for hours for things like poultry and fish. on the 50th anniversary in 2009, it provided families with an extra half pound of ground beef but that beef wasn't u.s. beef. it actually was sponsored by the venezuelan government. we have new opportunities here. today we have begun our path that i think is the right path. it's a positive step forward and increasing travel between the two countries will create new economic opportunities for american farmers and businesses and will help improve the quality of life of cubans. 11 million people is a big market for american goods and american jobs.

like the members of congress that have spoken today i long advocated for modernizing our relationship with cuba. i led a bipartisan bill to make it easier to finance exports to cuba. the bill is led in the house by ranking agriculture chair colin peterson. my home state of minnesota digs into exports while we export to cuba in 2o 13. with the president's action alone, the minnesota department of agriculture estimates that exports could increase by another $20 million. increasing agriculture exports and promoting normal commercial relations with cuba will ensure cubans can provide for their families. the growing community of cuban small farmers and co-ops need advice and assistance to aid in the large state-owned

enterprises to a more entrepreneurial system u.s. agriculture can develop a new generation of cuban agriculture. the success of this policy shift and the potential for openings does not hinge solely on the u.s. the government must take serious steps to reform politically and economically. we need to see substantial improvement in the cuban government's respect for democracy and human rights. it must free them and stop arbitrarily arresting people for political speech. it must take steps to liberalize the system if it truly help hopes to benefit from the growing interest in commerce with the united states. >> democrats and republicans support a common sense relationship between the u.s. and cuba. you heard that from them and you hear it for me. this is not a partisan issue.

members recognize and continuing along the same path with respect to cuba has not achieved objectives and heard americans by restricting travel and business opportunities abroad. even in the depths of the cold war, the attorney general who was one of fidel castro's opponent sought to rescind the travel ban noting that the band was inconsistent with traditional american liberties. i know that many of the colleagues have concerns about the shift in policy. i hope we can have a robust and substantive debate. congress must avoid obstructive actions like blocking the confirmation of an ambassador to cuba or the funding to activities. congress should conduct reasonable oversight to ensure that our policies are enhancing economic interests and expanded commerce and travel and our

political interests in cultivating new political interests in the country of cuba. 50 years of embargo and travel ban have not secured the interests. it is time to try a different approach. i thank all of you for being here today. i'm sure you are glad this is your last speech from someone on the hill. i look forward to the good changes that are starting to take place. i especially look forward to working with senator moran who got on the commerce committee. i have been there for a long time and i hope they will see action out of the committee in addition obviously foreign relations and the other committees dealing with the issues. i look forward to working with all of you to taking a practical approach that will be good for the people of cuba. good for the people of the united states and good for the people of minnesota. thank you very much. >> you hear words common sense and practical, but the senator

said this was the last speech from common on the hill. today, yes but not tomorrow. we will be hearing more and more from our representatives and senators on the hill about this policy. this is just the beginning. at this time we would like you all to just get a little comfortable. we are going to call the leaders up to make a few comments and we will then engage in an interactive q&a and we thank you for taking the time to come and hear us and let us tell our story. we do believe that the story will begin telling itself, but nevertheless i call my colleague paul johnson up for the industry leaders. >> time is short here. we will jump right in. >> betsy ward who is the president and the rice

federation. >> i'm going to quickly talk about rice and cuba. they are not theoretical. it's large and compelling. cuba is the second largest importer of rice in the americas. there was a time a long time ago that cuba was the number one export market. anyone visiting cuba knows that the rice is the main stay of their diet. present in nearly all cuban meals. the consumption is 200 pounds a year per capita. in the u.s. it's about 27 pounds a year. it can't be called a meal if it doesn't have rice. they grow skpris grow about 400,000 metric tons a year and they import 600,000 metric tons. they are with open trade and travel and they were the first u.s. commodity to reenter cuba

in 2001 at the trade fair and we continued to sponsor trade missions participated in forums here in cuba about eight times. 64 million was the top sales when the policy changed. our sales have fallen to zero starting in 2009. our loss has been vietnam's gain. they are the primary supplier of rice to cuba. we think it's a loss to the cuban people as well. they are forced to get a product that traveled 16,000 miles to get to them. less than 700 miles from havana to u.s. rice ports. we know they prefer u.s. rice. we traveled there and we were selling rice there. they learned that the rice had arrived, they would lineup for hours to get a chance to get some. the stores couldn't keep our rice on the shelves.

>> given the cuban preference for u.s. rice we can quickly disprice the lower quality asian rice and capture more than half of this market within five years once any and all restrictions are lifted. i'm thrilled to be here today and proud to be a member of the new coalition and be so many steps closer to free and unfair trade with cuba. thank you. >> alan tracy. >> thank you. in 1988 -- excuse me 1998 some of our associate members particularly in kansas in the wheat commission paid for a shipment that went to cuba and helped the millers use it.

they were ecstatic. it was just 20 tons of flour but the bakers used it so much more suited to there 100 gram roll that is a standard part of the diet well behind rice, but a standard part of the diet. they wanted to have it. they began exporting and in 2002, the donation had been to the care affiliate. once we began to make sales and we moved up to about half of that market. just under half from 2004 to 2008 and tapered off down to about in 2011. long-term, the prospects are that it should be about a million ton market. the import nearly that much plus

flour. just to put it into perspective we should be able to garner 80 to 90% of that market as we do for the rest of the caribbean. it's simply logical. they like the product. in today's dollar terms, that's about $250 million a year. to paraphrase year after year that adds up to real money. we recognize there is a lot of work to do but we welcome this first step to us and the real meaning of the step by the administration as it puts them in favor of fostering trade rather than frustrating it. we look forward to the lifting and changing and that caused the decline that the cubans got frustrated with having to deal with us and competitors and they found their way in there again.

