>> in case i gave the wrong impression, ourmm for our customers and pilots and crew members is the safest system in the world. >> i'm not questioning your safety, i'm telling you dis-- i don't have to -- the way my colleagues do it. but when i do fly, i see what is happening. i can't imagine what they see. it is murder. because more and more people want to fly, and more and more crowded skies. i believe we have a safe system. i know it's, because you slow things down to make it safe. huh-uh. >> the other thing i want to add on, many of -- nextgen is not defined by the 2020 mandate or by adsb. it's a work in progress and many of the benefits of nextgen have already come online and that's getting missed there --

>> captain, the faa and nobody here is even willing to give us a target date for when the -- we can say we have now made the transition and moved to nextgen. isn't that the case? for most programs -- for most programs in our country we at least have a tarring date and if you don't have a target date, then it does seem to me your goal should be to keep the system we have because that's the system we're going to have some some time. he didn't object to that characterization, and keep it as safe as you can with what whatever slowdown, telling the public, yes, there will be slowdowns, but you have to understand that these slowdowns are to keep you safe. it is better to have that kind of candor than to have people being angry at the airport when you tell them that they can't get someplace when we were supposed to get someplace.

i'm not chastising the private sector. i know who is to blame here. but i am saying now that we know what the atmosphere is like, be candid with the public so the public doesn't expect anything but slowdowns for the foreseeable future. anybody octobers to that, speak now or forever how would your peace. >> i can't let that stand like that. the on-time records, the improvements, the safety, that's not a characteristic of our u.s. aviation system. we are working. it's never going to be a finite date that everything is done because it will be constantly improving. the nuanced problems we're working through as a team, we'll always work through them. so i would say it was a mischaracterization of the u.s. airline industry. >> i'm going to recognize myself for five minutes to ask a question. i think it's pretty apparent that the process doesn't work like it should. we obviously have the safest air

space in the world, biggest, largest, air space in the world but when you look at mr. engler's example of at&t and apple in the last seven years they have had eight phones, eight iterations. the faa is a spending $115 million on an information system, flight information system, that they're projecting to be done in 2025, they'll be probably eight or ten more iphones out before the faa gets there. those are the kinds of things it's just apparent the process is broken. when you look back over the last three academic candidates and the 10, 11, different pieces of legislation and economictive ordered that said, let's get this done, and i'm sure that, as michaeler who a, who has done some good at the faa but you can find every faa administrator saying, we're moving in the right direction. they're moving at a snail's pace, to mr. mica's point of view, we have to get these things up and running. the process doesn't work and we all, i think, apparent that the

money, starting and stopping, is a huge problem so, governor engler, coming from the -- you all represent businesses but as a user, as somebody that looks at this and needs this air space, that need this system to work efficiently and with the benefit of how your companies operate in a technology world, a new governance model, how do you envision that working, not only from the process but from the funding side? i know you talked about it a little bit but i won't interrupt you and let you lay it out. >> well, at least some of the thinking is to examine the stakeholders, and many of us are at the table here today. others are not but would want to be included. and it really is a question of stakeholders coming together, and nobody has made any decisions on exactly what a funding model would look like. that's always been a sticking point in the past. that's when it gets hard, when

you put money in and it's been referenced here. one other member was pressing us on money. there's a lot of money in the system, and so there's a recognition, there still are airport needs out there, and so this separating this out, that's one of the reasons some of the work we have been doing is trying to understand what funding models might look like, what options might be there, but not trying to get into that conversation because that really is -- my sense has been, given the size of the committee, the complexity of the issue-can't get all the stakeholders together we won't be successful so that's really important. on the gotchance side the same thing is true. the people who are putting up the funs and have interests, pilots, controllers, the commercial airlines themselves, general aviation, all will want to -- need a seat at the table for that. there is sort of a model that was used up in canada in terms

of bringing the stakeholders together. now, that really is only on sort of building out the system, the things, the technology. the other very key part of this never leaves the faa, is the whole -- the safety regulations. i made reference to you sort of have today the regulator, the decisionmaker, on at the technologies, enhanced safety, the decisionmaker on safety itself. so there is an inherent kind of conflict that exists, if you will, and what works well, i think, is some separation. the agency still has all the safety responsibility plus they've got all the operational responsibilities, which are -- these captains are -- they have challenging jobs. manual with technical specifics you have to comply with how you fly, and the reason we're the safest in the world, if they find a -- i don't know if

there's a different way to deal with wind sheer, an edict goes out and pilots are retrained almost instantly on that. controllers have a lot of technical things they're in charge of, and the agency is way behind on some of this stuff, and frankly an agency that was focused laser-like on getting caught up there so as new technology was available, could be deployed, would be an agency that would be really working well. so i actually think, in this case, kind of re-aligning the responsibilities a little bit so that everybody is doing what they're best at doing, and picking up the pace, we get to a better place for the nation's air traffic system. >> thank you, governor. i think you made a good point there. we need to be looking out all these other different systems around the world and how they do things. one number from -- that just jumped off the payment at me, we are nine times the size of the canadian air space. we spend 20 times as much in cap

as they do, and from i've seen and chairman mica has been up there, their technology is more advanced and they're spending less money, so that's something that we need to put up there and pay attention to. with that, i yield five minutes to miss -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. and as a new member of the committee, this is one of the rare areas when i came on the commitow two years ago when i said, oh, my god, this is a triple win. get nextgen right, we're happening with safety, won't lose planes chick was told be don't lose planes but now we know we do. it's better for the environment and better for communes. we don't need to scant our runways as much. we need to find a way to get this done, and seems to me there are two different issues. one is the funding and one is the timing. the benefits don't really accrue until we have -- who have equipment in place. we need to look at,

mr. chairman, a carrot and stick model. we have the cost overbore ring near zero. we need to find a way to do this with american technology that sets the standard for the world, and one way to do that is setting a date certain by which all equipment mulls be retrofitted and there are heavy penalties beyond that, and then you set together a funding corpus you borrow from, but anybody who wants to be the late one to the table to be the free rider, they'll pay heavily and that seems to me a way to help gauge the market, engage wall street in setting out the money. the federal government ought to partner but set a realistic time frame and vary heavy incentive to comply by the time frame. that would bring the cost of the technology down and would get it done before 2025. this is ridiculous. we should not have to what that long. and clearly we're going to need more iterations, but we risk the

real opportunity right now that not only are we behind but that other countries are going to develop and sell the technology to the world and the standard, and that is foolish. we should not do that. our citizens deserve the safety, our communities deserve to have cleaner air, better for the environment. we deserve to not be chewing up land we don't need to. and we should get this done faster. so, if anyone would care to opine on whether we think what kind of time frame is realistic, if we could get the money together to borrow from over time, what is the time period by which realistically we could say you have to retrofit? >> congresswoman, if you are suggesting it's -- are you talking about the airlines need to retrofit? >> yes. >> okay. well, i think here it's a very complicated question or more complicated question. we have deadlines. we have had tedlines in the past. we have made the deadlines.

