panels in order to provide it with the energy it needs to move forward. certainly something that we should look at long term. but i think over the next 20 years we're still going to need our carbon based fuels w that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. now the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzalez, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses. i'm going to agree with my colleague that if you're exporting fuels because it's refined product from obviously what we received from canada, exporting is good. balance of trade creates jobs and such. the real question then comes as to how you refine it. i just want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we attempted to make sure that we did it in a more cleaner fashion and more safe fashion and that they oppose this every step of the way. now we were able to get a bill out of the house that we never had been able to conclude that.

so i'm hoping that they recognize the necessity of safe and clean refining industry in this country and the way that we can accomplish and meet all of the demands of this country. general, again, thank you for your service, first of all. thank you for being here today. thank you, mr. thompson. it's good to hear from you. i understand what you're saying. i'm going to agree with you. this is my fear. i'm for keystone. i'm from texas. you know that i still believe in fossil fuel. the question is, how much longer will we still require a reliable source of fossil fuel in this country? i understand that many of the studies that are published come from the oil companies. and they'll tell you that we're going to have domestic dependence for some years to come and globally even for a longer period of time.

i share your fear that my support of keystone might simply expand the duration of the time that we may be still dependent. my position is we will be importing because we need it. and i'd rather get it from canada and mexico than anyone else for national security purposes. but that does not mean that we should not continue to aggressively view efficiency and conservation, renewables and alternatives. so i agree with you. there has to be a healthy balance to be able to to my colleagues on the other side of the fence. the problem is that you truly just have almost 100% dedication to fossil fuels. as much as i understand it, they have to be part of the fix. i'm going to give you a quote from john quigley, former secretary of pennsylvania department of concentration and natural resources in making reference to how we explore today for fossil fuels and such.

he says, we're burning the furniture to heat the house. and that's the caution. that's the cautionary tale. be realistic about our needs in the future. how we wean ourselves from the dependency on fossil fuel? everyone is going to tell that you exploration and refining of fossil fuels is a twilight industry. i'm here to tell that you it's a real long twilight. we can't afford to be caught without an adequate supply and be dependent on individuals, countries that will be in jeopardy and in a flux for years to come. i do agree with you. and i thank you again for your observation. mr. thompson, i do have a question about you. there are a lot of complaints about regulations and such in this country. about its onerous and overburdened. the greatest exercise the governmental regulation is eminent domain. you made reference to that.

so i want to know have you been approached by transcanada to negotiate anything regarding some possible use of your property? >> absolutely. >> can you tell me about that experience? >> yes. we were first notified verbally that they intended to use eminent domain if we didn't go along with the offer that they presented us for the use of our property. we definitely declined to do -- enter into any kind of an agreement with them. so they followed up with a written letter expressly stating that if we did not accept the terms of the agreement that they had sent to us that -- if we did not accept those terms within 30 days, that they would then immediately proceed to take our

land through eminent domain. and my problem with that, sir, they were still in the permitting process at this time. and, yet, they are threatening me with imminent dodomain. and they did this throughout the state of nebraska. i guarantee you, sir, many, many of the easements that land owners signed was due to the fact that transcanada told them, threatened them with imminent domain and there's not too many ranchers or ordinary citizens that are willing to take on a multibillion dollar corporation as we well know. >> keep us posted, mr. thompson. my time is up. i hate cutting you off. i thank you. i thank you, general. i yield back. >> i'm going to continue to defer on my questions. i'll recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you very much. first of all, general, i

appreciate your concerns about, you know, global and environmental issues. your concern about this pipeline and its short term and long term impact is very -- you know, what we want to talk about. do you feel that the construction of the alaskan pipeline in the '70s was detrimental to the national security? >> i think at that time that was the right thing to do. but different -- much different situation, of course. now the world has changed. and green house gases and climate change are all the things that are much more in the forefront than they were 40, 50 years ago when we contemplated the alaskan pipeline. >> general, do you think that the environment -- you know, the psychics of environmental reality and the reality of the political instability of places like the middle east have