that's again the first step. we long called for the elimination of the embargo including in the journal of commerce in 1999, i believe it was. we look forward to working with the coalition for producers and on behalf of the logical and sensible relations with the people of cuba. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. dale moore with the american farm bureau federation. >> thank you, karl. one of the things we have a lot of details about, we have honorable folks that talked about opening trade with cube and when we look at this, i don't think there is a farm organization or ag industry sector partner that hasn't had on their books for sometime the importance of lifting this embargo. we fight unilateral em pargos over so many different years and

this stuck around far too long. as my boss said when the president made this announcement he said do you have any idea where the talking points are on cuba? i had to admit this was not an issue that we had on the radar. this popped up and it was a pleasant surprise before christmas. it's something our farmers and ranchers appreciate the effort to get this process started. it's great to see them rolling to make this a reality on a broader sense. i can add a lot of points in the stories and i already have the one-minute signal out of the corner of my eyes. thank you very much. >> the president of the u.s. association, he is here representing the north american meat institute. >> we were told moving up here

to cut our speeches down to minute from four and trying to figure out the most important thing to say in one minute. it's difficult and it's all important. the meat and poultry industry one of the primary goals is to increase the economic prosperity of the cuban people. whey think people don't realize is how much of a benefit that will kreal for our own industry. the goal offers a direct benefits for the poultry producers especially as consumers seek to add higher values to their diets. one of the consumers have additional animal proteins with their additional income. cuba is a real market for u.s. poultry. despite existing financial burdens on the embargo, exporters have established a substantial foothold in the market. through october of last year,

they exported $128 million to cuba and we saw a high of $160 million in 2012. this is a real market for us already. but frankly these numbers could be better. finally we think it's important for our industry to see what's on the horizon with future gains. with the hospitality, the meat and poultry companies are why the growth industries with the high quality products and supplies they will need to service some of their premium foreign visitors that will be coming to the islands. this will have implications for the markets as well. especially if we receive european tourists or tourists from tpp countries that might be looking to u.s. meat and poultry for the first time. we want them to know if they are visiting, they are eating a or pork

tenter loin. >> last but not least, the president of cardinal americas. >> thank you and i will try to not confusion being the last key note speaker and i will keep my comments brief. earlier we heard them talking about being in havana for the discharge of u.s. and cuba. he was with karg il that sold that doern cuba. after initial success and sales in the early to mid-2,000s, we heard the business drop off from the u.s. going to cuba. the reason is we heard already that the united states agriculture does not compete on even footing. >> a year ago i had the opportunity to work in mexico. the producer of agriculture.

when mexico imports the commodities, they come to the united states into via ocean-bound vessels. in the last four years 95% of corn that mexico bought has come from u.s. farmers and the u.s. gulf. karg il has defenses in the dominican republic and over half of the corn that the dominican republic importeded has come from the u.s. sadly today they are not competitive selling corn to cuba. we are not competing on even footing. they are believing in and supporting open and free trade. that comes from 150 years of experience doing business in 67 countries and seeing the benefit they can bring to people's lives. >> around 20 years ago since then you have seen the free

trade for the business and for the customers and communities where we work and do business in vietnam. last year, completed work on building the 70th school for children in vietnam. sadly today, we don't have the opportunity to help communities and customers drive in cuba like other countries. this won't change without broader action. we are supportive of changes to the law to help u.s. agriculture compete into cuba. thank you. >> thank you. >> at this time this is that moment where we will open up for questions. so please feel free to state who you are and who you are affiliated with and make use of the knowledge of our industry leaders and we will go ahead and start with the first question. we have a roving mike as well.

are from fox business and all of you build on something they said and they pushed for changes to treasury regulations. do you get the sense that they can do more than it has done unilaterally or are we at the point where it really is up to congress to liberalize this? >> i know there a number of regulations that have been embraced for so long, they figured out for most of the strings in they can start pulling on. i'm an agriculture guy. my degree in animal science limits my ability and i would say that the president having made this decision and made this announcement, i figured he would push the envelope about as far as he can in hopes that it sparks action on the hill as it clearly has done.

>> i think they can do things administratively and is that establishing banking relationships was in his announcement. they don't have to go through the third bank. the payment right now as the cubans want to buy from us they have to pay for it before it leaves the united states and he can tweak that so that it's not paid until it gets to cuba. the issue for us and our ability to compete with the suppliers into the market is the availability of credit. that is something that i think congress will have to address. we can't offer them credit and they don't have a lot of cash to spend on the goods. that is a congressional action. >> i will add that regulations have the force of law and we have to comply and trade thrives on certainty.

we need to have that clarified for us as much effective and useful change as the administration can foster on its own. we hope that that happens. i don't think we are there yet. of course the far greater step is to allow the trade relations that allow all of the changes in the division towards both in our trait and hopefully eventually in the relationship. >> next question. >> sort of in a similar vain with the news service, do you expect how quickly the treasury will come out to regulations. the final regulation that will change things or do you expect them to propose a notice of change that could take a while before the actual change takes

place? >> we would expect they are moving swiftly and don't have answers on specific dates and the guess would be that they would allow for a comment period. the guess is that the plan is to move swiftly. next question? >> i encourage them to do an interim final to allow the time for comment and allow the change to be effective. you going to establish an on office to coordinate the activity or how will this be managed? >> this is the effort where the coalition has the offices. we meet when we can. essentially we are a coalition and we don't have an office. no bricks and mortar. that means we will be out there. any other questions?

>> yes. one other one. from the u.s. and cuba and trade and economic council suggested that one reason trade or sales to cuba have been so popular is they have been uncashed. some some cases they haven't paid on time. what are your views on that? >> i just add that will be up to the individual companies involved. we would seek to have the ability to offer terms more favorable than we had. it isn't half so much the credit of all the hoops that have to go through in order to open the line of credit they often have to go to a super eastern bank that opens a letter of credit in the united states that obviously they don't have to do that.

there restrictions on ships and ships themselves that call upon them and later calling it u.s. ports and those kinds of things that have increased the shipping costs. these are the kinds of things that we would like to see fixed. this is the step we don't expect to have the full trade relationship we saw overnight. it is a very important key step to be fostering rather than frustrating trade. >> the next question. >> amanda becker with reuters. in this comment president that might be occurring i wondered what the plans were and how accountively they will be committing the positions or information to let them know what you have at stake in this. >> yes, yes, and yes. and yes. we have already come to

establish different working groups and are working on solid recommendations. any other questions? okay. with that, let us thank you for your time and attention. we know time is limited here in washington and you have spent a good course of the afternoon with us. let me reiterate something i said at the start of this conversation which is 54 years of unilateral sanctions is an experiment that has gone on for way too long. we appreciate the comments of our leaders when they talk about common sense and being practical. our association is about common sense and being practical. it's about as the senator said the 11 million people 90 miles south of the coast. it is those 11 million people who deserve an opportunity to

move up the rungs of the poverty ladder. we don't believe we can do it without singular agricultural trade flows going south. through greater openness and normalization allows not only agriculture and other american businesses across manufacturing medical technology, et cetera, to take advantage of that opportunity in the market and to also help the cuban people begin to grow their incomes and enhance their standards of living. we are very much about a holistic approach and we will be using our voice with the u.s. congress which again we believe is for the most part bipartisan on this issue and in fact we do believe we have the majority of congress actually believing in this common sense approach. not only the majority but also the american people. the american people want a different approach with cuba and that's what the u.s. agriculture

coalition is offering. thank you very much and with that, we conclude our public launch.

