only going to take 10% of north dakota's supply. north dakota has become a leading supplier of oil and gas in the country. let me talk about north dakota for one minute because i can't do it justice like senator heitkamp can do. but i've heard her give a speech

enough to double in two repeat this and it's worth repeating. the senator from texas just came your and lamented, oh, my gosh, what can we do to lift the middle-class? how can we left there economic outlook? the senators, all three of them, came there and asked that question. i want to give them an answer. build the keystone pipeline. do you know what's happened in north dakota? it has surpassed every state in the production of oil. you know what else? they took the economic number, which is 36 and income, on a scale of one to 50. they were the 36th poor state. the senator from west virginia would know where they are today. you know what they are in four years? they have moved from 36 to six. think about that.

i just want to let that sink in for just a minute. north dakota moved their number from 36 out of 50 to six out of 50 in four years. i challenge any senator from any part of this country for any political leaning to come down to this for in the next 24 hours and show me one piece of legislation, one tax cut, one jobs bill that could devastate in four years, or a group of states from 36 to six. dad's the power of this industry and we are standing in its way. it is shameful. it is wrong and it must stop today. if people want to hide, they will have a hard time.

this is not a time to hide, not a time to sit down, by the -- not the time to play games. it is a time to stand up. we have enough votes to pass this. we have 45. every single republican, none of them are on the floor right now, but every single republican in this chamber is a cosponsor of the bill that i'm going to ask unanimous consent. so think very carefully before anyone of you object. because you are all cosponsors of the bill. so just think hard on it before you do it. >> i think your touch and so many things that i agree so wholeheartedly. we have our good friend from unintended who knows a thing or two about energy. i think from the environment you

touch on that. a lot of people believe people who come from energy states throw caution to the wind on environmental issues. there is no one in this body i believe on either side of the aisle that does what the best and clearest and vibrant for himself, children, become a future generations. i think this pipeline has passed every hurdle that the environmental community rightfully so put out so we should make sure we're were protecting department. trying to find a balance between environment and the economics. the economy is so vitally important. i don't know if there's any environmental impact study standing in the way to prevent this. >> i agree and i think he is correct, and the senator from montana knows this as well. the senator from montana also has an issue that i will ask him to explain in just a moment. he knows it better than i do about private property rights. because he negotiated the

language in the bill. but responded to your question, about the environment, that's what is so exciting about this project, so compelling for us to move forward. because not only did the international study that was done which said it is in her and the interest of course to trade with her best and most of the trading partner, closest to us that enjoy the same high quality standard of life that we do, and even higher environmental standards, but the environmental study that came and contacted by the president's own administration. this wasn't done by previous environmental the this is president obama's own administration. came back and said, concluded, this is the safest way to move this, and it's the most environmentally friendly way to move it. that is the record.

so you are right. that only does it have compelling economic arguments. it has compelling and environmental arguments from that perspective. and i'd like to ask the senator if i could from montana if he would explain the very important language that is in the hoeven-landrieu bill is cosponsored by every single republican in this chamber about the language you negotiate on private property rights. this is an important principle for many republicans but also for many democrats, particularly in louisiana where we have a lot of private property, and west virginia have a lot of private property. in montana you all have some. a lot of private but some public land. so with the cente center answere question for us if you would? >> i would love to. >> senator from montana. >> thank you, senator landrieu and senator manchin. i've got a few things i would

like to say and i will get to the quickly but mr. president, since is the first time we've been on the floor since the election, i think with the american people post their first with the way things are working in washington. in a political games. they told us america's what lawbreakers to work together and get things done. they told us they want a strong economy with good paying jobs. it shouldn't take an election to get this through, this message to but do. nationwide including my state of montana it is fair to say unemployment is down. it's also fair to say wages aren't where they need to be. too many americans and too many montanans our struggling to make ends meet. the keystone xl pipeline can help address some of those issues. now we have another 10 to block consideration of this bipartisan bill written here by senators landrieu and senator hoeven. the votes are there. we know that. if there's one way we can get

good paying jobs it is by proving building the pipeline. able to in the public washington is ready turn the page but it will tell than we heard them, that the voices matter and that washington is reacting appropriately. of the pipeline will strengthen our economy and our infrastructure. according to the state department and the pipeline will create 16,000 jobs can support another 26,000 more. those are jobs that will help working-class americans. the pipeline will include an on track for oil in the bakken region of montana and north dakota, but more energy go to the marketplace which is where it needs to go. with production in the bakken continued to boom we need more options to get that american oil where we needs it to be, the xl pipeline is that option. shipping oil by the pipeline is the safest way, fact. building the pipeline means more

business with canada, our friend to the north. and less business with these, folks who don't like us. our culture continues to be involved in conflicts in the volatile middle east but continue to do more this with their neighbors to the north as opposed to the countries that don't share our worldview, can help cut off the funds to those who work against us. i think the keystone pipeline is a big step toward creating the energy security. the pipeline must be built right. i'm going to get to the senator landrieu talk about. it must be constructed with respect for private property rights. we cannot have foreign corporations using eminent domain to run roughshod over the fields of a farmer in montana, a business owner in nebraska, or over sacred tribal lands. so the respect for private property rights is in the hoeven-landrieu bill. it is not in the house bill. it is a critical element in the has to be an otherwise we are making a huge mistake.

this pipeline must also be built to the highest safety stands. that can be no corners cut. leaks and spills don't make anybody any money. they are unacceptable to the most modern safety systems must be employed including double pipe if necessary. that is a fundamental differen difference. what the draft over and house versus what we've done, the good work we've done in the senate. the house bill contains no protection for land owners, none, zip. the house bill says good luck, land owners, your subject to eminent domain by a foreign corporation. you have no spill prevention protections. the hoeven-landrieu bill protects private property rights. senator landrieu from working on this effort for years. this bill will give the pipeline the senate seal of approval and send a signal to the americans that congress is working together on creating good jobs, supporting our economy and that

we are able to make responsible decisions. is this dash continue to make sure oil should do this pipeline stays in america. i for the argument on all sides. but north americans oil should stay in north america but it will make our country more energy sector, lead to cheaper energy, more affordable for homes and businesses, for our working families. that will lead to more good manufacturing jobs in this country because we will be able to recruit because of our energy costs, able to recruit that manufacturing base back to return to we gave up some 20 or 30 years ago. there are a lot of reasons to prove until the keystone pipeline. it will create good paying manufacturing jobs. it will support our middle class and we need to support our middle class. it will make us more energy care and strengthen our chance petition and infrastructure systems. but america needs a sign but it needs a reason to trust congress

and washington as our listing. approving the pipeline with protection and respect for private property rights is that sun. i am tired of the gridlock. i'm tired of kicking the can down the road. i didn't commit to delay and push our problems to the future. i came you to work for common sense solutions that we can inactivate and move this country forward today. the keystone xl pipeline is one of those solutions. passing this bill and buildings pipeline is one of those very for important things we need to do for our infrastructure, for energy security, for the country as hell but i encourage my coaches were help us rebuild trust to the american people. with that i would turn it back to the good senator from west virginia, senator manchin. >> let me just say that the senator from montana, and all of us, quite a few of us on this bill for a reason. it's about the opportunities and jobs that we have.