we have invested money. there's $6 billion in the trust fund unallocated. we have the money. the problem lies in the processes and make sure the equipment works and making sure there's a return on the investment for the equipment. it's far more than that. just setting a deadline i don't believe, with all due respect, will do anything. we have a dead machine for 2020 on adsb and yet we're not harmonizedded with the world. the case hasn't been made there's a return on investment for the people being forced to invest in it. meanwhile we're flying around on aircraft -- we have aircraft in our fleets that has equipment on it that we can't use because of procedures are not in place to use it. it's a very frustrating situation. >> then what are those pieces we could -- to realize the benefits? obviously we're talking about these unrecognized benefits how do we incorporate that into the system so they are realized or the incentive is there such they do get realized by those who

find it not be in their interest currently? >> so, congresswoman, we are making progress. doesn't lend itself in the time we have here but if you go to greener skies in seattle, they concentrated on that, brought it automobile, saves emissions, saves fuel, a safe operation, and they're trying to replicate that all over the united states. the houston metroplex, they brought that online. great job. which again, i want to stress what said earlier. the airlines have trained the pilot, the controllers are trained. we're working through procedures with the controllers. the airlines have invested some the faa continues to work but, again, private enterprise management principles applied in the public sector with the faa, stabilized and consistent funding, all those things allow them to do a better job. right now they're working with hand tied behind their back, i

believe. >> i think that your summation is excellent. you say how do you kind of make these pieces in sequence them to get them to work, but there's a point in there you touched on that deserves to be picked up a it bit more and that is on the procedures that captain moak just referred to in kick calio riffed to, one row. the management advisory committee, unanimous, give the stakeholders more role in helping to prioritize what paroled ours need to come when so that we can get those done, because some are high value, high payoff, pretty quick return. others have a little longer tail, and i think that kind of -- this is what i think the genoas talking about in terms of performance management. you would normally all of us would in our offices and our enterprises do it by order of priority. >> the gentle lady's time has expired.

mr. meadows, recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. scovel, let me come to you. sit sitting in your exact seat we have had people come before us, from the federal aviation administration, the person in charge making tour nextgen gets implemented and when we ask for deadlines and ask for final frames i see sweat pop out on their brow, and really the plan to gift it implemented -- there's not an answer, and you said it was a very tight wicket. i make the analogy it's like getting a bowling ball through a wicket, and what degree of confidence, on a scale of one to ten, with ten being most confident, do you have in the faa's ability to implement most of this thing and meet the target deadlines that have been re-established, i might add. these are note first deadlines. these are multiple deadlines.

on a scale of one to two, how confident you and would you place your job based on the rating. >> that's a tall order. when i mentioned tight wickets i'm talking about now and 2020. what happens after that is anyone's game. >> so we're going to invest billions of dollars on anyone's game or guess. >> yes, but i aggrieve with captain moak it's essential, it's necessary and it's achievable. it's a question of enough time -- >> well, achievable i can run a marathon but not real likely it's going to happen in the near future, too. so, from a time frame standpoint, when do we start -- when does the stakeholder start to get counting on our time frame so that they can make the proper investments, so the becomes guy -- concerns me greatly we're spending billions of dollars to have equipment and training ready and yet we're not

doing our part on the federal government side. >> well, let me just take the january 2020 mandate. realizing everything that needs to be done there in terms of automation platform, renewal and modernization, eram. star is suppose told be done several years after that. datacom in 2019. the need for training for controller and the need for enough of the fleet that's going to use the system to equip so we can have -- all of that by 2020 -- >> scale of one to ten, ten being the highest. >> i'm less than five. and i would say probably we don't have until four and a half years from now in order to judge.

we may have a year and a half, two years. by the time the whole -- >> let me shift to europe. they're in the middle of an atc modification as well and they're taking a different approach, which is making sure all the stakeholders have all of their stuff and yet they're not going to make their deadlines, either. so would you say that our approach is better than their approach? >> it's a softball. in terms -- >> in terms of ultimately getting what the airline industry and what air travelers need, is it better approach to make sure they stakeholders are equipped first or is it better that we do what we need to be doing on the part of ground installations, et cetera? >> well, ground installation is done. >> which one is better. >> that's a third of the equation. >> right. >> we still have long way to go. >> the training and other implementation. >> the stakeholder --

>> so is our process or europe's process better? i need you on the record to tell me which one is better. >> let's see. we're going to make ours work, and it's going to be done right. >> so, is ours better? >> for now, for us, we have to take into account our stakeholders do. >> sounds look you're returning for office. that's a political answer. >> i'm trying to avoid any kind of policy input because i know that's the committee -- >> i'm asking you for that. i'm asking you a direct question. >> uh-huh. >> it would be better we get rid of the process we're having and adopt theirs? okay. >> by process are you referring -- >> where their emphasis is more on the stakeholders. i assume your answer is no. >> no, we have to have an emphasis on stakeholders. >> all right. i'll yesterday back. >> thank you, mr. made dough -- meadows.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. i want to first ask mr. calio and mr. baker who talking about the issue of astb incentives for installation of those. let me ask specifically two things. would financial incentives be enough or -- and/or should there be a bet year of best equipped, best served policy that the faa uses? what are your thoughts on those? >> from our perspective at airlines for america the best incentive would be to provide equipment ask a process by which we can employ the equipment and see a return on investment, that there -- the cost would not outweigh any benefits. >> nothing more specific than that. okay, mr. baker. i understand that -- >> we don't need a loan guarantee to invest in a equipment. if we know the equipment is

going to be -- is going to work and that we can use it and get our passengers to their destinations faster and more efficiently and safer than we do now. >> okay. mr. baker. >> for the general aviation marketplace we're open to anything that helps lower the cost. the general aviation marketplace has been under siege for years and years, driving 40-year-old aircraft. if there's a way to look at other choices between a portable device, financial instance senttive, anything that helps lower the cost for general aviation want to consider. >> what are the thoughts on the best equipment, best served policy? >> well, the faa is not doing the best serve. we are still on the first come first served. obviously we're not going to put a sees nat flying at 110 notes knots in front of an airbus 380 doing 170 on approach. we'll move the cessna out of the way because it's safe and orderly.

best equipped-best served, would work. the problem really comes, congressman, is when it's mixed equipage, and if we dope have a high number of aircraft equipped, then we can have the greatest procedures in the world but have to reduce it to the lowest common denominator to continue to run a safe and efficient flow. >> i want to move on to another issue that maybe you to know midway airport is in my strict and suffered from thousands of cancelled flights after the fire at the center. mr. renaldi, like to express my texas for the hard work and protection for what was done and the work you put into keep are our system running and get the aurora facility back online. i know it's a 24/7 operation and years of work were completed in less than a month, and i commend the collaborative, innovative and diligent effort that was undertaken to remedy and manage

the situation. mr. renaldi, understand they worked collaboratively in working groups to identify recommendations to keep systems online but there is still a fix on fail strategy in place. i'm interested to learn about the collaborative efforts-what recommendations have been made and whether you believe the recommendations will be adopted and will final, will nextgen mitigate emergencies in the future? >> we're excited to participate in with the panel with the faa and a stakeholders. it's still in its infancy statement. we put it altogether and now it's in the process of the review to go to the department of transportation at this time. >> and additionally, looking specifically at the -- i know the igy is still looking the security protocol at the chicago facilities but i'm interested to learn what we need do for the system as a hole.

for example, the fire sprung system in aurora used water to put out the fire, and while that worked to put out the fire, i'm wondering whether there's a need to look to alternative suppression systems that could effectively handle fires and save lives without compromising the equipment. are there other fixes that can be made, if you have any answer on that one? >> i believe the security panel on which we also participated its looking at all options, and they're making a recommendation and following them up. >> we'll be looking at what the agency's current plans are and what they intend to proceed with. so i can't say at this point. give you a definitive answer but it's clearly a significant concern of the agency, along with the safe integration of uaf

into the air space, this will have huge ramifications for the faa. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. -- i think all the members have questioned -- i just want to thank the -- oops. i always fear forget you, davis. i'll give you six minutes. >> well, thank you. you sit in the chair, give the guy a break, and i said i wasn't going to give it back upout you see who actually gets the chair back and then he forgets me. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. i just used my extra minute, too, nick. but i do want to start with mr. calio and also mr. baker and mr. renaldi a chance to answer this. you touched on the edges of the five to six billion dollar nextgen investment that the gao reported but there's little confidence, i think we have seen and heard through testimony,