>> earlier today, california senator boxer pictured here with leader nancy pelosi tweeted out she will not seek out reelection. the california democrat has been a senator since 1993 and before that she served five terms in the u.s. house. senator boxer chaired the ethics committee and leader pelosi was asked at the weekly news conference. >> she called me and i thought she wanted to have dipper tonight or something.

oh, my. her decision is an important one for her and her family. it's all personal and individual. senator boxer has been such a champion for the people of california and indeed for our entire country. i have always said of senator boxer, congresswoman, i came to congress senator boxer that she is -- this will sound like an oxymoron to you, but she is one of the most unselfish politicians i have ever known of. she has shared her ideas and shared the credit and tried to help people succeed with their ideas and reached across the aisle and across our glorious state. and her leaving will be a great loss to the congress of the united states. people of california and to our

country. i wish as she goes i assume she is not running, but will be here over the next two years and there will be recognition of the difference she has made for fairness in our economy and protection of our environment, respect for the men and women in uniform. she is really a great leader for the country. small in size and a giant in terms of her contribution to the country. i didn't know. all i had was a call from her, but i didn't want to keep you waiting. it's a real loss, i think. god bless her for her decision and wish her and stewart and their family well. thank you. my granddaughter just took her

grandson out for the 6th birthday. they were born a couple of months apart. we were close from a family standpoint. senator boxer had a shower for my daughter, christine four days ago, five days ago. that would be in six years and the next day her daughter nicole had the baby, sawyer. they are very close in age. our family celebrations have been together overtime whether it's weddings or babies or whatever. close personal friendship. of course i wish the best for her. it's a big loss for the country, but she knows her time table. thank you all very much. >> harry reid reacted with this

statement. barbara boxer is one of the finest public officials the state has seen. the efforts to combat climate change and ensure we have clean air and clean water will be remembered long past the retirement. >> up next, the senate resources committee marks up the keystone xl pipeline administration. the house takes up the keystone bill tomorrow and leaders in the house and the senate said after the november elections this would be one of the first bills they would consider and send over to the president who said he will veto it. alaska senator shares.

>> the meeting will come to order. >> the committee will come to order. it is good to be together for the first hearing of this 115th congress. i welcome our new members. it's good to see such great attendance and a packed house. my prediction for this new year is that energy will be a subject, an issue and an area that will draw great attention. it not only is important here in this congress, but it is important to our nation's economy. it's important on our nation's security and the issues that we will take up in this committee, issues that will be front and center moving forward. i am pleased that we have got an

opportunity today to talk about energy in a brought perspective, but recognizing that we have members that have other issues in front of them, other committees that they will go to i want to give you a brief outline in terms of how i would like to conduct the hearing this morning. i would like to lay a little bit of the ground work for where the committee will proceed in this congress. not going on too long, but giving you as committee members my focus, my perspective. obviously this is a business meeting, taking up the keystone pipeline and we need to process that. there have been a couple of amendments that have been presented by members. i want to make sure we have an opportunity to get through the

business portion of this meeting, but i also want to make clear to each of you that i want to extend the courtesy to you to make your statements and comments not only about the keystone xl peep line and the legislation before us but the committee itself and perhaps your interest with that. i just wanted to lay that out to you that i would like you to know that this is not an opportunity for me as your chairman to have the microphone and the senator but to each of you as well. with that said, i will tell you that i am extremely honored to be the second chairman for this standing committee. it is quite an honor and a privilege to me. i have been a member of this committee since i came to the

senate. it has been my number one priority when you come from a producing state like alaska that is understandable. it has also been an extraordinary student to come to embrace all aspects of the energy sector whether it be trying to figure out how we deal with nuclear waste and disposal issues and how we moved to a more efficient energy system how we work to build out our energy infrastructure and our grid security, how we deal with the issues of cyber security. there is so much that is included within this energy sector. it's not just the natural resources that we deal with. it is the other aspect of our portfolio here within this committee that sometimes people forget. the public lands piece is huge. particularly those of us in the west. the territories.

we have the senator from hawaii who came and i welcomed her but as someone from the other noncontiguous state, our territories get overlooked. this committee has jurisdiction and we will not forget them. i do again thank you for the opportunity to help direct our energy agenda for these next couple of years here. i look forward to working with senator cant well to have somebody who is our geographic neighbor so to speak with so much shared interest between the start states of washington and alaska. we have a lot to be working on collaboratively. i had a strong relationship with my friend and colleague from oregon and senator widen was chairing the committee and i think we set a good tone for

this committee in terms of how we build things. how we work to advance initiatives throughout the process. having said that as we embark on our first business meeting, our mark up i think it is a little unfortunate that we moved to mark up first. we didn't have the opportunity for the hearing that was scheduled yesterday. we had already laid that ground work. we had invited or agreed upon witnesses and circulated a background memo that i hope each of you had an opportunity to read and review. it was written by joint preparation for the hearing. we got the testimony from our witnesses and association from the pipeline. the labor's international union from north america. i submitted on the floor during

a colloquy yesterday the testimony from those three individuals that is part of the record. i will submit for this morning's committee record the testimony of each of those witnesses so that it does become part of that record. we are here today to consider and to report to the full senate an original bill to improve the keystone pipeline. the text of this bill is identical to the original bill that was reported by this committee last year on a bipartisan vote and it fell one vote short in the senate. it's fair to say the country, but also the world is watching the united states. to see if we are ready to lead as a global energy super power. i think we recognize and have

become. we argued in the eyes of many outside the country. an energy super power that respects its neighbors and the trade with the allies who build the infrastructure such as the pipeline. i think the congress is ready. ready to send this signal on a bipartisan manner in a way that is strong. the american people are ready. we continue to be blocked by this administration. there is already a veto threat out there. i don't think that threat should deter us from our initiative both as a committee and as a senate and really as a congress. this long-delayed keystone xl project is far from being the only energy-reled issue that demands our attention today. in my state of alaska, we have a considerable oil pipeline and