it doesn't have an environmental detriment to our country. that's already been proven. what is the hangup? why can't we get this vote? but we are hoping to get by tomorrow at the latest. i can only tell you that the thousand american companies that are providing the goods that takes to build this thing, this pipeline, i got a chance in west virginia, we are doing an awful lot of work right now because we come from and energy state that doesn't awful lot of the support work for any type of energy throughout the country and throughout the world. but the bottom line is again if you're going to have a secure nation you've got to have control of your own destiny. the security of the nation i think is most important thing

that the keystone does, helps us be more secure. with the greatest trading partner we have. candidate is the best and the largest trading partner, 35 states out of 50, number one. people take jobs over the world trying to develop the market here or there. when it comes right down to it, 35 states, the number one trading partners candidate. candidate is working with us. i know the of pressure from around the world to go somewhere else. we have the best partner, the best ally we've ever had and could imagine working with us to develop this product the whole world seems to need and want. we need it in america. why not have control? i've heard also and the good senator from louisiana talked about this, why should we bring the oil into america and do all the heavy lifting when they will ship it somewhere else? the difference is when you have -- it's supply and demand to we have control of the supply, when you have the supply any own

backyard, that gives you a pretty good hand to play. that's what we are saying. why would we let any of these advantages turned to a disadvantage? the only thing i can do is hopefully that we can get this vote. i would take my good friends on the other side of the outcome my colleagues on the republican side, this would be the best gesture we have to move the ball forward, the best gesture they can make, coming off the changes of the ship that we had in tuesday's election, people are speaking, they want us to work. the senator from montana, there's a saying in montana, we wanted something. we want you to work. we will not agree all the time. just try. we have a football game we played the other day. we played tcu. we were ahead. we should have won the game. the last half of the fourth quarter, for some reason the playcalling wasn't as aggressive as it was for the first three and a half quarters.

we sat on the ball and got beat. people don't want us to sit on the ball in the united states senate. it's time for us to move forward. this is the first chance to show coming off tuesday's elections we can work together. ..housands and thousands and thousands of jobs, put millions and millions of dollars into the economy. that's what we do know. there's going to be still some people that don't support this piece of legislation, and they have all the reasons to speak about that. but give us a reason to vote for something we think will help america and help our states individually. that's what we're asking for. that's what the good senator from louisiana has been fighting for since the day i got here. and her being on the energy committee, being chairman of the energy committee has made a difference from my standpoint looking at an energy policy. the most important thing she's done, how do we keep the united states of america secure?

i appreciate her efforts on this. i look forward to working with her on this. she knows i support she knows i support, i endorsed the bill. i'm a cosponsor i will definitely proudly vote for this legislation as soon as we can get it on the floor. >> mr. president. >> the senator from louisiana. >> i see the senator from north dakota has arrived. i of course, she wants to speak and can do this beautifully because this pipeline comes, you know, you there her state as i said. want to just respond to a few things and thank the senator from west virginia. you know i've heard colleagues,t particularly my colleague from california say this often and she said it in committee, she says it on the floor and even though she and i are on opposite side of this particular debate we worked together on some really important legislation for our country and i have such respect for her leadership on the restore act which was an amazing piece of environmental

legislation for our gulf coast states. without her leadership it would not have happened. but i have heard her say over and over and over again, elections have consequences. and this one does. just like they all do. and one of the consequences of this election is that a clear path for keystone has been opened up and the reporters followin g this legislation,ey which they have followed it very carefully know exactly what i'm talking about. a path for passage has been cleared. and in my view, that path will never, ever, be clearer than it is today. now in order for the path to stay clear, and it is crystal clear today, politics has to be

set aside. gamesmanship has to be set aside, and we must come togetheo to do what is right for the country, for the american people, and to vote. there are strong feelings, i know against this bill. but the overwell messenger majority of this body, 60 plus members, have indicated support for this legislation.at and the senate bill, from the perspective that you just heard clarity, for simplicity is far senior to the house bill that has been passed. now the house is very agile, very agile. they can do lots of things quickly but the senate can't do. so the house may decide to take the language of this bill, pass it, call it something else.

i understand that. i don't know if that's what they will do but there is a clear path for victory on keystone, whoever's name son the bill does not matter to me, as long as it gets done. and i want to say that again. the name on the bill does not matter to me as long as this gets done, and it needs to get done right now, not in january, not in february, not in march. e it doesn't need to be combined with anything else. it needs to get done on its own. it is standing alone. it will go to the president'sto deck, stand alone. and then i believe that the president will have to make an m important decision. i'm hoping that he will sign it. but if he doesn't, that is the process. i hope that he will and i willa be urging him to do so because c

his administration, his state department, his epa, and his transportation department has urged him to support this piece of legislation for the strength of our economy, a signal to our allies, to strengthen america here and abroad.br and i will strongly urge him to sign it. but you know we have a job to do in the senate. he has a job to do and the house has a job to do but if everybody would stop playing games with this bill and think about what the american people said on election day, and stop trying to push one philosophy or one person ahead of the other, we can get this done. now my name's not even first on this bill. senator hoeven's name is first. i'm thei' lead sponsor because m

democratic, because i'm the chair of the energy committee and i will be until january 2nd. if my voters send me back, i will be here for six more years. that's why my name is on the bill because i chair the committee. but if they want to take my name off, put somebody else's name on and pass it, so be it.i i didn't come here to see my name in lights. i came here to create jobs for my state and for this country and i believe i've done an excellent job in the 18 years that i've been here. through very difficult circumstances and will continue should the voters want me to. but today we need to talk about the keystone pipeline. and nobody can speak better about this than the senator from north dakota because her state, and i want to line this up before she speaks because she was traveling and she might not have heard all of, she just hand

landed and might not have heard what all three leaders said when they came to the floor, that all three of them said, senator reid, senator cornyn, and senator mcconnell said their number one goal was to break gridlock, and they wanted to start now. and their second goal was to expand middle class job opportunities and create wealth in america. so i'm hoping that the senator from the state that has created the most wealth in the shortest period of time, of any state in the union, might express to the rest of us actually how that happened and why she think this is keystone pipeline and other pipelines, because she and i agree this is just the first of several that we're going to have to lay down to make america a super energy power. you don't become a super energy power by just wishing it. you become a super energy power by putting in the infrastructure

thatth makes it possible. understand this. you have to put up thend windmills. you have to put up the solar panels. you have to put in theo pipelines. you have to put in the highways. so the senator from north dakota who has a very sparsely-populated state understands the issue of this infrastructure i think i better than any senator in this body.so so i'm going to ask her if sheo would just respond to that and maybe elaborate on the question, how did your state get so wealthy in the last few years? maybe because the rest of us, and my state is doing well. listen, i'm not here complaining. my state is doing beautifully. our unemployment in south louisiana is 3%. so i mean we are blessed. we are an energy state. we are proud of it and we are creating jobs hand over fist, but there are places like

detroit, there are places in ohio, there are places in pennsylvania and new york and in new mexico and in other places where people are unemployed, begging for work, willing to work, and three leaders came to the floor and said it is time to break gridlock. here is a project that can do it. it. i like to hope to see them sometime before close of business tonight.ines but would the senator expound on that. >> senator from north dakota. >> mr. president, i stand with my great colleague and a great champion of this energy renaissance, probably the greatest champion of the energy renaissance here in the senate,e senator mary landrieu of louisiana. i want to talk, first, about the election. i think that all of us have had some time now to reflect and i think the clearest message that this entire body, as well as the entire united states congress, the clearest message that we

received is that stop fighting, get your work done. i don't think it could have been any clearer and so we have an opportunity today to demonstrate that we got that message. not in a partisan way, but in a bipartisan way, in a non-partisan way, to say, we heard you loud and clear. it is time to do the job we were sent here to do, that is move legislation that moves it country forward. senator landrieu has expounded on the great opportunity of this energy renaissance, not just for this country, but for the entire world. and so let's start with what's happening in north dakota. we have had an explosion of oil and gas production. in fact, we have rapidly moved to the second place in this country in gas and oil production. production. we produced oil from oil shale. what does that mean?th

that means nothing if you can't move the oil. it means nothing if you can't get this product to the refineries, and this product to market. you can produce all p the oil yu want and part of what we need to address, as we look at an energy infrastructure is, how we move energy products. today in america, actually in canada, how we're moving thisod product is by rail. and that has created tremendous stress on our agricultural infrastructure. it hasru created tremendous stre on manufacturers who need to use those rails to haul theirni finished products. it has created tremendous stress fords the railroads. are they glad forethe business? you bet. has that created and opened up new markets for oil production in my state? you bet. but the bottom line is the best way that we know how to move oil and move this product is in a pipe. is the central --

essential to building out this energy infrastructure. why is it important? well let's start first with the fact that we now are moving towards north american energy self-sufficiency. and i don't use a louft of peopt talk about american and that's t great goal but if we include oul friend to the north, the people that i grew up with, the people that i know, i've been up to the oil sand, i've been all over alberta, i've been all over saskatchewan, i know that these are, this is a very friendly country that continues to have the longest contiguous border that there never has been a conflict. we well great that inra north dakota with the peacen, garden, which is a lovely parks which is on both sides of the border where you can easily cross. because we celebrate that.re and these are our friends and if we are going to continue to buildout this energy renaissance in north america we better be prepared to move this product.