among the stakeholder in faa's ability to implement nextgen. where is the disconnect and what return on investment is the taxpayer seeing from this process, and mr. calio, if you can expand a little bit more on what you have already talked about on that issue, i'd appreciate it. >> thank you. congressman davis, there are, as captain moak point i ode, there are benefits already been realize ned certain areas. we have put in place procedures where planessening get in quicker and take off faster. more clearly needs to be done, though. the return on investment will come, i think, when the -- we think when the procedures -- the business processes that captain moak referenced and governor engler addressed are put in place. our problem is the system currently as it's structured and operated does not have -- if you we -- the question came from -- i can't remember which member -- if you were making a capital expenditure as substance you

would like at your return on investment, your return on capitol, your process laid out over long term, you would approach it probably incrementally, which is not always happened with the faa. you need those business-like private sector decisions. that's not a general knock on government. just that we have not been doing that and we have seen the embrace of technologies too often that weren't ready, the standards set the wrong ways, and with very little input from the stakeholders most affected. >> thank you, mr. calio. >> we have to look at some successes we do have. although the faa and maybe even congress doesn't even want to talk about transforming our platforms, our in-route modernization platforms and terminal platforms. they're the chassises on which we attach the nextgen technology to. we're manging progress and should be done with eram in 2015

and terminal automation by 2018. you have those on and then start attacking the technology and the adsb and the information systems and start bringing them online. my frustration is that we're still the safest and most efficient and working very hard and very collaboratively to modernize the system and doing it piece-by-piece. we revamped the whole state of texas air space basically. we did what we call a -- optimizing the air space in houston, to huge success. the airlines are seeing benefits from it. opt timizeation of departures and arrivals. we now rolled out in north texas also. texas is a big state. it's a big air space and a lot of planes. so now we have a playbook. it's not a flip of the switch or

snap of the fingers. we have to continue the legacy system and run is as safe and efurniturely as possible while we're doing this. >> mr. baker. >> what we think about in general aviation, if it makes sense people adapt. we think 80 to 90% or using a gps to move around, whether portable or panel. people are starting to use the ipad and a way to get weather in cower cockpit. when there's a value and you can see you're gifting something significantly better to fly the aircraft with, people adapt. we're asking to look at that, what's the lowest possible cost. we're in favor of getting it where it makes sense. i if we can get weather ask traffic in the come wit we'll be better off. >> thank you. mr. scovel in your testimony you raise the issue of safely integrating uas into our air space. many advances economies from australia, canada, france, have successfully integrated small

uavs into their air space. canada permitted 1700 approvals to the faa's seven. shows the risk-based small uas rules that actually -- we need to unlock when i think could be rapid job creation, and the faa partners with foreign agencies in countless ways. has the faa reviewed other country's actions on small uas and leveraged those best practices in preparing the small uas rules. >> my office has donwork on faa's efforts to safely integrate uass into our air space. i don't know whether we have looked at faa's review of other nations' proceed ears and practices. i'd be happy to get back to you on that. >> would you please. my district is rural and we need to make sure we have some idea of what type of possible commercial expansion in uas

technology we can utilize. when you look 15900 commercial approvals in canada versus seven here, there might be something to leadership in what they have seen and integrate into their air space. thank you for your responses, and i yield back. >> thank you, gentlemen, and my apologies for overlooking him. i'll never do that again. i want to thank everybody, especially our panelist, for being here today. final word is -- let me start off by saying that i believe administratorrer administer whorta has done some positive things adult if you good back 30 years, every administrator will say that person did some positive things but when i look around these five chairman on these walls here, all for the last 25 years worked to pass legislation too reform to change, the faa, and

you look back to '92, the governor blyly who wrote a report, 25 years ago. if you read the report we're talking about the same stuff. and so i think we have an opportunity here to do something different. the process doesn't work the way it should. we get a little bit here and a little bit there. the funding is not there if you think congress in this environment we're in today with the deficits and the debt we have is going to be able to fix this, we're north going to be able to. so we need to look at something different, not only from the process standpoint but from the funding standpoint, new way forward and we have to do it together, and right here is the core group of folks that you represent, that we have to sit down and figure out together april. note going to be peter defastow and i saying this what we are going to do. i you look, president clinton and president bush hashed it in

the back room and then were slaughtered thon fee floor in the senate or hawse because the didn't birching the stakeholders to at the table. i believe there's a way forward and not everybody will get everything they want but i think we can get something that is going to improve the system significantly, that's going to give us -- today we have the safest. we need the most efficient. if we deposit do something now -- don't do something now we'll continue to lose our lead in the world when it comes to aviation, and you look back through history and strewn with, when america didn't step up and do what is right, get out of the way of business, we last many, many industries. so, again, on my watch i don't want that to happen, and i'm going to continue 0 to work with are in defazio, members on both sides of the aisle and you, the stakeholders to craft something. september is the date of the -- the due date so we need to strap on our helmets and go to work and figure out how to do this. thank you for being here. i was a great meeting.

i appreciate it greatly. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> public. >> her answer was no. >> thank you marx speak are, and i thank my good friend -- >> just a to my good friend from wisconsin that was part of the story. >> i thank my good friend from california. >> the domestic prosperity and globe freedom hack sponsor bid my good friend cory gardner from

colorado. >> that has british lineage, comes from parliament, if the house of commons say something similar. the right honorable gentleman which is a thinly veiled approach to being polite to somebody you don't care for. at least in the house of represent thrives are there 435 members, a lot of these men and women don't know who each other are when they're saying, my good friend. it's disingenuous to use. another phrase, in the senate, there's only 100, they probably know each other. might not like each other anymore but there's a better chance of them being at least acquaint tenses -- acquaintances if not actually good friend. >> david mark on the world of political terminology, sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q & a. >> the senate voted 59-41 on the keystone xl pipeline bill, failing to get the 60 votes

needed for passage. 14 democrats joined all 45 republicans voting for the bill. one democrat voting for the bill was louisiana senator mary landrieu who faces a runoff election on december 6th. shortly after the vote she held a news conference to discuss the pipeline bill. after senator landrieu, we hear from republicans john hoeven and mitch mcconnell. this is a half hour. >> so today, we vote on senate bill 2280, introduced by myself and senator landrieu. we actually have 54 sponsors on the legs so a total of 56 sponsors, bipartisan bill. that is the same bill that has been passed in the house of representatives. that was passed on friday. and same version, the prime sponsor in the house was senator

cassidy. as i say the bill we vote on today is -- excuse me -- representative cassidy. the bill we vote on today, senate bill 2280, is approval of the keystone xl pipeline. we have actually passed legislation on keystone xl pipeline before. there ises not the first bill. in 2012, we passed legislation that required the president to make a decision on the keystone xl pipeline. we attached it to the payroll tax holiday. at that time the president turned down the pipeline project. so here we are today, and we submitted a number of different pieces pieces of legislation, but this legislation today actually has congress approving the keystone xl pipeline. when the president turned down

the project we went back and did the research. and under the commerce clause of the constitution, congress has the authority to oversee commerce with foreign powers, other countries. so in this situation congress has the authority to approve the keystone xl pipeline crossing free border from canada into the united states and that what we craft fed in the legislation. so rather than the president making a national interests determination, which the seems to be unwilling to do -- i say that based on his actions. we have been at this for four years in this senate trying to get approval, but this project has been in the application process for six years. i was governor of north dakota can back in september of 2008, when the transcanada company applied for a permit to get approval to build the keystone xl pipeline. they already built the keystone

pipeline. so they were applying for approval to build the sister pipelining the key l pipeline. started actually working on this in 2011 here in this senate. passed legislation, trying to get the president to approve. it's not been -- i chart here with the timeline -- now been six years in the permitting process. so the time has come to act. the time has come to act and that's what this legislation is all about. it provides approval of the key stone xl pipeline so they can move forward and be constructed. well, we debated this issue, as i say, in this chamber, for almost four years. and so we have gone through all of the merits and we'll do that again today.