800 mile pipeline that has been around for 35 to 40 plus years and it is surrounded by literally billions of untapped oil on federal lands and out in the federal waters. we appeared to be butting heads with the federal government at every step and every turn, limiting our ability to bring on new production and what we have seen within that pipeline is that the flow and the through put declined dramatically and we are less than half full in that transaula of coursa pipeline and costing us jobs and threatens our state's budget and even prompted the "new york times" to write about the economic anxiety that afflicts alaska. this is not just alaskans thinking we have troubling issues. it is being recognized by others outside as well. you all know, those of you who

worked with me for a period of time, i'm passionate about alaska and passionate about my state. alaska will not be my only priority. having said that, i will be working hard with each of you to remind you all that we are an arctic nation because of alaska. what that means to you whether you necessary maine and i welcome my friend and colleague senator king with his interest on the arctic issues and the ranking member also has a keen interest in how to build out the arctic opportunities. i think you should expect the committee to devote much of january and february on hearings over a wide variety of issues. one thing to expect next week will be a notice for a legislative hearing to be held probably closer to the end of the month and this will be on senator brasso's bipartisan

export legislation. that is clearly an issue that is timely and has been teed up. other topics for hearings include electric grid innovation. this is something we have discussed at great length and something that senator alexander has been working on with a small group of us. authorizers and our new member senator cassidy and we will continue to work on the work that landrieu has done for years there. the administration's energy review to something that has been of interest to many of us. critical minerals and the oversight hearings and we will be holding the budget hearings

to consider the president's request. i want us to get back to the practice where we bring in the secretary of energy and i have been asked as i wandered here through the past few days i don't think it's any secret secret. they probably should have called in, but it does outline my philosophy and it's pretty simple. energy is good. energy is good. it's vital to prepare and

teaching that energy abundant and clean, diverse, and secure. so there is no acronym but it is arranged alphabetically. you can remember that. i do think that we should be confident as a committee and as a congress that we can make progress towards these goals by further strengthening supply and modernizing infrastructure and supporting efficiency yensy and ensuring accountability. these four areas will form the basis of an energy bill that i am hopeful they will be able to consider. to that end, i will be sitting down with each and every one of you to understand your priorities for legislation both within these four degrees and within our committee's

jurisdiction and your interest. based on that feedback i intend to assemble a mark for each of the four titles and those will be the subject of hearings considered amended and voted on by the committee. this will take work from each and every one of us. we will take good focus and energy in these months ahead so that towards the end of this spring, we are prepared to actually move on a work product. this is an aggressive schedule, but it's very, very achievable. as we move ahead, i'm optimistic we will find common ground and find that common ground as a starting point, we know there will be areas we will be butting heads on. that's why we engage in negotiation and we conduct votes

and have a process here. we carry out all the institutional functions that are expected of us as a legislative body. we have a multitask and will note for the record that it's two women that are leading this committee. i am not going to say that women are better at multitasking than men, but most with women i know are better at multitasking than men. when you think about the committee, it's more than energy and minerals and we have the public lands and water and forestry and grazing hunting and territories and other issues and all of them command our attention. just a couple of quick examples as they relate to those forest land management reform, we left that on the table in the last congress. we have to get back to work on it.

there is bipartisan agreement that we have to improve the management of our forests and that includes getting the timber harvest up something that the senator clearly let on. we have to get a handle on the wildfire problem. we know we don't want to be waiting for the next wildfire. we have to protect our water supplies. really work to sustain our rural communities. although there may be a need for some place-based solutions, we need nationwide forestry reform legislation. that's another area that i talked with many of you about. we didn't extend it so the communities and our schools that are dependent and watching us closely. we have to do right by them. we have to finld the responsible fixes. point that i would be remiss if i didn't mention after our work on the defense authorization bill, this is national park reform. something that senator col burn

really did some serious review of our national parks. as you know, our park system will be celebrating the centennial anniversary next year and this is a pretty historic anniversary to celebrate and we need to recognize this is an agency that is struggling with multiple systemic issues. this would be a good time for us to focus on this and sense national parks reform legislation to the president. throughout all of this, i intend to uphold the reputation of this committee that through history has done some very good things. good for the congress and the country and working in a very collaborative member. our ranking members agree that there good opportunities for us

to be engaging in productive work product that will make a difference for the long-term. i want to ensure that each of you feels that you have shared weight and responsibility as we address the energy issues. i can promise you i will never have as long of an opening statement i have just given this morning, but i felt it important to lay out some of where i believe the committee is headed in the next couple of years and with that, i am pleased to turn to my ranking member senator can't well for her comments. >> thank you madam chair and congratulations on your new chairmanship. this is the second time i called the chair of the committee and i am sure that your father is proud at this moment and i'm sure all alaskans are happy at the out come of your taking over

this committee. we recognize that special moment for all of them. i look forward to working with you on this , i, too want to welcome the new members of the committee on our side. senator warren, senator king and senator honoro on obviously different parts of the united states. i'm certainly going to count on senator warren's help to continue to allow them to police energy markets with senator king on the issues of bio mass and his keen interests in making sure that we continue to have a leadership role in keeping energy prices down in his region of the world by looking at biomass alternatives. and senator horono as you

mentioned has a keen interest with hawaii and the sources given the dependence they have and the electricity grid that they have on the bioed if ed ifbiofuels that they have. i look forwarded to working with senators dans, cassidy and i want to express my feelings of prayers to the senator for the loss of her father. i know she wouldn't be with us today. so, i so appreciate what you had to say about the energy agenda moving forward for the committee. we certainly will look forward as you said, there's a lot that washington and alaska have in common. everything from sustainable fisheries from the interest in the arctic to our public lands to hydropower. so, i actually think i read somewhere that your father was born in seattle and migrated.