okay. so we all know that some of theo opposition to this has very little to do with the pipeline. it has to do with a concern about the increase availability of fossil fuels. well, i'm telling you this is still an economy that runs on fossil fuels. we've done tremendous work with fuelre efficiency. we've done tremendous work with energy efficiency but we'll continue to use gasoline in our cars. we will t continue to use diesel in our heavy equipment. we're going to continue to use this product. who do you want to buy this product from? i will ask you, if the american people have, if you asked any american person, would youd rather buy this product from venezuela or would you rather buy this product from our friend to the north, canada? i'm pretty clear and pretty sure what theirtt answer is going to be. let's talk a little bit about why the united states, at a time we're seeing a global slowdown in economic progress for many of

the other countries throughout the world, why is the united states seeming to go further? why are we producing and w generating more wealth in ourun country than other places? this energyth renaissance. because we are doing something no one else is doing. we are producing our own oil and gas. we are developing the techniques that get thishn oil and gas outf the ground and we are taking that as a raw material which is providing a renaissance, notan just in the oil area but also in natural gas. as a feedstock for many of our manufacturing processes. and soan we have a real opportunity here. but all of that goes away if we don't move the product. if we don't figure out a way to make sure that our product gets to market. i will talk a little bit also about what this development inhi our country means to the world.t when we are confronting great challenges and in dealing with

russia. we're confronting great challenges in looking at what's happening in the middle east. we're confronting all of these challenges throughout the world and we know that we can not only deploy our efforts, humanitarian efforts, our efforts by supporting through airstrikes some of the work that is being done on the ground but perhaps the single-most important thing that we can do is help provide oil and gas to europe and to those countries that are dependent on people or on countries that are not our friend. and soo we look at what our opportunities are today and we know those opportunities are in the energy renaissance. so how do we move this product?w how do we send a signal thatake we're ready to take advantage both globally and domestically, take advantage of this production, take advantage of this renaissance in north america? well, we approve the keystone

pipeline. you know a lot of. people talk about what the keystone pipeline means to my state. it doesn't exactly go into my state but the governor of montana made sure when he was providing the permits that there wasn't, what i call an on-ramp.c there is place where we can in fact access the keystone pipeline. we anticipate about 100,000 barrels a day of north dakota crude will be to be placed into the keystone pipeline, sent down to refineries into louisiana. and, that may sound like a lot. it is about 10%, less than 10% of our current production. p but for me the keystone is so much more than just this particular pipeline. it is a national discussion about our failing energy transportation infrastructure. that is what this is. and if we do not, if we do not move this project forward, if we what's the next project that's

essential? a 22-mile pipeline intt massachusetts, that would provide huge stability for the northeast in terms of the their heat production? 22 miles could be a huge benefit to our friend and me in terms om stablizing their home heating costs this winter. but, yes, we fight the pipeline. keystone, huge advantage that we have in this country because we're an oil and gas producer and could potentially be an oil exporter, providing that source of soft power across the world. what do we w do? we turn our back on the infrastructure that moves this product. and so we have got to do everything that we can to get this approved. i want to turn just briefly tohe the politics.w, you know, a lot of people come here and talk politics. i believe this is a place to talk policy. that's what i try and do. just for a moment i want to talk

about the respect that we should have for voters. i want to talk about elections, and elections have consequences. and one of the things that we can do to begin to restore the public faith, the public faith in our democracy and in the institution of the united states congress is do something bold to begin with. actually move legislation that,e that the people have been waiting for for a long time. and actually respond to concerns. you know, maybe we get the votes, maybe we don't by take a vote. take a vote. get it done. show the american public that we're willing to come to this body, debate the great issues of the time and bring things to a vote, so they actually see us doing something. they actually get results. they pay our salary, we came here to vote, we came here to

work. we came here to do something for the american public. we don't all agree. there ain't no doubt about that, we don't all agree. but i willgr tell you this, the thing we should all agree on, is that it is essential in terms of providing certainty to the american public, confidence that the american public has in this body, that they see us on this floor, not two years or two months from now, not three months from now. not four months from now, but today. the first day that we're back in session after an election. har hard-fought election, with prettyy dire consequences for or side of the aisle. but aut hard election. it is essential that we send a message that we got the message and we take a vote. i am so proud of my colleague from louisiana, for coming back when arguably she should be back in her state. i'm doing a little campaigning, but she is back here fighting for what she believed in and

fighting for she always believed in. this is energy infrastructure that makes a difference for north america. makes a difference not just for states like mine but all consumers of energy. i want to thank the senator from louisiana for your tremendous leadership on this and your willingness to basically comecal here and say, i don't care who - gets the, yeah the credit. i don't care, if you have my name is on it for not. let's get the keystone pipeline approved. i want to make one final pointet and then i'll close. if you've driven the route of the keystone pipeline, what you will see stockpiled, every so many miles is thousands and thousands and thousands ofds dollars of pipe. waiting. six years waiting. infrastructure that needs to goo today and so when people say, we can wait to take this vote, you're wrong. the sooner the better. the sooner that we take this vote and get it approved the

sooner we're going to see those resources deployed and we will not yet miss another production season in the north country. so with that, mr. president, i yield the yield the floor and express great traittude -- gratitude for the opportunity to speak. >> mr. president? from louisiana. >> ito know the senator from tennessee is on the floor and if i say two or three minutes and we agreed to go back and forth but i would like to conclude in this little bit of debate thatt we've had.mi first of all i want to submit for the record, because i'mo going to remain on the floor and speak after the senator from tennessee but i want to put into the record the list of republican cosponsors of s-2280. the dates they became cosponsors and say every single memberm including the senator from tennessee is a cosponsor of the

hoeven-landrieu bill pending on the senate calendar, s-2280. >> without objection. >> i also want to put into the record the 35 plus, well, very powerful organizations that range from business to labor to manufacturers that have been a strong and powerful and vocal coalition for over five years in their efforts to bring us together. they have come together.geth the question is, whether thers members of congress can come together. these groups have come together. not often see laborsers, pipe fitters, boilermakers, building and trades all sitting downme together with the chamber of commerce and the american petroleum institute but they managed to find common ground on a common table and america will be best served when the members of this body and the house do the same. i also want to put into the record two short statements, and this is directed to those that

on the other side or waiverring or not sure, not the other side republican but other side of this issue are wavering. i want to put into the record the environmental review process has been conducted five 1/2 years. the review process has been thorough. fivee studies have been conductd as required by law are complete. i want to repeat that. the five, five, environmentalon studies, that are required by law have been conducted. they are completed. and this goes into the record. in addition the state -- >> without objection. >> in addition the, the only other requirement was from the state department and i want to put this into the record but the bottom line is the the last study from the state department find there will be no

significant impact on the environment from the keystone xe project. record. i'm going to -- >> without objection. >> the path today is crystal clear. today, it is crystal clear. there is no guaranty, that next week, that next month or whenpul the republicans take the majority that the path will bear as clear as it is today. let us not miss this opportunity. let's get our work done on the keystone xl pipeline, an important project for this country. send a message, send a message that we have heard the voters. and, show that that trust begins with us on their behalf. and i yield the floor. >> lame-duck session of congress