we have not only come to an agreement on getting a vote, but we have also come to agreement on the parameters for the debate. it's six hours of debate, three hours for the proponents, three hours for opponent. on the republican side of the aisle we're taking two hours slowly on the proponent side because all 45 republican senators are in support of the project and we'll be voting for the project and making the case for the project. on the majority side there will be three hours for opponents of the project making their case in an hour, for the proponents making their case and we'll alternate throughout the day. so, we'll be having this debate today and we'll make our case, and i'll continue with my colleagues to make the case for the pipeline. there will be members of the majority party that will make the case and some members of -- obvious through in opposition.

and so i reserve some of my time to speak later but the point i really want to make here at the outset is that this is really about the american people making the case. when you look at this project, it's about energy, it's about jobs, it's about economic growth, it creates tax revenue to help reduce the deficit and the debt. doesn't cost one penny of federal money or government money. it's privately funded. and it's about national security. it's about national security by helping us build energy security in this country with our closest friend and ally, canada. working together with canada so we don't have to get energy from venezuela or from the middle east or other parts of the world. we can produce it right here at home. and so that is not only a vitally important issue in terms of our economy, and being

competitive in a global economy, because energy is true lay foundational sector for all the other industry sector. when we have low-cost dependable energy we're more competitive as a country but it is a national security issue. i see the good senator from vermont is on the floor. he has a bill that deal with how we handle surveillance, covert information, given the terrorist threat we face and it's important we do that well. but one of the ways to truly strengthen our country is to make sure we're energy secure to make sure we don't have to get oil from the middle east. to help our friends and allies in europe so they're not dependent on russia for energy when putin engages in the kind of aggression he has. so when we talk about this energy issue, it's not just jobs. it's not just the energy we get

that makes us stronger in a competitive global economy. it really is a national security issue. and it's long past time to act. it's been six years. six years. so today we'll have that debate again, and i hope at the end of the day we'll have the 60 votes that we need. we'll fine out this evening when we vote. but again, it comes back to what do the american people want? we're here representing the american people. and overwhelmingly, in poll after poll, when they've been asked, 60% -- sometimes 70% or more, they say build the keystone xl pipeline. that's who we work for. and so i hope that today, at the end of the day, that's the work we'll get done for the person people. mr. president, i see my co-responsible the floor and i would turn to the good senator from last. >> thank you, mr. president.

>> the senator from louisiana. >> i thank the -- my cosponsor and lead sponsor on the bill, the former governor and good senator from north dakota, who has been a great leader and partner with me on this, as the american people have absolutely figured out, democrats can't do anything alone and neither can republicans. it's taken us a while to figure that out here in the senate, and in the house house of representatives but the american people figured this out a long time ago. just look they figure out practical things like how to keep the roof over their head, foot on the -- food on the table, keeping their kids moving forward. the american people are very, very, very smart and i trust them, always have, and i've been honored to represent the people of louisiana, 4.5 million people, and done my very best to represent them the time i'm here

and hope to continue for years to come. one of the things that they know that is not clear to people here is that it takes both parties working together, compromising, to get the job done for them. not for us. for them. and i think we forget that a lot. i think -- i'm in a lot of meetings around here where people kind of talk about what is good for the democratic caucus, what guess for the republican caucus, what is good for leader reid, what's good for leader mcconnell and it's kind of interesting to me because the family i grew up in was all about public service, not for ourselves but for the people we represent. so that why i'm on the floor today. that's why i've actually been on the floor dozens of times, on this bill, and bills similar to this. this is a keystone bill which i've supported with senator hoeven literally for years, and

in fact, i have a letter from 2011, with orrin hatch was the lead signer with me. senator mcconnell's signature wasn't on the letter. maybe he was busy and couldn't sign it but 15 of us sent a letter back in 2011, urging secretary of state hillary clinton -- this is how far back it guess, people can hardly remember she was secretary of state beau because now john kerris the secretary of state. but a long time ago, saying it was really important for us to get this pipeline built for any number of reasons. the main reason, the main reason, is it will signal a great sign that america understands that energy independence for our nation is possible for the first time ever, and when i mean energy independence, i mean energy

independence for the north american continent. we might, might, be able to do it in just the lower 48. we might. hawai'i can contribute some. alaska clearly can contribute a lot. so we might be able to do it in the 50 states. but i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that with our partners in canada, and mexico, this can be done, and north america can be the superenergy powerhouse 0 the planet. why is that important? there are so many reasons. i just want to name two, and then i'm going to sit down and re-engage in this debate because barbara boxer, the lead opponent on once -- has indicated her

time on the floor and i have more time later today. but one of the reasons this is so important is because what people in louisiana want, what people in texas want, what people in mississippi want, what people in new jersey want, what people in south dakota and illinois and kansas and vermont are good, paying jobs, and when a country or a constant -- continent, as blessed as we are, uses it resources wisely to create wealth, not just for those at the top, which is what is happening right now, just at the top, the people at the top are doing great. i mean, the restaurants, the fancy restaurant is walk by and sometimes i'm actually in them myself. people are drinking champagne and they're buying new cars and i see mercedes and people see that, but the people in the middle class in this country are

really struggling, and so our job here as leaders is to have our eyes on them providing for them, and these energy jobs are not minimum wage jobs. they're not even $15 an hour jobs. they're not even $30 an hour jobs. they're $45 an hour jobs. our labor, men and women, who represent the middle class, some unionized, some not, but all hard working. i'm going to say that again. some unionized and insome not but all hard working. how would we know? because i've stood in line with them at 4:00 in the morning or 5:00 at a shift change and done that a lot lately. i've felt their hands. i know how cold they are in the morning and how rough they are because they work all day. they would expect us to work longer than we do here because we have real short weeks, tuesday through thursday. we take long run hours, long

weekends. most americans think we have completely lost it. because they work hard, from morning until night. their hands are tough. and they expect to us stand up for them. that's why i'm standing here. so i've been fighting for this because of energy independence for america. i would know something about that because texas and louisiana, oklahoma, our area of the country, we are proud producers of energy. we produce mostly oil, mostly gas, a little bit of coal, we generate a lot, and just fyi to everybody that thinks this pipeline is the end of the world, we already have 2.6 million miles of pipe in america. 2.6 million miles of pipe. we're only completing basically a thousand miles. what is everybody upset about? we have been building pipelines in this country for a long,

longtime, and need to build this one. it's about energy independence-about jobs. that's why i'm here. this is what the people want and i'm going to close with this. for the 25th time at least, i want to say this because i want the record of the congress to reflect this because it is the truth. whether people acknowledge it or not. the record of this congress will reflect this to be the truth. that some of us, not just me, some of us have worked to get this bill to the floor for years, and it was blocked by both majority leader harry reid and minority leader mitch mcconnell, for their own political reasons. those reasons cleared up after the election. it just cleared up. mitch mcconnell constant bring this animal under without allowing a vote on the epa coal

regulation, barbara boxer knows this, this the truth, and she wouldn't allow the vote because she is adamantly opposed to having a vote on epa. i respect that i respect here and everyone knows this is the truth. harry reid didn't want the vote to come up because there are one or two members of the caucus they had a serious issue with this being voted on. so, i knew that, and as a part of the team and i try to be part of the team but i'm independent, i knew that the results of the election with senator mcconnell winning and some senators unfortunately, my dearest friends, losing, but we had an opportunity, and i took that opportunity. i called for this vote. not harry reid. not mitch mcconnell. i called for it and i thick it's worth fighting for, and i'm telling you, the last thing i want to say, thanksgiving is coming up, and christmas is

coming up, and it's a shame that this congress has not delivered more in the last five or six years for the middle class. we say we try, i'm not sure we're trying hard enough. so, i'm going to lead by example. it's the way i was raised. we're going to really try today. one of the first debates i've been in, in eight years, at least, where the outcome is uncertain because all the rest of the stuff we do here is preset, preordained and it's like theater for the american people. we usually know the outcome of the vote before we take it because the deals are all cut. so, i brought this bill to the floor, knowing in my heart, that we have 60 votes. i sure hoch we have the courage that supports that. i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> senator from california. >> thank you so much. i'll be controlling the time of

the opposition, very strong opposition to this, and before i yield, the first debater on our side will be senator -- i'm very honored he will be. let me just say before senator landrieu might leave the floor, senator landrieu is, is, the only reason that we are debating this today. so, anyone who wants to play games about this and name this bill the cassidy bill, which kind of is a joke because i believe i'm correct that he introduced it november 12th of this year and the lap drew bill was crow abused in mate. but let the record be clear forever this debate would not be before this body were it not for senator landrieu's insis steps. i want to be -- insistence. i want to be clear.