the states are interconnected with economies is really a very big understatement because there are years and years and decades of interdependence of regions. hopefully, the policy that we'll be able to put forward will represent the interests of the country but the entire region and i propose ideas because of that, clean energy solutions that do two things. help the united states establish a leadership position in energy issues and protects consumers from unnecessary energy price spikes. so you mentioned a lot of those things as a very -- you know a broad range of issues that we will be addressing, and i look forward to working with you on those. obviously, needs to say, this week did not go exactly as we would like. i apologize to our colleagues for the changes and the nortshort

notice. i hope we will regain regular order this is something that we know is important for our congress to move forward. we're here today to discuss whether congress to prematurely enter intervene in the pipeline setting process. the keystone proposal has changed substantively over the years and has an updated route through nebraska. this has been much debated topic here at this committee and it's been a much debated topic in local government, state governments and now state courts. i think it's much debated for good reason. if the u.s. company would have to decide on a pipeline, it would have to go through local laws and a foreign business should do the sale. all of the same happened when canada's first proposal went

through an aquifer and most of the state rejected. the pipeline going 108,000 miles through the areas like nebraska this region has some of the richest agricultural lands in the country and the aquifer supplies fresh drinking water to eight states and 30% of ground water for irrigation. that's why transcanada corporation had to revise its original route. this knew route through nebraska is now also being challenged because the nebraska legislature gave their governor the authority to cite the pipeline over the. you interest regulatory commission in the state, the nebraska public service corporation. so that is the state agency. that is dedicated to protecting the public interest. not special interests. the public interest, on issues of safety environment and imminent domain. so now the nebraska supreme

court is set for decide whether this currently proposed route through nebraska will stand depending on their interpretation of whether the legislature and the governor acted according to their constitution. so. we want to place the blame today about a slow process we should start thinking right away about transcanada's conversation and what their proposal should have been in the first place. if congress had tried to prematurely decided what is at stake in the pipeline which is what congress would have done before, then we would have approved the sandhill pipeline route. so i think what we need to realize what is the emergency here for congress to usurp the congress and become a citing committee for and approve a pipeline for a route that is not yet approved. there are many issues to consider before giving a foreign

company a special interest a sweetheart deal. my message to transcanada corporation is to play by the rules. my colleague from michigan knows well that we don't know how to clean up tar sands oil spills in water. and in her state in 2010 the tar sand spilled in what is being called the biggest inland oil spill in u.s. history. a pipeline owned by a different canadian company ruptured and spilled 800,000 gallons of tear sands into the kalamazoo river. in that spill, the inbridge found that tar sand sank to the bottom of the river, and the only way to clean it up was to dredge the river. and the cost of that cleanup was $1.2 billion. so the bill in front of us, would put the aquifer as i mentioned all of the available aquifer, at risk, the same thing

that cal ma zikalamazoo went through. and the canadian corporation behind it wouldn't have to pay a penny as part of the american spill trust fund. that's because currently there's a loophole in our law that say that tar sands don't have to pay into the trust plan so the keystone pipeline would escape paying hundreds of millions of dollars into that trust fund. i plan to introduce legislation that those tar sands actually have to pay into the trust fund. even in the current keystone project environment there are many questions. recently, i'd like to submit -- i don't know if we're going to have a record this morning because it's an exec session not a hearing. but i will pass out to my colleagues, a recent story that was in "businessweek" saying that of the current sister project, during one week in

december, 72% or almost three quarters of the wells on the safest pipeline in the world required redoing. so as we are expanding tar sands and pipeline expansion, we're also finding lots of safety issues and concerns. so, again, i say, why the hurry. americans are bearing the risk of transporting canada's dirty oil to a world market. and the world industry is pushing to allow crude oil exports at the same time they're saying that the pipeline is vital to u.s. interests. so the fact that transcanada is going to export lots of oil through our country their goal is to sell oil to the highest bidder and this could ultimately raise the price of gas. in fact, i at the last markup, pointed this out to many of my colleagues, because currently the midwest and our industrial base has a better price and i'm sure is very concerned what about the price would be in the midwest if so much of that oil

was exported out of the country. so for those who think that all the safety issues have been resolved to think that all of these issues about getting rid of tar sand oil spills have been resolved, according to the state department impact, oil can also emit well to tank global pollution is 81% higher than the average use in refineries. madam chairman i simply ask today that this is a premature effort of us trying to as a congress decide a citing issue that has taken a long time for very important environmental and safety and public issues, to say nothing of imminent domain debates to be resolved. i think just like nebraska is finding out when you try to subvert those environmental laws, it ends up taking longer because the court processes and the processes that we have to go through. madam chairman, i thank you for

the opportunity to make a statement about this. i would just add that i really do look forward to working with you on the legislation that this committee could put forward in a comprehensive way that will lead to job creation. when i think about the 2005 and 2007 energy bills from this committee, they are really quite remarkable. i would encourage my colleagues on both sides to take a look at what was accomplished in a bipartisan effort during that time period. but we are able and working with our other colleagues to bolster a vehicle effort that added 165,000 jobs in the last five years. that 2005 and 2007 bills also helped support 450,000 jobs with energy efficiency laws that we passed. we also helped save clean energy development through efforts of the win tax energy credit working with the former chair of this committee senator widen,

that has helped increase 50000 jobs in america. so i think this 21st century energy strategy for america will help produce that clean energy, help us not be subject to price spikes in the future. and help us lead our country forward. so i know it's an unfortunate how all of this week came together, and that at this very first meeting we're having such a contentious issue. but i think that you and i working together, after this legislation moves through, will really embrace working across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion, with all of our colleagues. to show that we can move our country forward on a comprehensive and agreed strategy. again, thank you, and congratulations. >> thank you. and i think with the challenges that we have in front of us it just makes the opportunities to make some good things happen. that much better. so i appreciate the opportunity

to be working with you on some really weighty things. as far as moving forward with amendments, i do want to make sure that we are respectful of members' times in recognition that we're all busy. but i do, again want to give members an opportunity to speak to the measure in front of us, the keystone xl pipeline. ordinarily, i would operate by the early bird rule. he or she who comes first gets recognized first. but i think we all kind of came in about the same time. and so today, i would like to recognize members by order of committee seniority, going from side to side. but if there are members that do have leave early, please let me know it, so that we might be able to accommodate you as well. but looking around the table, this could be a long morning for