is barely underway and already the issue of the keystone pipeline has risen to the top of the agenda. we're joined by laura barron-lopez who covers issues for "the hill." start? in the senate, headline, mary landrieu pushes for keystone vote. what was the senator saying on the floor of the senate? >> senator mary landrieu is seeking tough re-election bid. she has a decent runoff against representative bill cast didn't she was saying right now they need to pass keystone xl. she is going to, actually she just did request unanimous consent and that the senate is poised to take up a vote on keystone next week now. and she was saying that there was a clear message sent during the election that, senate majority leader harry reid, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, everyone should be on the same page. we're saying we want to

compromise so let keystone xl be the first thing we compromise on. >> as you mentioned she did get unanimous consent. seems like the skids are grease ad bit. you tweeted earlier in the day saying another white house on the keystone xl push, i believe we can have the debate on merits and not be object to bringing bill up to a vote. looking ahead, how will it fair in the senate? >> yes, that's correct. he is not going to object but democrats like senator whitehouse, senator boxer and senator -- you can expect them to vote against the pipeline. they're not supporters of it but landrieu is positive she can bring over the needed votes. so last time they tried this there were 57 votes in support of the keystone xl pipeline. 11 of those were democrats. but landrieu says she can get the roughly about five more to sign on. sew that would get them, you know, well over 60. >> step book for a bit on this

and tell us what the bill specifically would do because in the end, correct me if i'm wrong, the president has the say whether the pipeline is approved, correct? >> yes. that's correct. he does have the final say. so if the house and the house and senate both pass the pipeline bill it would approve construction of the pipeline immediately. that would send the bill to the president's desk and obama will either veto it or he will sign it on through and landrieu says this evening that, yes, she has not received the commitment, she has not received any commitment from obama but she feels that he will, that he will sign it. and she is confident that, somehow because of the fact they're compromising, both republicans and democrats can convince obama to say okay to the pipeline. >> word late wednesday the house indeed will take up the keystone bill. this is bill being sponsored by bill cassidy. running against senator landrieu in rainoff raise in louisiana

september the 6th. how is that expected to go in the house? that comes up for a vote on thursday. >> that's correct. the house will vote on a keystone xl pipeline bill from cassidy running against landrieu. that is expected to pass. the house has passed multiple bills approvalling the pipeline before, bills that would go around obama on pipeline approvals. so there is no expectation that that wouldn't be able to go through. and, you know, looking rough for landrieu in the runoff because of these issues. that is why she is making this last-ditch effort if you will. because she doesn't have the gavel anymore to say, that she holds clout that way. and, also, recently senator mitch mcconnell said that he was going to appoint cassidy to senate energy if he wins the runoff. >> lots about the keystone xl pipeline both coming up in the house and senate an covering it all is laura barron-lopez.

you can read her reporting at the hill.com. follow her on twitter. thanks for the update. >> thank you. >> today on our companion network c-span3, defense secretary chuck hagel and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey go before the senate armed services committee to testify about u.s. strategy and military action in combating isis. live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> here are just a few of the comments we recently received from our viewers. >> just calling to tell you how much i enjoy q&a at 5:00 on sunday on the west coast. everything stops in my house. i turn off my phones. i get my cup of coffee. it is most enjoyable hour on television. >> the guest today was very informative. had good opinions. i enjoyed listening to him and the comments that was done today

his, me, myself as living over in the meet, he was very accurate and he was on point. not, he was not using his own personal innuendo and, i greatly enjoyed it and i hope you have more guests like that but, he was right on target this morning. >> i'm calling to say that i they, like many people, c-span is wonderful but as to criticisms i almost have none. and i'm a very partisan kind of person but the reason i almost have none is i think you all do a tremendous job of showing just about every side of everything in the way people look at things in d.c. and elsewhere. i am, i take my hat off to you. thank you very much. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. email us at comments

@c-span.org. or send us a tweet at c-span #comments. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> the supreme court heard oral argument earlier this month on a separation of powers case. zivotofsky versus kerry. rests on whether congress has the power to pass a law requiring the state department to record the birthplace of american citizen who was born in jerusalem who was born in israel on a u.s. passport. >> we'll hear argument first in case 13-628. zivotofsky versus kerry. must lewin? miss lewin? >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. how an american is identified in his or her u.s. passport or consular birth abroad including birth designation does not amount to formal recognition by

the united states of that designated location's sovereign status. this is a principle reason why congress's law authorizing jerusalem-born citizens to carry passports that say they were born in israel is a legitimate congressional exercise of congress's power to regulate foreign commerce -- >> suppose, suppose that the president and the secretary of state put on the passport, the place of birth, written it out, the place of earth on this jerusalem-born citizen passport has been listed as israel at the holier's request. this designation is neither an acknowledgement or declaration by the department of state or the president of the united states that jerusalem is within the borders of the state of israel? could the president under existing statute, and secretary of state under existing statute, put that statement on the passport? >> yes, your honor, they could

put that statement on the passport. >> what do you, if congress passed a law saying that statement had to come off the passport, could congress do that? >> yes, justice kagan. the, there is no restriction on the initial granting of recognition by the president but by the same token the congress has the ability afterwards upon deliberation to decide if they disagree with that recognition but in the case that justice kennedy -- >> has that ever happened? , in the history of the united states where congress after the president had declared that it was not recognizing someone, has congress ever recognized? >> yes, justice sotomayor. in, in 1898 congress pass ad joint resolution for recognition of independence of the people of cuba over the initial opposition

of president mckinley and that ended up recognizing the independence of cuba. >> you were careful to say at the outset this is not recognition. the court of appeals decision, i think in the judge taylor concurrence, said both parties urge upon us that, this that they, power of recognition is involved here and congress has done it, and then, of course, attorney general takes the opposite position, that this a, this is recognition and b, that's why it is void. did you change your position here? or am i just misinterpreting the way that the court of appeals discussed it? >> we provided for alternative options for resolving this issue. our primary position, as i said at the outset, what is written in this statute does not amount to formal recognition of sovereignty because the language of the statute itself is very narrow. it begins by saying that for the

purposes of the, narrow purposes of recording a place of birth on a passport or a consular report of birth abroad, that is what this statute provide for. it also does not state that in all circumstances you have to list israel as a place of birth. it is individual choice. >> the -- is part of a section, section 214. i think you're trying to read d as though it is disassociated from the purpose as expressed throughout 214. that is, that jerusalem is the capital of israel. congress said that. and you are trying to deal with a piece of win section without regard to the, to the thrust of the whole provision that congress has said we think jerusalem is the capital of israel. >> justice ginsberg, the, that

correct, this section of the statute should be reviewed and constitutional of this should be determined on its own. the court should not look at what congress intended by entire section but what this section actually did. this section as i said gives the individual the choice and does not confer with formal recognition. there are benefits -- >> you may say that, and i think that is certainly a reasonable position. could you read this and say it doesn't really say anything about recognizing anything. but the solicitor general of the united states after conferring with the state department said, since israel's founding every president has adhered to the position that the status of jerusalem should not be unilaterally determined by a party and he adds, by requiring the president contradict his

recognition position regarding jerusalem in official communications with foreign sovereigns, the section unconstitutionally encroaches on the president's core recognition authority. so he has a different view. he thinks it is our policy not to recognize jerusalem as the capitol, which you apparently agree with and he thinks that this does have some tendency at least, to to suggest the contrary. now, i'm a judge. i'm not a foreign affairs expert. and when he tells me that, and they are for return affairs experts in the state department, how can i say, that i'm right even if i agree with you? and they that are in charge of foreign affairs are wrong when they make those two statements which certainly sound plausible? >> two points, justice breyer. the first is that what goes on

on a passport is a place of birth is not tantamount to recognizing foreign sovereignty. taiwan is a perfect example. the state -- >> i must interject at this point because you emphasized the taiwan example and it seems to me it's most distinguishable. taiwan and china maintained from the beginning there is only one china and so taiwan is a place name. it's a region. it's in no way recognizing, there is no question of recognition in the taiwanese -- >> that's correct, justice ginsburg. so what you put on the passport does not automatically -- >> go back to my question which i'd like an ends to. i don't think that taiwan is a counter example since the policy of the state department in that being it is fam, foreign affairs

management, is that says pretty clearly if there is dispute about the larger power, i.e., china, you can always put in your passport, the smaller place of birth, like a city or i would think here taiwan. so i don't hear the department, who i guess i'm saying the experts, saying that the taiwan example conflicted with their policy. >> china objected to that. >> china -- i want an answer to this question. not whether china objected or didn't object or so forth. i'm not interested in that. i'm interested in what we as judges do when the state department and those charged say those other things were not contrary to our recognition policy. that's what they think. and this is. >> one last point on taiwan -- >> like the first point.