secondly, you're going to hear today, i think, a terrific debate, because the people who support this think not only that this is a good thing for the country to build the keystone xl pipeline, they think it is a great thing for this country. and i have great respect for them. on the other side, we have those of us who think it is not a good thing for this country. it is not a good thing for jobs. it is not a good thing for energy independence because it's going to be exported all that oil, and it's actually dangerous. in my case, i was thinking, what is xl stand for? they named it the keystone xl. i has no meanle but to me it's extra lethal. and my debate will show why as you analyze the tar sands oil that is going to be coming into this nation, 45% more than we have now, the risky business

that it has proven to be and what the health costs are for our people, and that is not me. that nurses and doctors saying so. and i haven't gotten into climate, and all the other issues. so, at this point i yield five manipulates -- minutes to my friend, senator leahy. >> mr. president, senator. >> senator from vermont. >> mr. president, know the distinguished senator from louisiana has the majority of votes in this body for the keystone pipeline, and that is a compliment to her hard work in getting them, a majority of votes. i will not be one of them as she knows, because i represent what is the view of my fellow constituents in vermont. we feel that this pipeline is, prior to the enqueenable thirst

for oil destroying our environment. we feel that construction is going to move forward unless and until we get a comprehensive national energy plan, and this pipeline won't lead us toward that. it leads us to an energy policy of the past. the tar sands requiring energy intensive process, complete live the pollution and harmful emissions to get them out of the ground to distract -- extract them so refine them. the fact that the first year of operation of the existing keystone pipeline, that was billed the safest pipeline in hoyt, was built just a few years ago in 2010, has spilled 12 times in its first year of operation. that more than any other pipeline in u.s. history. and the worrisome part is the tar sands are harder to clean

up. ask the communities along the kalamazoo river in michigan. cost more than 1 billion decide so far, so far, to clean up a tar sands spill in 2010. and more than four years late are it's still a mess. and land owners continually to wait for hope to restore their property. i realize this -- bypassing refineries in the met, heads straight for the coast so the oil can be used in export markets, pumped on ships, headed for china. that may be good news for the chinese. it's not good news to the american people who are stuck with the safety risks, the health challenges, future environmental disasters, and so forth. so, i will not be among the majority wholl vote for it today. and another matter, while i have

the floor, and i'd ask -- these brief remarks be as in morning business. >> without objection. >> are in president, -- mr. president, the distinguished republican leader spoke against the u.s.a. freedom act earlier this morning. unfortunately, he was too busy to respond to a couple simple questions. so, maybe i would -- even though he asked to, i would note that the disclosure, the fact that section 215 of the u.s.a. patriot act had been secretly interpreted for years to allow bulk collection of telephone records and unlike the comments made earlier there were no hearings on this, this came out every numerous congressional hearings, including six, six, public hearings, in the senate judiciary committee, at least two panels of independent

experts concluded the program has not been essential to keep tower country safe. we have wide bipartisan aagreement in both the senate and the house that bulk phone records collection program is not essential, it violate's america's privacy and has to end. our question is, whether -- not whether to end it but when and how. this legislation is the result of several months of intense discussions and deliberations with the intelligence community, stakeholders across the political and smoke spectrum, the unprecedented support of the director of national intelligences, the attorney general, american technology companies, privacy and civil liberty groups, ranging from the aclu and ff to nra and tech freedom and at the director and

nsa and all parts of the political spectrum support it. so let's get it done now. when it can be done, and i'd ask the both my statements today, my full statement, be made part of the record, and i ask also that consent to several letters, editorials in support of the u.s.a. freedom act of 2014 be printed in the record. >> without objection. >> i yield the floor. i see distinguished senator from california for giving me this time. [inaudible question] [inaudible conversations]

>> the senator from california. >> mr. president, i thank the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee for his remarks. they mean a lot. and i want to put this vote into perspective. this is a major decision. people sometimes say, oh, what this big school in it's also pipeline. we have built pipeline all the time. well, it's a major decision. and i know that each of us, regardless of our party, before we cast the major vote, we think, is our vote going to make life better for our people that we represent, the people who send us here, who count on us every day? and i'm going to do everything in my power to make the case that building the keystone xl tar sands pipeline is going to make life worse for the people we represent, and those

generations to follow. because i think i will prove to you today that misery follows the tar sands. i said before, it's called keystone xl. extra lethal. not extra large but extra lethal. senators should ask themselves three questions. before they cast their vote on the hoeven landrieu bill. ... make any sense for the senate to force the priewfl of a -- the approval of a project that will bring millions of brs of the dirtiest -- millions of barrels of the dirtiest pollution you can think of into america? why do we want to bring barrels of filthy, dangerous, dirty pollution into america? this isn't an ordinary pipeline. this pipeline is carrying tar

sands oil, which is in fact the most polluted kind of oil. and i'm going to tell you why. this isn't hyperbole. tar sands oil contains levels of toxic pollutants and metals that are much higher than conventional crude oil. and i want to make this case. president obama said, when he president obama said, when he >> president obama said that wew need to do everything we can tou in make this energy independent. and we have seen a tremendous rise in domestic oil productiont it is not filthy oil. is conventional crude oil is different than tar sands. they have 11 times more sulfate senecal, six times more nitrogen

and five times more lead. and so let me say that again. before we invite this increase, let's take a look at what this says.n it has more soulful and try andw psalter and nickel and lead. i know my colleagues who are sitting here care deeply about environmental justice and in the course of my presentation i'm going to shows what happens in n places like port arthur, texas, in minority communities when this oil is refined, and we cant show that photograph now. and what i'm trying to impressng upon the body today is that i am proving the point that i'm making and the facts are the l facts are the facts. this is what it looks like.

this is what it looks like an to order, in port arthur, texas. in here it is in the low incomelea, community and i have an activiss same please, protect us. protect us from this and now these dangerous met pollutants can be very harmful to human health. sulfur dioxide penetrates into parts of the lungs and it causes respiratory disease such a emphysema. you will not hear a word about o that.t t but this needs to behi looked ao in that way we can say timeout

for many here, what are we doing with those who said we would help. and it aggravates heart disease and leads to increase emissions -nd premature death. and i asked the kids how many of you have asthma and how many of you know someone who has asthmar mr. president, almost half the class raised their hand if not more.ngerous ld and so tar sands will exacerbate that process. we know that the lead is dangerous and it's taken us a smg, time to get this out of it. and adversely affects the immune system and the cardiovascula system following tar sands tar exposure. he keystone pipeline -- we areo

talking about huge quantities coming through the pipeline. 800 30,000 barrels of tar sands oil coming across the communityn and heading down to the gulf coast region every single day. r again, a 45% increase in those heavy metals and the most dangerous pollutants. a and this could be just the beginning. t following this from th xttraction of the transportatioe to the refining to the waste disposal. let me show you a picture of this petroleum company. an environmental justice picture.hat because what we have, this is as what is left as it gets sent all

across the country. and this is a picture of it andc we believe it is in chicago. senator dickis durbin is going s talk more about this.e and this is a serious environmental hazard in a wind o storm blows around. being interrupted because this s was blowing all over the field. and the kids were getting pitchh black.s and and so yes, we have people who ode on each step of the processb