changed dramatically since we -- congress voted on that pipeline? >> i'm not sure if i understand -- >> i'm just saying. again, do you believe that the psychics of environmental impact issues like climate change, issues like emissions toxic emissions and everything else and the situation that have historically been unstable in the middle east, do you think that there wasn't those issues weren't at least if not perceived weren't reality at that time also? >> no. i don't think that they were -- there was a developed as they are today. as apparent as they are today. i don't think we knew back then the impact of co 2 emissions. >> we didn't know. that's my point. we might not have known. the fact is that it was still there, wouldn't you agree?

>> i would concede to that point, yes. >> do you believe the use or -- and/or the development and expansion of the use of nuclear power is a contributing to the national security? or do you think that it is a detriment to the national security? >> i agree. i consider nuclear power to be clean energy. and i support its development. >> i appreciate you using that. one of the frustrations i have is renewable as if it's all clean. and deny clean energies across the line. as you know, the number one purchaser of nuclear reactors in this country is the united states government. and i appreciate that. do you believe that the mandated use of ethanol aids in the security of this country and its long-term environmental and economic and military stability?

>> not really. >>er in, you go along with those of us that address the issue in california that ethanol is not only a very expensive nonsustainable option but it's also polluting option that has relevanted issues that was not clarified when the mandate occurred here in washington? >> i would agree with that. >> even though those of us in california try to warn washington of this environmental and economic impact? >> i would agree with that. of course, i'm not an expert in this field. i'm talking about national security. >> i understand that. but you're getting back to the issue of how energy policy affects us. you would agree that giving ethanol all of the benefits and overwhelming majority of tax credits and lenders fuels and everything else and the options such as alglergies is stated purpose of national and energy independence? >> i would agree with that. >> i want to thank you very much for your testimony.

i appreciate that we approach the challenges. i would ask that the record show the general very clear about the fact that what some people perceived as being environmental damaging in washington may not be perceived about it general or myself of being not only damaging but absolutely essential for environmental and national security purposes. i appreciate you general. i yield back. >> the keystone pipeline would carry some of the dirtiest oil in the world right through the middle of our country. it is a double barrel threat to the environment pumping out millions of tons of global warming and risking oil spills into our groundwater. we have been repeatedly told that approving this pipeline

would lower gas prices and the profits would rise because it can charge more for keystone oil in the gulf than it does in the midwest. we have also been repeatedly told to get over our concerns because the oil coming through this pipeline would enable us to reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly middle eastern nations. but it turns out that these energy benefits may be a complete fiction. the keystone crude will be sent, say, they will reexport the refine fuels. they are also located in port arthur, texas, which is a designated foreign trade zone. this means that when these refineries reexport the keystone oil fuels they won't even have to pay u.s. taxes on those

exports. when you look at the iranians, i think that illustrates how critical it is that supply for the united states be north american. general, do you think this bill to legislate a permit for the keystone pipeline is guaranteed to reduce our dependence on oil transported through the straits of harmuz if we don't have some provision which insures that the oil stays here in the united

states. >> no. i do not believe i will the guarantee energy security. >> the american petroleum institute cited our relationship with canada in polls that find americans would prefer to import more oil from canada. under this bill, are there any guarantees that all of the friendly canadian oil that is sent through the pipeline will be sold here in the united states? >> no. i'm not aware of any guarantees that will happen. >> so what i'm hearing you saying is that there is a threat that they're extracting the oil from tar that there is a greater likelihood of dangerous warming. and the benefits, as the pipeline goes through our country are not certain in term of the oil staying here in our country. what is the benefit to the american people?