what am i supposed to do? >> well the first point that this, what goes on the passport does not confer the benefits of formal recognition of sovereignty. this does not entitle the government, the foreign government, to bring cases in our courts, to the protection of sovereign immunity or to the active state doctrine. what goes on a passport does not amount to sovereign -- >> miss lewin, i thought your position was you couldn't care less if the state department think this is is going to interfere with our relations with the palestinians. that congress is entitled to do what it is authorized to do under the constitution even when that contradicts, let's assume they can't recognize a country but they can declare war on a country, can't they? >> yes. >> the if the state department has decided to recognize and to be friendly with? >> yes, judge. >> congress can do that.

>> that is correct. congress can do that and the test -- >> the say the same thing here the fact that the state department doesn't like the fact that it makes the palestinians angry is irrelevant. >> absolutely, justice scalia. that is correct. >> if you take that position which explains it, then what do you think of justice story who writes in 1833 that the exercise of the prerogative of acknowledging new nations and ministers, and he makes clear that involves whether a city or a region is part of a country, et cetera, he says it is an executive function. some argue, as we, i think we've just heard, that congress could make that decision too. but that hasn't been decided and he concludes that a power so extensive in its reach over, our foreign relations could not properly be conferred on any other than the executive

department will admit of little doubt? so he is saying, of course you have to have one person deciding such a thing and that has to be the executive. that is 1833, pretty knowledgeable about the founders intent. >> but that is a rather extreme position, number one, to suggest that the executive branch would have not only the authority to recognize a foreign government but also at the state department's say-so, that would automatically end the question or any review by any other branch, the state department merely says that the -- >> there is always review with the power of the purse and there's always review with not appointing an ambassador. there is review in a variety of alternative ways by congress. it just may not be the way that you prefer. they could pass a resolution contradicting that, that would

have any legal force. >> there, well, there is review and even, both to respond to you justice sotomayor and justice breyer, justice story and william rolf both recognized that authority of congress to review. justice story also said if such recognition is made it is conclusive upon the nation unless indeed it can be reversed by a act of congress repudiating it. he went further to say, that if the president refuses to recognize, then he said congress may not withstanding solemn i acknowledge the sovereignty of the nation or party. >> i suppose you could also say hamilton in 1787 already it was trumps story in 1830. he said pretty much the exact opposite. the recognition provision was really trivial formality. >> hamilton switched his position before he was in the administration and in the administration but would that seem to show, mr. chief justice that it is not clear the

history. >> in any case, this is not your main point, is it? you're being either forced into or willingly yield yourself to arguing that against the proposition that if this is recognition it is invalid. your main position this is not recognition. it has an effect on the state department's power to make nice with the palestinians and your position is, congress has no, no compulsion to follow that. assuming it can't recognize? >> that's correct. >> you don't claim this is recognition, do you? >> we do not claim that this is recognition. in fact there is a -- >> u.s., one fact all matter that i would like -- factual matter i would like. i see in the record your application for the passport asks for jerusalem, israel.

was that changed in litigation? was there an actual official request to change it in your application? >> initial request was made purely because of a misunderstanding of what the law initially required. >> you need to answer my question. did you apply formally to have it changed or did you just take this, that position in litigation? >> the position was then subsequently taken in litigation but in subsequent renewals of the passport too it has been just, the request of israel be put on the passport and it has come back with jerusalem. >> may i ask you another factual question. when he was born was he issued a birth certificate by israeli authorities? >> yes. >> and the united states recognized that as a lawful exercise of israeli authority to issue a better certificate for a child born in jerusalem? >> i believe they do, your honor. >> this is question would i ask

the solicitor general but i don't completely understand what the position of the united states is regarding israeli sovereignty over jerusalem. i understand it is the position of the united states that israel does not exercise full sovereignty over jerusalem but in that, in this instance, the issuance of a birth certificate and others i can think of, i suspect that the united states recognizes that israel is law fully recognizing attributes of sovereignty over the territory of jerusalem, is that correct? so if someone, say an american citizen committed a crime in jerusalem, with would the united states take the position that the israeli government has no lawful authority to prosecute that person for the crime? >> i do not believe, your honor. i believe that they would feel that the israeli government has the authority to prosecute that crime. >> police lewin, if i can ask you, if your primary position is not a recognition statute can we

talk a little bit about what it is? why, what is the design, what is the effect this much statute other than as something that goes to recognition? >> this statute is, a statute that was created to give individuals the right to self-identify as they choose, that they were born in israel. >> the united states government does not usually give people rights to self-identify in this way. in other words i think this was the chief justice's question is in the first argument. if you're an american citizen born in northern ireland you can't get the right to say ireland. for that matter, if you're an american citizen born in jerusalem today you can't get the right to say palestine. this is a very selective vanity plate law if we might call it that and it is selective because congress had, it appears to me, and consistent with the rest of the statute as justice ginsberg

said -- ginsburg said, a real view this was the self-identification they wanted. in other words the ability of american citizens to say that i was born in jerusalem and that means i was born in israel. that and only that self-identification is allowed. >> this statute was rectifying a misguided policy of the state department which enabled individuals born in is rile proper, whether in tel aviv or in haifa, who were opposed politically to the state of israel to remove that sovereign, to remove reference to israel from their passport but it did not allow the flip. it did not allow those born in jerusalem, who live under the sovereign government of israel to put israel on their passport. >> what about those born in jerusalem and want to have palestine as their place of birth? that existed until 1948, that

option. >> correct, justice ginsburg, because at that point there was before 1948 a palestine. so the -- >> the law was -- people, palestinians can not, american-born palestinians can not do that and that suggests that congress had a view and the view was that jerusalem was properly part of israel. >> and that is because this statute was dealing with an existing sovereign that you either removed from the passport or put on the passport. they weren't complicating the situation by putting in non-recognized sovereigns or other entities. they said you either put it on or you take it off. we'll give you the choice. >> if he was born in barcelona, spain, is that citizen allowed by the state department to put barcelona as the place of birth. >> if they wish to remove the country of birth and list a small entity, yes. >> is that a vanity plate for

people who believe in cat at that lon independence? >> it is enabling individuals to exercise their choice to self-identify as they choose. >> again your argument, and you're consistent on things your first argument this is not recognition. now, suppose the state department, and i think this is their position, this is recognition. if we defer to the state department's judgment, to the government's executive judgment on that point, and the government said this is recognition, and you it isn't recognition, why doesn't the government trump? if the government, if the congress really wants to test its power, it can pass a law saying you must recognize israel as being the legitimate government of palestine but it has not done that. since it has not done that, seems to me the government argument trumps. >> justice kennedy you are correct. the way the balance of powers

works is that the executive branch has the right to recognize the sovereign, however, if congress deliberates, passes legislation and that legislation is signed into law, then congress's position trumps. >> but you say that this isn't recognition. so the ultimate conflict is not before us. and, and, therefore the government's policy, which says that this is recognition, should be given deference and it trumps. >> well, your honor, if it does not amount to recognition, then congress had the authority to pass this legislation pursuant to its passport authority. >> i would guess there are competing cannons here. i mean one is, i suppose that we listen to the state department on matters of foreign affairs but i suppose another one is, that we do not hold a, an act of congress to be unconstitutional. and thereby ineffective some that seems to me a draw, doesn't