and these are cancer-causing illutants.pipelines,his so when someone says this is nothing, this is a pipeline,ing, it's nothing and no big deal. why are you fighting or standinn up here and why are you demanding three hours of time is opposition. well, because this is a dangerous project. so why should we vote was the approval of a project that will. bring this to the u.s.? we know that it is the most difficult type of oil to clean up in in case of a spell. and according to the epa, it chs creates especially difficult c challenge tole clean up becauset is so heavy that it sinks to the bottom of the water.haven' clead

you have only to look at this river in 2010, which they still haven't cleaned up. t and we will show you a picture from there. spill. this is what happened when itir, happened and residential communities. so again, 30, filthy oil in thee toughest to clean up in case ofs a spell and we know as sure as i'm standing here that that hape happens. and it has already happened in 2010 and in 2013. projected of the projected 800 30,000, t most of it isn't going to go tot

domestic use, and that is the other quesdition. why would you want to bring 30 tar sands oil into our country if all of this is going to be te exported? and we will have to bear th burden in our city as we see the product being exported to othere countries. now, i could stop your and the, proponents wish that i wouldu'rd not. because if you're not convinced that this is an enormous mistake, i have five reasons. a deeper look at the health ofir our people. pla i have already said that tar i'e

sands is the filthiest oil on the planet and i've are already told you that i've talked with nurses and doctors to make thist point. downwind from the extraction site and refineries,her significantly higher level is have been documented. living in a nearby communitiesry comm are suffering and i have met th. them and they flew down here tol call attention to the health impacts. people are suffering higher rates of cancer linked to toxicl chemicals including leukemia an. non-hodgkin'sis lymphoma. but these oil companies won'te c talk about it. about and my republican friends won't talk about it.t

but i'm going to talk about it.a and i'm going to enter into the record a university of california.r-review study the study documenting elevated cancer rates due to tar sands ac processing zones and this wa from december 2013 if i might pe places record. >> .is without objection. >> so once that this happened as it was exported to refineries, it would increase the air pollution that was r&b disturbing port arthur.in. which i will show you again. aly so it's already refining tar gog tnds oil. of this is going to greatlyand th increase this amount oflist of refinery. id this includes dangerous

ozone levels, people suffering from respiratory illness, skinir irritations andy cancer. now, the oil companies aren't going to tell you about this. and the coke others are quick to tell you about this in my republican friends are not going to tell you about this.'m going but i'm going to tell you abouts this. her sense will add another dist threat tore communities that are ardea in distress and i would ask unanimous consent to place into the record an article famis describing health problems experienced by families living near a port arthur refinery. it's entitled everyone deserves clean air and equal protection , from pollution dated august 12, 2014. >> without objection >> thank you. t

>> now to get to the gulf coast, it will be transported bycommund pipeline through communities in, environmentally sensitive areast in six states. we know by experience how awful this can be because of how hard it is to clean up after a spello and weut know about this which t contained some heavy metal. wase it began to appear at levels ins midwestern communities and conci sparked health and environmental concerns in many neighborhoods in detroit and chicago so let's take this and show thee chicago picture of that. so okay.d, and so in this neighborhood if

forced little league players off the baseball field and the pted children were forced to seekape, cover from the clouds of duste that helps at homes and cars.ret kids that were playing ball or i scared away because the dust was getting onto their eyes andou faces and mouths andth everythi. and they just had to get the tie heck out of there. so ird would like to enter into the record at this time anes article that says in chicago, how can it suggest the future sated november 18, 2013.lacehi man playset in the record as well? : without as objection.icer >> thank you.oss >> so when this started to blow, across the community, residents

felt that they could not opent o the windows during thepe summer for fear that this would trigger children's asthma and with good reason. we know this type of toxic air pollution can increase th number and severity of asthmay f attacks and cause or aggravate titus and contribute to otherhai diseases.a has asthma. the federal government has said that it haals become a national epidemic. and here is a picture of a little girl having a hard time breathing. and i say to my friends that i have another 15 minutes as for his information. is and so this is a photo of a bece little girl who is having asth a difficulty breathing because she has asthma.- the federal government has said that asthma has become amic, national epidemic, which affects

one out of every 12 people were 26 million americans and need 7 million of these are children. we don't need more asthma. an american communities don't need more of this. but my republican counterpart say they are going to talk toesn you about asthma. they are not saying what a great job they are doing preventing it. ultimately, the keystone pipeline should be based onay i whether the project is in the nationalca interest. so today i asked how her more i americans with asthma in the hetional interest?er t how are more americans with cancer in the national interest? how is it in the national interest when kids playing baseball have to duck and covero from dangerous illusion?

the health of our children and our families are at stake.and wh and we have a ravight to know hd this would affect our health.nda and unfortunately, we don't have all the information that we nee. to have. secre senator whitehouse and i wrote y to secretary john kerry asking for a comprehensive impact the across the nation. we don't have the study.ator now, again, senator whitehouse and i are not physicians in thes gallup poll found that 12 years in a row that this was the most trusted profession. okay? so the largest professionaly've nurses association, 185,000

strong, they join our call for a comprehensive call to action. we have the letters if i might put into the record. concur >> without objection. >> so made his concur with senator whitehouse that what is known today of what ising and associated is just a sampling and they believe thee bee consequences of the keystone xl have an substantially ignored and it needs to be addressed. the american public healthn thes association wrote the letter and i asked them to playset in the record as well and they say then same thing. but there is an increase invirol recognition that the environments in which people live and work and learn of a adn tremendous impact on their undef health.he the administration will certainly benefit by having a better understanding of howe hon this can impact of public healtl

and they go on to day that the full spectrum of health considerations are oftenoliciesa overlooked in this can lead to e policies and practices that are unnecessarily harmful to the publics health. maybe they know more than luck. doctors. don maybe they do. good luck. and we should listen to the doctors and nurses, just like should listen to those about climate change. i'm not a scientist. until listen to the scientists.e this is perplexing to me.e if you're not a scientist, theno be humble. not and if you're not a doctor, bet humble. infmation in the special interest but an

interest in giving us special a information that we should base our decision upon.vironment sluggy talk about the environment. and this pipeline is going to go through the aquifer. one of the largest underground sources of fresh water. cropld it provides water to farms inal eight states for a quarter of the nation's crop as well as invisible treating malls.into and that when this happens, it's the most difficult because it's so heavy. within well, there's 2537 wells within 1 mile of the proposed pipeline, including 39 public water supply wells and 20 private wells and if the pipeline were too weaker,

near the aquifer, it would peak leaf seeped into the sandy soil and contaminatees water's eyes n millions of people. spill and the party show new a spill in arkansas. a these things happen. tgic. now if it near any of these, it would be i will show you pictures of this to the pipeline. and in april a group of rancherd and farmers and leaders gathered in washington dc for a rally. they wanted to send a strong signal to congress that they fas want their way of life detected and they want to try to protect their land and ranches.eline w you're going to get some proponents of the keystone hi

pipeline will be a safe alternative to their shipment os oil.therwise experienced people have shown otherwise. local [inaudible] the local health department ordered the evacuation of 50oxil households, approximately 100 families were ordered not to drink the water. to and one resident living near the river had to abandon her home me because the stench made hernd sk dizzy and noxious and sick.as and another resident was quote " pregnant so she couldn't was breathe. he said my eyes were burning, me nose was burning, and you will s not hear this from the proponents. the michigan spill was the largest in history with more.