us to get to amendments. so i would ask for your indulgence with brief comments but i turn to my colleague from wyoming, senator barrasso. deferring to others? already being the complete gentleman and recognizing -- >> thank you colleagues, my comments will be shorter than the time it takes for the oregon ducks to score on ohio state. >> oh! >> oh, wait a minute, wait a minute. >> and i will also say stay tuned for the friendly wager that will soon be announced between the oregon senators and the ohio senators. my friend senator portman and i, are going to be a part of that being the methuselah of the committee i look forward to all the members, democratic side, republican side i think america cowsky and senator cantwell have

great opportunities to lead us in a bipartisan way. i just want to make acute comments with respect to this before us today. because we sat in this room now for years. and the argument has been made that america greatly needs keystone because prices at the pump were too high for consumers. now, fortunately, our country has become the babe ruth of oil and gas production. and prices at the pump now represent the best tax cut that working families have seen in a long time. now, i think it's important to acknowledge the debate involves differences between reasonable people. some experts are saying build keystone and prices at the pump will fall farther. there are other experts who make

a pretty persuasive different case. and they say prices at the pump are going to rise in some parts of the country. my colleague mentioned the midwest. my question is and i think we got to ask it today why does it make sense for the congress to do something that could put at risk the better days that consumers are seeing at gas pumps across the country right now? that's number one. number two and i'll wrap up with just these two quick additional points, madam chair there are a number of us involved in the old debate with respect to jobs. senator franken has been very concerned, very eloquent with respect to the project being built with american steel. i have a finance committee staff working ton. and at some point whether it's on the committee or on the floor, i'm open to this, there

ought to be annual reporting by the secretary of transportation on the sources of steel used in the project. by requiring the disclosure of origin of the materials used, america will ensure by the life of project that americans get the fact of how much was utilized in the construction and maintenance of the pipeline. this provides real transparency and would help the congress assure that claims being made today about jobs and opportunities are actually borne out tomorrow. second and it seems to me to be important to create certification requirements for transcanada to follow. this would assure that they've paid their taxes and fees and that they're not evading and sick come venting and dumping in lieus. marine laws tubular goods are a reminder of the risk that this particular project presents in inviting more unfairly traded goods in our country. certainly, it's not in the

interest of our country for this project to be used by companies that themselves do not abide by our nation's trade laws to unfairly compete with american manufacturers by taking the steps prescribed here, i'd be happy to show this to colleagues on both sides that the staff has been working ton ging on it. and it does not become a pipeline for unfairly traded goods. that's point number one. point number two deals with the skills. nobody is given a good reason why oil sands refiners do not share responsibility for oil spills like every other refiner in the united states. this ought to be corrected, be done by the finance committee and energy committee on a bipartisan basis. and the last point that i'd make is that it's important to ensure that the public gets full value

to the oil and gas that's produced on federal lands. on some of that, i'll offer an amendment on that. pushing for land management to revise its on shore order number 9 to reduce the waste of natural gas on public lands. make sure that the taxpayer gets full value for the public resource. again, this is something to be tackled in a bipartisan way. again to the chair and ranking minority member, my good wishes and look forward to the session. >> thank you. senator wyden. and i'm going to use chairman's discretion here and change the order already. if my good friend from idaho will allow me to recognize the sponsor of the keystone xl pipeline. to perhaps go ahead of you. but i'm looking at you, and you're -- >> i yield the floor. >> all right. >> anxious to hear what he has to say. >> i think we all are anxious

although we have had years of listening to the well-articulated comments from the sponsor of this legislation who has encouraged many of us to see the broader picture of the benefits that keystone xl will bring us. so with that, i would ask senator hoeven for his comments this morning. >> thank you madam chairman. congratulations as the chairman of this energy committee, look forward to working with you as well as representative cantwell. on a variety of legislative measures for the country. particularly the pipeline project. the legislation that we're marking up is legislation that i developed some time ago and have had a variety of co-sponsors. and many co-sponsors. right now the lead co-sponsor on the democrat side of the aisle is the senator from the great state of west virginia, senator

manchin. and i want to thank him for his leadership and for his bipartisanship. i truly appreciate it. and four other sponsors on the legislation. we have 60 sponsors on the legislation. so it truly is bipartisan. and it's an effort not only to improve -- to approve some important energy infrastructure. it really is an effort to have an open amendment process on the senate floor where we can get back to regular order. and all of the senators can offer their amendments on the floor. we can debate them. and have a vote. and if you can get 60 votes, it gets added to the legislation. so whether it's a good senator from oregon who just laid down the gauntlet against my good friend from ohio. or anyone else, you know, let's go to the floor. let's have that debate on this legislation. and then let's, you know approve the best bill that we

can. and move this project forward. it's interesting to listen to some of the discussion that's already been put forward about how -- why are we taking up this measure, rather than just letting it continue to go through the process. it's gone through the process for six years. for six years, and it's still not through the process. americans won world war ii in a shorter amount of time. and to hear about how gas prices are lower now, how do you think that happened? it happened because we're producing more oil and gas in this country in places like north dakota, and eagle ford, and texas, and with the help of our best friend and ally in the world, canada. oil is produced there. so as we increase supplies, simple is economics say that more supply helps bring down

prices. so every consumer is benefitting at the pump to the tune of billions of dollars. but you know what, we've got to get that gas, that oil from where it's produced to where it's consumed. how are we going to do that? to do that, you need energy infrastructure. and you need the right mix of energy infrastructure. you need pipelines rail, roads, for electricity, transmission. and that's part of our job, isn't it? making sure we create a business climate where entrepreneurs and companies have invest that infrastructure that we need to get this energy to market. and as others have already said, every consumer then benefits. and energy say foundational industry. we not only create jobs and national securities, we produce more energies here and work with canada to have north american energy security. but it's a foundational industry that benefits every other industry, because lower industry

costs make our country more competitive in a global economy, where we have to compete. and so important that we develop that energy here at home. that we develop it with canada, so we don't have to buy energy from places like opec. look what's going on in the world. and to think that gas and oil prices are lower because opec gave us a christmas present well, that's just wrong. that's not the case. we're producing it here. but we can't keep producing it here if we don't have the infrastructure to do it. that is part of building the right kind of comprehensive energy plan for the country. and that the what this had bill is all about. it's just common sense. the most recent poll i've seen shows that the american public supports this project by about 68%. i think that's the most recent poll. it's almost 70% of the american people wants this done. after six years.