it? >> yes, justice. >> so the state department says this amounts to recognition. and congress says, whether it does or not, we want this person to be able to list israel. >> that is correct. and since this was signed into law by the president, the law right now trumps whatever the executive branch may say. >> can i give you a hypothetical, miss lewin? suppose that congress passed a law and this law said the secretary of state had to send an official letter to all foreign ministers whenever a u.s. citizen was born in jerusalem and that official letter from the secretary of state said, says, it announces that a new american has been born in israel. would that be constitutional? >> excuse me, this would be a law passed -- >> this is a law passed by congress and it says every time a u.s. citizen is born in jerusalem, the secretary of state has to send an official letter to every other foreign minister saying that a new american has been born in

israel? >> yes, that would be constitutional. >> that would be constitutional, even though the, the congress has basically telling the secretary of state to engage in a certain kind of diplomatic communication with other foreign countries? >> the description of the law thaw provide seems to be very similar to what a passport does. a passport recognizes an individual as an american citizen for purposes of communicating that information to the foreign government. >> yes, exactly right. that was going to be my point. that it was, that it was extremely similar to what a passport does. both are forms of diplomatic communication. and that we usually say about diplomatic communication is that whatever congress's other foreign affairs powers are, the power of diplomatic communication belongs to the president and the president alone. that in that realm we only speak with one voice.

and so i guess i have to sort of say that that answer that you gave me, that this could, the congress could say to the secretary of state, here's the diplomatic communication that you have to send to other foreign ministers, seems, well a little bit shocking. >> but recognizing an individual as an american citizen facilitates the transfer and movement of american citizens across borders. this, this passport, if it were to list israel, at pursuant to this law, would be indistinguishable from all the other passports of individuals born in tel aviv, haifa or anywhere else in israel. that passport were not showing any kind of political statement. it would identify the individual by name, date of birth as all americans passport of individuals identify. >> so you would say that in justice kagan's hypothetical, maybe the letter that is required to be sent to every foreign head of state would be

unconstitutional. but that doesn't mean that the passport is because the passport is used primarily for purposes of identification. and it is only the letter that makes it something else? >> correct, justice roberts. >> i want us to write -- >> did we say that? >> justice kennedy, do you want us to say in our opinion that this is not a political declaration. >> this is not a political declaration, that is correct, justice kennedy. >> i'm not sure why congress passed it then? >> congress passed it to give these individuals the right to self-identify as they choose because individual in general have that ability on their passport to choose and -- >> i thought it was a federal crime to say that you were born in the united states when you weren't on an official document? why is it that it is okay for congress to say something that hasn't happened?

meaning to say that someone born in jerusalem, is actually born in israel? >> i -- >> different than somebody who is born in taiwan saying, i was born in america. >> since -- >> they can self-identify all they want but can they do that? >> yes. since 1848 israel has acted as the sovereign over western jerusalem where our client was born and since 1967, over the entire area of jerusalem. >> i know what -- has the u.s. recognized, has any president since 1948, recognized israel's sovereignty over that area? >> in a formal sense no but allowing individuals to recognize it, that would not be a false statement. >> miss lewin, may i just, i realize your time, if i might just go back to the thought that the chief justice gave you that you agreed with. here's the way a passport begins.

it begins the, the secretary of state of the united states of america hereby requests all who it may concern to permit the citizen blah, blah, blah. that's the, you know, the secretary of state requests all of these who are going to be looking at this passport. and then in hate v. agee we describe ad passport as letter of introduction which the issuing sovereign vouches for the bearer and requests other sovereigns to aid the bearer. this is, this passport, it seems, both in what it says itself and what we've said about it, it is like a letter from the secretary of state. it's a communication. >> it's a communication merely to facilitate this transfer of individuals as american citizens, not to make public statements about where they were born or where they're from or what countries the united states recognizes. >> thank you, counsel.

>> general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, let me get to the heart of the problem with section 214-d. even if section 214-d does not officially change or formally change the recognition position of the united states it tries to deny the president the power to give effect to our official recognition position by forcing executive branch officials to issue official diplomatic communications that contradict that position. >> what if there were a law that said, precisely pretty much what you just said, the law says, okay, mr. president, you can recognize whoever you want but if you recognize this country, this government, we're going to treat it as if you hadn't recognized this government, for all purposes of domestic law, we're going to pretend, we're going to operate on the assumption that you have recognized this country? >> i think there would be limits to congress as ability do that. we think the recognition power that the president possesses necessarily includes the power to give effect to recognition --

>> so that law would be unconstitutional? >> to the extent is said for all purposes -- >> isn't that exactly what the taiwan relations act says. >> what if says the absence of diplomatic recognition shall not affect the application of laws of the united states to the united states. >> mr. chief justice, that was quite different. the act was an act of exercise and proper power to implement the president's foreign relations judgment about how taiwan should -- >> say the president did not want to recognize taiwan and congress passes a law that says, for every purpose under american law, we will treat taiwan as if it had been recognized? >> that might raise a serious constitution question but that isn't the situation that was, it wasn't the case when it was enacted, it's not the case now and it's different from the current situation. the fundamental problem with section 214-d is that it purports to try to force the executive branch to issue

official diplomatic communications that contradict the position of the united states. >> is that really true? congress pass as law that is saying that every passport, every passport issued to an american must list place of birth including country and that for this purpose the country is a, the nation that issued the birth certificate to that individual? could congress do that? . .

>> what difference does it make whether it in agonizes foreign country? >> there are certain things that are within congress' power that would antagonize foreign countries that wouldn't raises separation of powers problem of course like a trade embargo or a travel ban. >> this may be one of them. the mere fact that it upsets foreign relations doesn't prove a thing. >> the critical point is that what the statute does that those other statutes don't do is it requires the executive branch, the president himself and executive branch itself to tee mccabe a message that contradicts the official recognition position of the united states, undermining the president credibility and prevent the president from being able to speak with one voice credibly. >> why couldn't you have a disclaimer of the kind that i've explained to the petitioner's counsel. she said that would be perfectly lawful for you to say if not not the position of the state

department. this is not an indication that israel has jurisdiction over jerusalem. why wouldn't that solve the problem? >> it doesn't solve the problem because the issuance of the disclaimer is a credibility hit. it undermines the credibility of the president. think about what it's actually sing. what it's saying in this context is yes, we are issuing thousands of passports to identify persons born in jerusalem as being born in israel. yes the congress required that i pay no attention to it. it doesn't have any bearing on recognition. >> if it were such a big deal why did the chief executive at the time sign at? >> the chief executive issued a signing statement which really was a disclaimer in 2002. resident bush's statement second 2002, this does not change our official recognition policy and were going recognition policy and were going to treat it as advisory, and that did not have the effect of -- >> so we should give no weight to the fact that the chief executive signed the law that he is now saying that come his

successor, is now saying have such deleterious effects on american foreign policy? as a general matter, does that of any consequence at all? >> i think this court held in myers that the fact that one president signed a law violated separation of powers doesn't have any effect. >> i know. i'm not suggesting it does although that's a separate question. it does go to the credibility assertion that this is when have such dramatic effects on american foreign policy. >> i think the credibility of the assertion is proven by history. with all due respect, even though president bush issued that statement which said this didn't change the policy of the united states and we weren't going to enforce it because he was treating it as advisory, the consequences that ensued in the middle east in october of 2002 were that there were mass demonstrations in jerusalem. the palestinian parliament met and voted for the first time declared jerusalem the capital

of a palestinian state, no longer for a bearing on that issue. if you look at me just -- >> that's partly because the executive branch made such a big deal out of it. they issued statements saying this is unconstitutional and all it. they could easily have said this is no big deal, they are just letting whoever is born there picked a name they want to put on, nothing to see them move on. we're proving that by going had been signed that. over the intervening of course, the executive has litigated this. it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that it's going to be such a huge deal. >> with all due respect i think on this question that you're asking me, this is a place where the court should a court deference to the judgments of executive branch and the state department in particular. is the state department had thought, if the executive i thought that if it's all the diplomatic problem by minimizing the effect of this provision, pretending as though it wasn't going to have this effect, certainly they would've followed that course.