than four years and a billion later, it's not cleaned up. parts of the river were closed as oil was continue to beto y removed from the bottom of theo. river. and i talk to about arkansas ane residents were exposed to known carcinogens, dizziness, nausea,e respiratory problems, all classic symptoms. the there is a section of tar sandsy in the gulf region that is already experiencing problems that could result in anotherro pipeline spill. but you won't hear that from tha proponents. according to bloomberg business week, enhance the safety administration with a systemic with problem with substandard welds

on the pipeline and in fact during one week when it wasover being monitored, regulators found over 74% of the wells were flawed and are prepared. senator should pay attention to e,e facts. lif but its bills, it threatens their way of life. all you have to look to is the for evidence to see and now i'm going to talk about clients. i want to explain here that once we began transporting the dirty tar sands oil through the pipeline, it will unleash more pollution than harm our nation's effort to address the interest on a change.

but the state department says this will create at least 17% more carbon pollution thanared a domestic oil. the state department says o compared to average crude oil o burning the amount of this frome the keystone pipeline could add an additional 27.4 metric tons -- i'm sorry, 27.4 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year.ear and so that is a fact. you don't hear the proponents talk about that. alrdy the senator from hawaii knows what climate change is doing ton who i and i was in the states, i took it to her, i was at the conference that he was that.

and wthe know that we can't affd this. and if we allow this to happen,g we received the carbon pollution that you would get frommi adding 5.8 million new cars to the road or wiping this out from the first round of fuel economy to heavy-duty trucks. wiped out. and i believe that this is a fact that if we do this, we see the equivalent of eight new coal-fired plants. and that's the equivalent of what we would be getting their in terms of carbon pollution. every year. and in a august of 2014, a studa estimatedng the increase of oiln consumption would result up toon

110 metric tons of carbon tim pollution each year. that is four times the state department high-end estimate. and i said a coal fire plants. but this says it's 29., so mr. president, we have two estimates. one says it's the equivalent ofu this anddy another says it would be the equivalent of 29 new coan fire power plants here in the u.s. so think about that in yourhat s mind. and all you need to do is look at china to see what happenshist when you throw the environment under the bus. is is this the kind of world that we want to see for our kids? is this the future?

and this is not hyperbole. in this isa picture. when i was in china on a save fe fantastic trip one day it's sor, of peaked out and they said, a a isn't it a beautiful day? no, it wasn't a beautiful day at all.enviroental prot it was a semblance of a littleoy bit of sun. when why do you think people love the epa in our country wes matter it's because they know that this is america and you throw the environment under the bus, this is what it will lookas clke. and some of my clients say they don't want to act on climate. change. well, and they say that china is

building it, but the president just came back and the president did have an agreement with china to move forward because the this chinese people can't live like this either anymore.ubbl and the social unrest that is the big fear of beijing has a lot to do with this. wo and we've had a breakthrough agreement and would this be the time to improve this pipeline? i say that it is ridiculous timing. it's ridiculous. and i remember a time when saving the environment was j bipartisan. and i remember leaders and now s don't see one republican readyot to step forward and say it'sutin time to put a price on this and.

stop this pollution. my state has done it.just g my state has been great. just great.tion new jobs, and i will put information into the record on what. frowks gro and they said in order for crud, oil production to grow, the north american pipeline network must be expanded and so we know that this is just a start. and everyone can say what they"n want." i'm not a scientist, i don'tver know. over the past few months we havr seen everything from the hottes. august 2 the hottest october ony record and we've seen him in our state. we see in this in alaska and

toxic algae contaminating drinking water is wise because the water is getting hot. cal and the algae that couldn't survive survived in the warmerft water. so we see these calls every day. but instead we say no, i'm not d scientist. and no, i won't listen to them. in this project does the opposite. it makes matters worse. and so there's a lot of talk about how we need this to become energy independent. det me tell you something. we are going to see gas prices go up. ame

and it is not a win for americas. the oil will be the winners.w u. so you have to know u.s. gasoline demand is on the decline and economist david will continue to be through 2040. since 20 let in the u.s. has exported more gasoline and others bennett has others. so this would be as it moves is, forward. not american workers or families filling up at a gas the gas pump. the reality is that the keystone will increase the price americans pay for gas at the toy palm and its cheaper to buy thim in theid midwest today than it would be if the pipeline were broke and that's because they pe provided access to international markets that will increase the price that canadians can charge

for it.her ts now it's going to be pumped out, they can get higher pricesy and these prices are going to go up. it will happen here in america and it will drive up the price.. three separate studies have shown the keystone pipeline could raise prices by 20 to 40y cents because it would divert ee canadian oil where it's easier tolf export. that wo plant to process this crude that would be supplied for in the pipeline and provide other products for export. during a congressional hearing at the end of 2011, congressman ed markey, who is now a member of the environment committee,

asked if the company wouldp to commit to keeping the canadian oil products in the united states. so that this country realizes e all of the energy security benefits that your company has i promised. and i can't pronounce his name. but he said no, i can't do thats and so the head is not promising us. we know that.ndependenc so let me tell you how you get e energy independence. appropria and we have been doing that and you also utilize the sun and the wind and the geothermal and them cleane, energies of the future that when you embrace that clean energy, you are far more ahead when you don't have pollution

one refinery is expected to be l major customer for crude oil anr tt's show that picture here. because that refinery is in a trade zone, they can operate tax-free. in the first nine months of this year, they had the hoarded an income of 2.475 billion.sands ac and today you will hear frompele others that this will be shipped by rail even if the pipeline since it's very expensive to ship it by rail and the truth is that that is not a clear-cutandu case. and instead it produces that by rail and they are on the verge of an solvents and because of by the high transportation costs. t

so if you don't build the pipeline, you can ship it by rail and then they say we know it's not great. so now we just heard the operators say that it not a lott and i don't say that it's little to have this. i don't little that. but i can truly tell you that coming a from my state, and latr i will talk about this, we canly work that by the hundreds of thousands if you really embrace a clean energy economy. the materials needed for the pipeline, that is not a domestic film. the 2011 analysis found 50% or more will be manufactured outside of the united states. and so we need clean energy

policy as it is appropriate in a country where it is safe nucar especially if you can get to safe nuclear. the fact ofhi the matter is that this pipeline will bring us all across the t country. so let's look at the wind industry.su supporting those with over 50,000 full-time jobs and 20 that's 50,000 t full-time jobs . to 35 full-time jobs for the pipeline. come on. they employed 132,000 americanst and they got additional jobs since last year. not

this is the future and not communities that have to suffer with this. coke and not having this all thesthm. midwest and having kids get asthma. this it happened in 2013.ike, and so this is a lovely want the future to look like.e we want the air to be clean andh the water to beap clean. this is what happens when we explore our people who are astha telling us that they are havingg increased asthma attacks and respiratory disease.and they're

you will not hear a word about it from my colleagues read and they are going to make a jobs argument that it's flattering. w but we know climate change is st real, whether someone says it's true or not, we all all know that we are not a scientist. climate change is real. and unleashing this unleashes farmer and far more problems. you're going to hear things that are just not true. you're going to hear about all of these job, 35 trillion jobs. and the tens of thousands ins t cleanhe energy. you will hear that this is the pipeline greatest thing and that it's

better to transported byce thatd pipeline when in fact that is not a fact in evidence to do that because it's sohi expensiv. they are not going to talk to you about this bill. and we have a very important process to go through before tht pipeline is approved. this legislation derails thatros process and that process was established by an executive order and was updated by president george w. bush.rd, before this is made as toe prese whether this is going forward, the president must consult with experts in many federal agencies to determine whether thertment o pipeline is in the national interest. this includes the department of defense, department of homeland security and other agencies tha before a permit was granted.