after more than six years, transcanada originally filed this application in september of 2008. a lot of us weren't even here then. six years. and we're talking about rushing something? how are we going to have a functioning economy for this nation, how does america continue to be the greatest place in the world to do business? how do we have that rising tide that lifts all boats? how do we foster entrepreneurship and the ingenuity of america as we hold it up for six years and say somehow that's rushing the process? what's going on? what happened to doing business in america? when were say well you know this is one project. it's a case in point. it's one project. it's a part of are we going to build the infrastructure that we need to truly have north american security. it's also a test case to see if

we can come together on the senate floor. offer amendments in open process. have debates, find bipartisanship and get something done for the american people. and i want to thank you, again, all of the co-sponsors on this bill particularly starting with senator manchin. it's not always easy to step up and lead, but he's somebody who does that in a bipartisan way. and i just want to say, i really appreciate and respect everybody that's joined us in this endeavor. i hope we can mark this up take it to the floor and have that debate. so let's do that. everybody's got your point. make your point but let's get the debate to the floor. let's have that debate on the floor. let's get the important work of this congress started. let's debate let's vote, let's get it done. >> thank you senator hoeven. we'll turn to senator sanders. i will remind people in an

effort to try to get to the actual bill itself, we are keeping the clock moving. senator sanders. >> let me begin senator murkowski by congratulating you on the chair of this committee and welcoming all the new members to the committee. madam chair, much of what we do here in congress is often forgotten pretty quickly. it's hard for members to remember what we did last year let alone the american public. but i have a feeling that this particular issue the keystone pipeline, is not going to be forgotten. it is not going to be forgotten by our children and our grandchildren. it is in fact not going to be forgotten by history. because i have a feeling that our kids and our grandchildren, 20, 30, 40 years ago 40 years from now they're going to be asking us, hopefully, we'll all be here, they're going to be asking us what were you guys

thinking about? what would you doing? did you not hear what the scientific community all over the world was saying? that climate change is in fact the most serious environmental crisis facing this planet. that's not bernie sanders talking. that is virtually every major scientific organization in this country. and throughout the world. and virtually without exception, what they are saying is climate change is real. climate change is caused by carbon emissions and human activity. and climate change is already causing devastating problems in the united states of america and around the world. i don't have to remind anybody here that just a year or two years ago, we voted $60 billion in order to deal with hurricane

sandy. and what the scientific community tells us, if we don't get our act together -- start reversing climate change we're going to have more extreme weather changes. that's what they're telling us. as i listen to this debate, is this debate today okay how do we go forward in transforring our energy system moving away from fossil fuel into energy efficiency and into sustainable energy? is that the debate that we're hearing today? is the debate about how we invest more in technology so that we can come up with transportation systems that are more energy efficient? is that the debate we are hearing today? no, what the debate is that we are hearing today, and where i feel a majority of the members of this committee will vote, is to reject science.

and i am very worried about the united states congress turning its back on science. turning its back on those people to tell us that we have got to cut carbon emissions, rather than give a green light for the exploration and the production of some of the dirtiest oil on this planet. i think, frankly, that is crazy. i think we are moving in exactly the wrong direction. i want to thank president obama for telling us that he will veto this legislation. and i certainly hope that we will have the votes in congress to sustain that veto. and more importantly, i hope very much that we get our act together transform our energy system, move to energy efficiency, move to weatherization, move to wind,

solar, geothermal and other sustainable energies. thank you very much, madam chair. >> thank you madam chairman. i'll be brief. you know this exercise we've gone through over the last six years on this bill say poster child for what's happened in america over the last 30 or 40 years. it just amazes me that we have to pass a law to force the government to get out of the way so that the free market system can work. the decision as to perhaps with this pipeline shouldn't be the government's. itting out to be the free market system. let the free marketplace work. if it's a good thing it's going to get built. if it's a bad thing it's not going to get built. for these people who want to control every aspect of our lives this is a poster child how to do it. we need to get out of the way, pass the bill and let the

marketplace work. thank you, madam chairman. >> congraft graftgratulations to you. i look forward to work with you on a broader strategy. i think we got important work to do. i would like to first of all comment on my friend's comments about the private sector of nebraska, i think they would like to make sure they have input. it's not just private interests in canada or private interests in the united states that should decide what happens in communities in terms of public safety. i think that's something that our states feel very strongly about in local communities. and that we need to be paying attention to it as well. maybe it's taken six years because it shouldn't be built. because there's concerns that have been raised about a wide variety of things that have been mentioned including safety. i do want to start by stating the good news that everybody has said, the reality is that the gas prices are down. $1.98 at the pump in lansing.

a $1.65 a gallon with my friends at marathon in detroit. that's because we have more american production. you thank the obama administration for more production and more energy efficient vehicles and i'm pretty proud to say a lot of those are made in michigan. we're seeing those moving forward. in 2005, 60% of the oil we're using from opec 60%. next year, it's going to be 25%. that's a good thing. the question is how do we move forward in terms of energy or do we move backwards? i would say that this moves backwards not forwards. there are many economists who saying that will happen. as well as the concern about unleashing unlimited exports of natural gas which will certainly raise prices for our manufacturers which is also a concern of mine. but i do want to take, madam chair, a moment to speak to the

fact that this bill has a lot of risks and very few rewards for americans. and that's my biggest concern. we talk about the oil. we need more oil production to bring prices down. okay. let's look at this. transcanada. canada's going to take the oil through our country to a tax-free zone in the gulf and ship it to china where they'll pay more. we're not going to get that oil. there's no requirement that we get that oil. in fact, in michigan the estimates are that our prices are going to go up, not a good deal. secondly we have no requirement that the steel the manufacturing, the jobs, will be american. and we know that even though there are important construction jobs, believe me, i do not take lightly. we are looking at about 35 permit jobs -- 35 permanent jobs, 15 contractors, as opposed to when we look at the private sector right now, businesses have added almost 11 million jobs in the last 57 months.