>> not necessarily. >> what they're asking you to do is asking the government to lie. that's exactly what you're saying the government, the executive apartment should not do. >> i do think the problem here is that the executive made a considered judgment in 2002 that this goodness sensibly be handled that way. >> so how are we -- >> what if it just says disputed, parentheses after it, disputed? then i gather they wouldn't be lying. they would be telling the truth. >> i don't know. a couple things about that. that would have the effect of identifying the passports that were issued to people born in jerusalem because that would be the reason to put it on. jan that it isn't as good as a matter of the official position of attorney. >> its disputed as a matter of the conflict your is not sing under my hypothetical this is israel. it saying there's a dispute

about which i would think it's about as true statement as you can make. >> their city peace dispute certainly the parties of the region i think the premise of petitioners argument is that when the government of the united states there isn't a dispute over the recognition issue. >> can you help me with the same question? how shall we approach it generally? that is to say, i can think of instances where a similar statute is serving nothing other than administrative matters, the passport should be red or something. and i can thing of instances where causes a lot of trouble. i can think of instances like this one and you could easily replicate this controversy with israel in our imagination, similar controversy with donetsk in the ukraine where we make some agreement with russia and something similar comes up. or with the iranian and pretend that come remember that russia

once invaded the northern part of iran. and all over the world there can be similar kinds of problems where it's debatable what the words of the passport actually mean or how they will be taken by others and what others will think they mean. now, and how do we, who know little about it, determine when it gets into the realm that we should stay out of it and let the president and the constitution gives him the power or something we should always intervene, perhaps some never. what in your mind is the right standard? how do we decide? >> i do think this court, the last time the case was your, said that ultimately it was up to the court to judge the cost is not that the statute. we accept that in doing so we believe it's quite important executive branch get deference on judgments of precisely the kind that your honor has again put the this statute is a very robust for statute. there really isn't any of

passports dutch like this one that purports to interject initial recognition policy into the continent passports. >> general verrilli, a fully agree with the petitioner, we do not have to confront the constitutional question whether the president has exclusive power over recognition. if we agree with you, we're going to have to grapple with the constitutional question, right? maybe you want to talk about it. >> i'm delighted to talk about it before you let me address the. i don't think you necessarily have to address the question of exclusive power to rule for us, and here's why. i think that given the petitioner's position that 214 be does not change recognition, that official recognition position of the united states and the amicus brief saying it doesn't change the official recognition of the united states, that's a given. the official recognition position of the united states is that we are not recognizing any nation sovereignty over jerusalem at this point until the parties work it out. with that as a given, the

separation of powers problem with section 214 the is that it forces the executive branch to engage diplomatic communications that contradict our official recognition position and undermined the presence credibility and -- >> but if it does, then the argument is going to be it does come out, if it does contradict it then congress is making its own judgment about recognition. you have to confront that. are they entitled to do the? i don't see how you can avoid that question. >> i will address it now but i do think you can decide the question underground i just decided without ultimately resolving that question. >> couldn't you say that at a minimum the petitioners concede it is not clear that this is recognition? >> that's certainly the case and, therefore, we take as a given the precious position recognition which is the same the position of every present going back to truman is the official position of the united states and the executive is

being forced to issue diplomatic communications that contradict contradicted. >> is the requirement a place of birth, passport, that doesn't come from the congress. that comes from the executive, right? >> that's correct. >> i thought the purpose of birthplace identified by the government, by the executive, is to identify the person and not -- it's not something that the president or the executive required out of a foreign policy concern. the purpose of it was to identify the individual, isn't that right? >> yes, that is its primary purpose. but even though that's its primary function within the passport, it has the effect of raising diplomatic foreign policy issues about our recognition position and that is why we have had in place of official policies and the foreign affairs manual going back to the early 1960s that align decisions place of birth

with our recognition policy. before they were formalized in the manual, they stretch all the way back to world war ii. it's inevitable that foreign sovereigns are going to react to that, but the way in which we put the information we put in that -- >> this is a pretty rough way to identify someone. i mean, there are hundreds of john smith's in the united states. >> is that's true, justice sotomayor, but this question about whether place of birth designations are necessary on passports is actually one that congress asked the comptroller general to study back several decades ago. the conclusion of the studies which confined in the current version of the foreign affairs manual, the one in the state department website is that you wilhave to have them for two reasons. the first is that very often foreign nations or place of birth information to let you travel to that nation so it's going to be highly inconvenient if it's not in the passport.

second, law enforcement and counterterrorism officials were concerned passports to become less effective in efforts if you removed the place of birth designations. >> what exactly is the position of the executive regarding israel's exercise of sovereign powers in jerusalem? is it the case that it is a position of executive that israel cannot lawfully exercising sovereign powers within jerusalem's? >> the position of the executive is that we recognize as a practical matter the authority of israel over west jerusalem. with respect to the rest of jerusalem the issue somewhat obligated to it might well be, although i confess i don't specifically know the answer to the question you asked ms. lewin about the steps of the birth certificate issued there, might will be we would accept it as evidence of birth. >> it must've been accepted as evidence the birth of the passport would never been issued.

>> we do have the -- >> a project to provide a birth certificate in order to get the. >> but as a practical matter i don't think anyone can infer anything about recognition policy from the. i do think if we were to start issuing passports to people born in the crimea tomorrow identified russia as the country of birth, that would carry out these implications for our foreign policy position, and would contradict the foreign policy position in a way that could be quite deleterious. >> let's say that passports are printed in country a., not the united states, and there's a printing plant there, and congress passes a law saying know you must have passports printed in country b. because we don't think you should recognize country a. doesn't interview with the presence of recognition our? >> if the statute said passports

may not be printed in country a because the united states does not recognize country a., that would be -- >> because congress which established the present would not recognize country a. in response to that we are directing passports that are now printed in country they be printed in country b. spink that would be harder case than this one because it does include advocate the president's ability to give effect to recognition power. that doesn't affect the content oof the diplomatic communication in the way that section 214 d. does stink about your position was the president has the exclusive right to decide what interferes with his recognition power? >> now i think the president has the right to give effect to his recognition of our, and congress cannot try to command the executive branch to act in a manner itself that contradicts the president's recognition decision because that prevents the president from giving effect to the decision to go back to your honest question, that it is an exclusive hour with the

president. recognition is not lawmaking. it is an executive function. one would've therefore expect that it would be assigned to the executive by the constitution and not to the congress. >> were making is an executive function. >> with respect to the executive functions around recognition, when congress wanted -- excuse me, when the framers wanted the congress to play a role and the constitution envisions a role for the framers and those executive functions, it's prescribed. article ii gives the senate a role in confirming ambassadors. it gives the senate a role in advice and consent for trick. -- trees. >> if i think the congress generally, congress has the authority under the constitution to require identification information and passports and to

specify the identification information is included, if i believe that, been the effect of the art but i guess is that something that congress can do is unconstitutional if it affects the recognition power, the president's recognition of authority in some way. is that -- >> know, our position is narrower. i think all you need to decide to decide this case in the governments favor here is that what congress can't do is use the authority it has to regular passports. we acknowledge as we did on a brief the congress has the authority to regular passports. it can't use that authority to command the executive branch to issue diplomatic communication that contradicts the government's official position on recognition. >> i don't like, you know, just keep on practicing thing. it seems to me you could draft a

statement that actually furthers your position. this passport does not indicate that the government of the united states and the second state recognize that israel has sovereign jurisdiction over israel, and you actually making your days. >> i appreciated the appeal of that idea, justice kennedy, but the problem with it is that they need to make that statement doesn't further the diplomatic interests of the united states. >> why doesn't it for the? >> because the very need to make the statement calls the credibility of the president's representation of our recognition position into question. >> but just like the signing statement. >> just like the signing statement which is precisely what justice can suggested, that the executive could do it at this point. >> right. it did not have come i think that's the point.