>> why is it a detriment? >> the detriment, because it keeps our addiction to oil. it makes it strategically and operationally vulnerable. >> mr. thompson, the route that transcanada propose wod have gone through nebraska's sandhills. even if a new proposed route would avoid the sandhills, won't it still go through the ogala section? >> we don't know whether they're proposing a new route. that's a problem. from what i've heard and what initial proposals they were talking about it would still cross it. >> what is the risk if that happens? if there's a spill? >> absolutely there's a risk if that happens. >> what would happen to the water table? >> well, if i could quickly explain. our water table is so high that pipeline would actually be

merged or submerged directly in the water in many places. >> wow. >> so if any type of leak, it's going to go into our wear the supply. >> wow. and what would the impact of that be? >> well, it could be from small to tremendous. i mean you got all kinds of small communities and like myself, i have livestock watering wells, i have irrigation wells that will be close to the pipeline. they become contaminated, that property is become virtually useless. >> and how do you feel about that in term of the impact it could have upon your life and the lives of all of the people in those smaller communities? >> well, you know, to put it bluntly, i'm angry as hell when people want to play political football games with my livelihood. >> well, we agree with you. we want nebraska, the university of nebraska to have a good football team. but we don't want oil companies to be make football games with people in nebraska. and we can see how their public health could really be in jeopardy.

>> i just think, you know, somewhere in this process we need to take a look at the people of america that actually going to be, you know, impacted by this thing. it's not about money and this and that. there are people's livelihoods at stake here and i mean thousands of us. and our resources. so that needs to enter the debate somewhere in the process. >> thank you for being here, general. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i now recognize myself for five minutes. and first thing i want to do is read from a memorandum from car mine defiglio whose assistant secretary for policy analysis at the u.s. department of energy. and in this memo, he specifically talks about the issue that mr. marquee raised and that is this oil coming from canada is going to be ended up exported out of the u.s. and i'm going to read this

verbat verbatim. he said this memorandum provides data and analysis about a number of issues. it concludes that refiners in the u.s. will likely consume additional canadian oil sands well in excess of what would be provided by the keystone xl pim line. it also concludes that exports of canadian oil stands from port arthur are highly unlikely. now, when youer that argument that as the president stated in his decision not to make a decision, he said that one of the reasons he was not going to make a decision was that he did not have sufficient information to make a decision. that congress did not give him enough time. well, as i have stated in my opening statement, this pipeline

is now under study for 40 months. in the fall of 2011, a supplemental draft and environmental impact statement was issued by the state department. after months of public hearings along the proposed route, the state department issued its final environmental impact statement. and in that final environmental impact statement, between two options, one of not building the pipeline versus, two, building the pipeline, they indicated that the preferred option is to build the pipeline as proposed. n now, a person on the outside not paying any attention to this -- everyone expected the state department is going to make its final decision sometime in the fall of 2011. and then all of a sudden

announce they said that they would seek a new route through the state of nebraska and undergo another round of studies that would not be complete until the first quarter of 2013. and that was the stated reason for president obama not making a decision was that -- because of this new route through nebraska. now, when some of the political leaders in nebraska realized their concerns were being used by the president to stop this project, they had a special session of the legislature was called. and a new law was passed to give the nebraska department of environmental quality the ability to cite and evaluate a new route for the pipeline within nebraska's borders in half the time frame that the state department envisioned.

so, taking that development into account, the keystone provision that was put into the temporary payroll tax cut payroll tax cut extension act allowed the president to approve the pipeline while the state of nebraska completed its environmental review. the final environmental impact statement that the state department issued in august 2011 was deemed satisfactory of all environmental requirements and no additional federal review should be required. because the route modification of this long pipeline in nebraska is not an interstate modification, there really was no federal role. since the rest of the pipeline route outside of nebraska and its evaluated environmental impact remained unchanged, there was really no reason for the white house or state department to believe that there's not