the bill that is in front of usy short-circuits to the reveal. and it cuts off expert opinions of our military leaders and others in determining when the n pipeline is safe and is in the interest of the country.now we needs now. pu and we don't have the answers o. public health tar implications. i would say what ispp interestis is sometimes we gloss over the facts of this tramples statesoig rights.edings the right for citizens to say that they have essay concerning this and how about this fact.e o and heree you see it. these voices have to be heard.he 2 million people submitted comments on this project. in passing this bill now does not allow those comments to beyo given due consideration in our

country. so i'm really surprised given my colleagues who talk about locale viewpoints.de and they want to bypass all of this. because they have decided that they know better than many ofany those who have to live side by d side with the pipeline, and many of those that would have to breathe the air that their. breathing in port arthur, texas, right now. not one senator in this chamber lives next to a refinery that has filthy and dirty oil.ll me. and if i have not said something true, please correct the record and tell me and i will apologize. we don't live near refineries

here. who but a lot of kids who get asthma due. and if i told you that if wendae embrace the clean energy agenda, ou could create far more jobs and the are more healthy and save this minute. would you say yes? i think that you would. but oh, not in this chamber. they listen to a boil, the cokee others, these are the peoplehe that are not going to live nexto to port arthur. their grandchildren are going to live here. and they push aside all the issues about this filthy and dirty oil.d with the most dangerous and food

pollutants including this. cit i will tell you when you meet with the citizens in port kids,y arthur, and the activist, they say that we have had enough of this stuff.ry follows t we don't want anymore. keyone misery follows this process and that is why i call it the keystone extralegal pipeline. because the evidence is clear that the pipeline will be harmful and it will hurt the environment and it will worsen the impact on climate change and raise the price of gas. and i respected economists, and this is clearly an economist view.

and it is just plain dangerous because it will transfer or rc that's away. when so many concerns remain, id doesn't allow for the type of review that are community deserves.ote and i hope that my colleagues -h i see the handwriting on the wall. i reallycham do.he vot i esknow what happens in this is chamber. and i know that the votes willms eventually be there. this is an issue that impactses the health and safety of our mes families and planets.o f so if i have% of your time andas time again until the story, i will do it. if i didn't think it was important, i would do it.his and so i just hope that if we do

pass the pipeline to day that the president will veto the standard legislation. i feel so strongly that the way to a job reducing future is its embracing clean energy. yes, we will continue with the drilling here. an yes, we will have all of the above work safe to do. but we don't need a project that is so harmful to our families and to our communities.e near te i've talked talk to the people in canada the living your area and you won't hear that from myy friends.ead t but it's all in the record and n hope that they read this about the cancers that we are seeing around us to.nd of

and i don't want to see a trail of misery from one end of the w' country to another.ill, so i hope that we will vote no n on't this. it but if we can't stop it today, if we can't stop it today, then i hope the president will veto o this and tellry the story of why this should not be put upon thee american b people. one of the big shocks i had was meeting the americans who live around these refineries and h hearing from them what happened and hearing from those inith chicago who remember the story of these kids sitting around and getting ready to play baseball,

when all of this all over the k, midwest, it got on the kids, got on or close. when i and cahow can anyone believe tht this is what the future should n look like when i can show yourgd case after case, substantially by the numbers, that clean energy produces far more jobs -- far more jobs and will lead us n in the right direction in terms of our help area people don't t want to become like china.ike they don't look like that. and i come from a state where before the clean air act, and by the way, it was done by a, filty

republican president, thank you, richard nixon, you couldn't seeo it put in front of you.leaned it we cleaned it up. know we because we were fed up with thet polluters and we said we want tt work with you, let's do it in a clean manner. but do it in a safe manner. and the epa again came in there and clean up the air along with the local people and the state. with and we have rebounded in california with clean energy jobs leading the way. and our people can still see the sky. i am not going to go in this direction if i haveu to stand on my feet until it hurt. to and as you know, i have to wear heels because of very little. but i don't care. i'm not going to let us go this direction. no way. and so i hope that the presiden,

will veto it. and i hope that we can move cle towards a clean energy agenda that is really the future of this nation and i yield the floor and let reserve the remainder of the time. e,su >> webpages talk about this to all of my colleagues. i appreciate how it's a great la way for us torn learn ouru differences and try to find a ae middle. pretty i come from west virginia where the people are basically prettye common sense, if you will, and they look at something from thea standpoint of a trading partnere 35 statesd in the look at this s our favorite nation should tradw with, and we've been doing mored trading than ever will or and wg will continue to do so.

w d so ohow do we remain secure as g nation? world and if you look at what is goine on in the world today, maybe wht they will give you a picture ofe the facts of life. all want we all want to us use the use technology, and we all can in research and development to improve our technology and use the resources that the world has produced for us. tha with that being said, i don'tela look at this as being an export pipeline. even the state department withst environmental impact states thai it can be justified for any t significant time. in our and it could be used in our country, the united states of america. we by getting this from lessand reliable and sometimes hostile countries. let me read for you how much ois

do we rely upon? we should look at that. the 7.7 million barreldasy per , of crude oil imports, mind you we are getting 7.7 billion barrels per day in our country. be and i understand the pipelineut capacity would bring abouty use 870,000 barrels and that's the g capacity that they talked about. we are getting 7.7 billion euros per day. a and so when you look at that, or 3.5 million barrels per day, 45% comes from opec countries andr saudi arabia is our largest opef provider.t our 17% of the crude import total.'y but the biggest supply chainand used to be canada. we are afraid that this is

somehow going to tip the balance., let's look at solome of at somee countries that we get this from a daily basis. of course we talk about this being part of the countries. these are not the model citizens of how they treat the citizens in their country. and with that beingies said, the countries, that is we 1.57 million barrels per day. so yes, i'm looking at it from e that this is pou something that we shouldn't be. also we have been pulled it toward because of this. and i think we all agree on nato that. and this gives us a chance to be more secure as a nation and morl dependent on foreign oil, and that is what we are talking well

about and i think we all agree upon that as well. in west virginia, it just makes common sense. wouldn't you rather buy from your friends instead of your enemies instead in transit and o not those who are willing to do harm to your people? this make sense to most west. virginia is. we wouldn't be standing hereould having this debate right noweb t ood it been from a good senator and friend from louisiana.uisian it would not have come out.congs but i just appreciate so much senator mary landrieu bringing lis to the forefront today. whether we win or lose,esn't basically the american people we lose if we don't pass this piecf ur legislation. unsec we will be more portable, moreen insecure, more dependent than'so ever before. and it's one thing to live in a perfect world in utopia and some

of my colleagues have talked about that. i appreciate that. too there's a billion tons of coal in the world. world and that's fine. quit using it and you're not going to change the environment very much. and that is fine. done. 1200 new plants will be built around the world in the next for three or four years. so wouldn't it be better to have a different industry not just in america but around the world? il and that will be used here and markets w will dictate. the bottom line is that we're or doing this now. importe they're the largest exporter from our country. vote

so take a good hard look ator this, think before you vote wha today from our colleagues ofthes what weec are doing and what we are doing for the security of our nation. what wtread are doing for the bt trading partners that we have ever v had. a and this includes a very highlyo unstable condition and it takes more oil to move that than ever before. we the pipeline is by far the safest way to do that. so we can move it in the mostil, demanding way that we can as far as nature produces and we oil benefit by that in america, don't you think that they cank a

make it work here? t and i just looked at it from this standpoint. but enough is enough grade iloo, want to thank the senator for bringing this to the floor and . for having a very informative debate that we can move forward oth.erica we will be benefited and the security of the nation will benefit because of conflicts around the world and maybe we hl can use this to help other parts of the world without having toeo try to liberate from that standpoint. but i do not believe that weseee should be in parts ofen the wore because we have been chasing. i believe in having our own ability to work withis the bestr trading partner that we have, which is canada. benefiting the security of our nation. i look forward to this vote this afternoon or this evening when it comes. i will enjoy this and i look

forward to this today. with that, i yield the floor. >> thank you. we are addressing senate bill 2280 which will approve wou constructionld to transport this from canada to the gulf coast. the key consideration is whethey this ill contributes to global warming which is already damaging our role resources and our future economic prospects wd with profound consequences for families in america and around the world. and are there better ways to d create jobs? .. before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this lnd even a better land for our descendants than it is for