the signing statements in the nature of this claim and it did not prevent the damage to the credibility of the united stat states. >> general verrilli, i think the answer to the question that ms. lewin gave was that she suggest, the executive could put that on the passport. but she also said congress could then pass a law saying that this is antithetical to our view, and that doesn't have to be put on the passport. on the passport is his birthplace, israel, period. congress to pass that into law and how do whatever the president does. >> i do think that's the necessary implication of the petitioner's argument. congress could require that -- >> but the law isn't in front of us. >> but what the court to hold the constitution of the law that is in front of you it seems to me the necessary implication of the would be that congress could prevent the disclaimer, could require not just that israel be listed but jerusalem, israel be

listed on a country birth. those are very serious interference is with -- >> general, if i'm understanding your narrow holding, just so that we can underscore it, what you're saying is that congress can't compel speech by the president with respect to foreign relations. >> i would put it a little more narrowly, your honor, that congress cannot compel the executive to issue diplomatic communications that contradicts the official position of the united states on a matter of recognition. i think that's the question before the court in this case. >> i picked up this passport and his place of birth, israel. do i know whether this person was born in jerusalem or in haifa? >> no, you don't. >> so how does it advertise to the world that the president is

contradicting himself? all you know is that the person was born in israel. it could've been anywhere in israel. >> the world knows that we will issue thousands of passports to people born in jerusalem identifying them as warning israel, and the world knows that we will be doing that because the congress of the united states required. those actions -- >> but it is not a communication campaign in the passport itself, is it? you are just saying that this piece of legislation advertises to the world what the situation will be, but you're not compelling the president to say that this individual was born in jerusalem and were going to say he was born in israel, because you can't tell that from the passport. >> your requiring the president to make statements thousands of times they contradicted official recognition position of the united states. that a border guard in a country where a person is traveling over

whether this particular passport is one of them i suppose and less place of birth information and. city of birth information unless they ask that they won't know with that particular passport. what foreign sovereigns welcome with the parties in this region will know is that thousands of times the executive branch is issuing passports that contradict our official recognition position with respect to persons were in jerusalem. >> general, when i travel abroad and come back to the united states or when i go to a foreign country and their stamping my passport, do they have forms that require you to identify the city? >> i'm not aware that they do, your honor. i don't know the answer to that. i'm not aware that they do. >> i know that some of them do. >> name may well but i do think the essential problem here with what 214 does is that it tells the executive to communicate a

message that the executive police contradicts our position and undermines the president's credibility as our sole spokesman in matters of diplomacy. there is not an issue on which the president's credibility could be more important than the question of the status of jerusalem. the question of the status of jerusalem is the most vexing and volatile and difficult diplomatic issue that this nation has faced for decades. it goes all the way back to president truman. attack of the matter is that the parties in the region, the nations in the region and, frankly, people around the world and governments around the world scrutinized every word that comes out of the united states government and every action that the united states government takes in order to see whether we can continue to be trusted as an honest broker who could stand apart from this conflict and help bring it to resolution. there is no doubt that section 214 d., when it was enacted, had

a serious adverse effect on our credibility in the question. you can look at the statements from foreign parties that are in the joint appendix and the state department communiqué at pages 231-233. you can look at contemporary -- contemporaneous press accounts from that time. if we were required to implement this we would've been good to try to mitigate the problem. it seems to me it is quite important for this court to understand there is a very sous risk that the harm to our credibility as an honest broker on the stressors axing issue could be called industries question -- >> why would that be so? no matter how this court decides, everyone will know what the position of the president is. everyone will know what congress thought when they pass this legislation. whatever we do that's not going to be changed, and our decision is going to be based on any do that we may have about whether jerusalem should be regarded as part of israel or the capital of israel.

so why would in effect on foreign policy except the people who will misunderstand the situation, either because they really don't understand or they will exploit it in some way? >> i've got at least two points to make about that if i could. first, it's not a misperception. it's an accurate perception. one looks at 214 as a whole, not just to 14 d. what to 14 d. does is try to force the executive branch to take a series of steps that no nation would take if they did not recognize the sovereignty of israel over jerusalem. animation could only take if they did recognize the sovereignty -- >> but congress did that so nothing that we just go to change that or change what congress thought. >> i think that's too easy an assumption that the difference between when the statute was enacted, it did give rise to very sous problem we had worked very hard to try to get under control. the difference between then and

now, two very different important differences and 52 very important conclusion. it won't be one branch of the united states government saying that this should happen. it will be two branches sing it should happen. it won't be that the statute will have been enacted, but it won't be enforced. it will be enforced. the consequence of those two things together is that the credibility of the executive, the credibility of the president on this fundamental question of where the united states stance on the status of jerusalem into the parties work out will inevitably and seriously called into question and into doubt. foreign governments, foreign peoples will not be able to have complete confidence that the position that the president announces on behalf of the united states is, in fact, the position of the united states. that is exactly why section 214 d. violates the separation of powers, even if you conclude that congress might have some residual power that we opposite strongly disagree with the the

official position is that jerusalem, we don't recognize any nation sovereign over jerusalem and toga parties have worked the issue out on their own. what the statute does if it was enforceable undermine the credibility of the president's ability to maintain that critically important give him a position as we move forward. thank you. >> thank you, general. ms. lewin, you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you, your honor. just a couple of points. justice sotomayor, this is not requesting that the government lied on a passport. as the solicitor genera general, this is just recognize a practical reality that israel is -- >> no it's not that it's the place of birth. if you say israel you believe, you're saying you but that person was born in israel. >> yes. well, seven years prior to the passage of this legislation congress passed the jerusalem

embassy act, and in the amicus brief is referred to in footnote 10 which requires that the embassy the removed -- be moved to jerusalem and provided that the president with -- >> there was a way for spent this would be recognizing that there is a disagreement. >> how could you tell me it's not a lie? you, the united states, are being asked to put on the passport that you believe place the birth of this individual is israel. the executive has said no, we don't think it was issue. we think it was jerusalem spent but the speech is the speech of the individual who has self-identified. >> it's the government. the document says this is a diplomatic exchange between sovereigns. >> but we are limiting the speech when it comes to west bank, as a star, a host of others. we are recognizing and allowing that speech. >> when you say the west bank i take it you think congress to

pass identical statute with respect to child born in hebron, say. >> correct. we are providing to alternative arguments, one thing that this is not amount to recognition, or if the court decides to reach the separation of powers question and use this as some of implicating the recognition clause, at this point the law passed by congress would trump the president. allowing state department's say-so to control because its an expert in foreign relations would be advocating an independent function that would turn the president into an autocrat whose work controls. we suggest this is analogous to the president's authority under the executive agreement to resolve foreign claims, and that just as though that's not an explicit authorization provided to the president, his not exclusive in the agreements entered into by the president

cannot contradict or run counter to express will of congress. regard to the international response to this, the consequences, first of all described by the solicitor general are grossly exaggerated. what the world knows could be -- first of all, the united states state department could make clear in their statements as they did with taiwan that this does not change the united states policy with regard to sovereignty over jerusalem. and because the passport would be indistinguishable from those were born elsewhere, there is no continuing statement. bothers me initial have some impact, over time, and i propose a short time, particularly if the united states makes that statement, this lived in a non-issue because there is no -- >> can i say that this seems a particularly unfortunate week to be making this kind of all, it's no big deal argument. history suggests that everything is the bigger with respect to te status of jerusalem. right now jerusalem is a

tinderbox because of issues about the status of him and access to a particularly holy site there. and so sorted everything matters, doesn't it? >> it is a sensitive issue, but to suggest that will go on a passport as a place of birth is going to implicate or make it worse, there's no evidence of that. thank you. ..