enough time to make the decision of the pipeline by february 21st. i simply wanted to talk about that, because when people hear the routes changed and that's why we don't have enough time, but there was a clear explanation of all of this. i think i clearly stated it. in concluding, i would just say general anderson we genuinely appreciate your being here. i would also like to thank you for your support and service to our country. mr. thompson, we appreciate your being here and speaking up on your personal issues on this issue. nebraska is in the big ten -- big twelve, right? we know they will continue to do well. we will keep the record open for 10 days for any additional

material that might want to be submitted. with that we'll conclude the hearing. thank you all very much for your assistance in helping us out. with that the hearing is concluded. ?o?o?óó

this weekend book tv and american history tv explore the history and literary culture of beaumont where the texas oil industry got its start. saturday beginning at noon eastern on book tv on c-span 2, book bazaar owner john roberts on beaumont's literary culture and the challenges of running an independent bookstore. also beaumont author on teddy roosevelt's year long post presidential expedition to africa and europe. and on american history teach on c-span3 sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern january 11th, 1901, the lucas gusher at spindle top hill

changed the economy of texas and helped usher in the petroleum age. with the oil came the rough next and with the rough next advice. tour the dixie hotel an infamous brothel. decades of gambling, prostitution and other crime thrived until a 1960 james commission crackdown. beaumont, texas, this weekend on c-span 2 and 3. >> by 2016, according to the imf the world's leading economy will be a dictatorship. if the imf you elect next november will be the last president of the united states to preside over the world's economy. >> columnist and author mark stein has published books his latest, "after america." he writes "the happy warner" column and is a frequent guest on rush limbaugh. live sunday on in-depth, your

chance to call, e-mail and tweet with your questions live at noon eastern on book tv on c-span 2. >> house oversight committee chair darrell issa repeated his threat to issue a contempt citation if the justice department doesn't hand over documents with the fast and furious investigation. testifying before the committee attorney general eric holder said he will not provide documents related to internal department deliberations. he also said prosecutions could begin as early as the end of march in the case of slain border agent terry. guns linked to the fast and furious were found at the crime scene where terry was killed in december 2010. fast and furious run out of phoenix. >> oversight committee mission exists for two misunderstand

ment -- fundamental principles. first, money spent, second, americans deserve an efficient government. our duty on the government oversight committee is to protect these rights of. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right onto know what they get from the government. our job is to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watch dogs, deliver the facts to the american people, and bring genuine reform to the beaurocracy. i'll now recognize myself for an opening statement. today we're joined by the attorney general of the united states over a matter this committee has invested over a year in research. in november 2009, fast and

furious opens. in december 2009, dea meets with etf and gives info on fast and furious targets, info that could well have ended the operation. on january 6th, 2010, fast and furious becomes, in fact, a joint exercise. on march 15th of 2010, the first federal wiretaps are issued in this case. december 15th of 2010 -- december 15th of 2010, brian terry is murdered with weapons found at the scene that came from fast and furious. on january 27th, senator grassley first asked department of justice about fast and furious and within days we are given a false statement of facts

denying that guns were ever allowed to walk. within days of that, we began to know that fast and furious was going to be difficult. that was more or less groundhog day a year ago. today is groundhog day again. this committee has lost its patience to wait longer. we will not wait until the next groundhog day to get answers for the american people and brian terry and others. on march 3rd, 2011, john dotson goes public. agent dotson is here today. he, too, deserves to have this nightmare of uncertainty, of having a temporary assignment, not being allowed to do the job for which he has dedicated his career put behind him. on october 11th, after months and months and months of this

committee trying to get further documentation we issued subpoenas for documents. we were told two things. first of all, they are difficult and time consuming to give us. yet, ten times as many documents were provided to the inspector general. more than three times as many people have been able to be interviewed by the ig, sorry mr. attorney general, by your inspector general. during that period of time, whistleblowers have consistently brought us additional information. that information allows us to glean more than most of the documents we received through discovery. the minority can say what they want and issue the opinions they want, the memos they want, they have been absent from this, and i'm disappointed for that. this is a legitimate requirement of this committee to get to the