and pleased to say a lot of those are manufacturing. and if we were to look at clean energy when it's biofuels or wind or solar. i've said so many times from the committee that is true in terms of construction and manufacturing, there's 8,000 parts in a wind turban. 8,000, somebody's got to make those. we can make those in michigan. i've been to alaska and seen a michigan-made wind turbine in alaska. we want big job production. i appreciate our ranking member and everything she said talking about moving forward on a big jobs plan. that the wind and solar and energy efficiency and biofuels and a whole bunch of other things. let me say finally, and i appreciate very much senator cantwell raising the pipeline in michigan. we've had unfortunately a couple of cases very serious.

pristine river, callakalamazoo, fishing, one fell swoop 800,000 gallons of tar sands. i had the dubious distinction of going over this in a helicopter after it happened. stunning. now, the company has come in you know, cleaned up most of it we still can't fish. we still have -- people along the river can't use their property. they're backyards. this is going to take tens of years to clean up. you can go on the other side of the state where we have in detroit of petcoke, petroleum coke from tar sands sitting along the river now going into the river, neighborhoods churches on the southwest side of detroit. now thanks to my colleagues, senator peters is with us and i proudly join with him, that pet

coke is not sitting there anymore but it was pet coke from tar sands that blew in from huge areas of detroit. now we have madam children a real concern in the straits of mackinaw going across the state from the lower peninsula where we have a very old pipeline. and again, concerns about the fact that the fact there haven't been upgrades since it was first installed. very few upgrades since 1953 and what we see happening there. so we have a lot of experience with this. i certainly want jobs but i can create ten ways in energy that we can create more jobs and less risk for people in michigan and the american people. and i hope -- i'm looking forward to working with you on that. thank you, madam chair. i'll be brief. it's my strong belief that hard working americans desperately need the jobs that will be provided by this legislation that will be created if this

legislation were to take effect. they also need the energy. the reliability that will come from that energy. our energy demands are what they are. we'll continue to buy energy from whatever place we can get it. it might as well be from sources in north america. and i think that's what energy independence is all about. this would help that, this would facilitate that this would give hard working americans what they need which is jobs and energy security. and i strongly urge my colleagues to support it. thank you. >> thank you, senator. i just want to congratulate you, madam chair. been working with you on this committee and admire you, and looking forward to working with you on sorts of things, including senator hoeven

mentioned about him and the oil and gas that we're getting there. and i point this out a lot we're able to do that because of research done by the department of energy. in all kinds of technologies, horizontal drilling micro seismic imaging all came from either directly from the department of energy or from work between department of energy and the oil and gas industry. and that speaks to the kind of research and the kind of job that we're going to have on this committee in terms of funding the research that is going to be the answer to what senator sanders brought up. because there's no way to ignore this. i have a grandson who is now 19

months old. and i want to be able to say to him that when he turns what will be 90 something, turn of the century, i want to -- i probably won't be talking to him then, but i want him to look at the work that i did and know that, you know we've been around a while. and going to be around a while longer. and we need to have a short-term, a mid-term and a long-term strategy to avoid the tragic consequences of something that's very real. and that we ignore at our own risk. finally, i just want to say that senator wyden brought up american steel. we put american steel in our water projects that we're to build. i don't understand why this

can't be built with american steel. if, in fact, it gets done. so i look forward to if this goes to the floor, we'll be talk a lot more about it. but again, congratulations. >> thank you, senator franken. senator flank. senator danes. >> thank you madam chair. congratulations and representative cantwell. and thank you for holding this hearing. there's been a lot said already about jobs, economic growth, the environmental soundness the keystone pipeline independent. i want to share what it means for montana. the keystone pipeline enter, the state of montana, in the some 49th or 48th in some surveys in per capita income in our country. i'll tell you as i travel around the state in my pickup, you see that not everybody has a fly rod in their hand or is on a ski hill. there are a lot of folks who are

struggling month to month to make ends meet. senior citizens, hard working montanians. what this means for montana, first of all, 100,000 barrels a day of montana oil that enters that pipeline. it's not just about canadian oil coming to the u.s. it's about north dakota and montana oil. second as i was traveling to a rural co-op in glasgow, montana. in my pickup, in my jeans and jacket, they told me if the keystone pipeline is approved, electric rates for the co-op pair s payers, and i can tell you those are folks that don't have a lot of money in the eastern part of the state their rates are going to remain flat. why is that? because they will supply electricity. if the keystone pipeline is not approved, the rates will go up

40% in the next ten years. it's $80 million a year in tax revenues for the state of montana and for the rural counties that desperately need infrastructure to pay for roads for teachers, for schools. i want to make sure we have some perspective on hard working montanians who are struggling month to month. madam chair i ask for unanimous support to send letters now support for the keystone pipeline morris county in the state that they will receive millions of dollars on. >> those will be submitted. >> it's talked about how it's been a problem at the balkan. i also have letters from the eastern plains economic

development conversation and the montana electric co-ops. >> those will all be included. >> i turn to senator manchin, and i, too, want to recognize the sad passing of senator cappa to you's father yesterday she was due to join us at the committee, the first committee hearing in the senate. a very sad day for her and her family. and we want to acknowledge that. and certainly offer our prayers. with that, i will turn to senator manchin, and then when senator manchin has concluded, i know that we have members that have other committee meetings that started at 11:00, and i'd like to know if we've got indulgence to perhaps move to any amendments that may be offered. and move to take up the bill and

at its conclusion then have an opportunity for members to provide additional comments. but i know that we're going to have some pressures on our time. with that, senator manchin. >> thank you very much. first of all, i also offer my condolences to senator cappa toe and her family, he's the only three-term governor in west virginia. my heart goes out to them. to you madam chair, i congratulate you. we're here because of the people to represent them. i've been all over my state 55 beautiful counties in west virginia. i've spoken to people at open meetings talked about working issues. i've not had one person come up to me, hard working, most are hard working come up and say i'm opposed to this. even if i were opposed to this

i'm sitting here before the people i represent there's not one association that represents working americans that's opposed to this. not one, that i've heard from that says, okay, our organization is opposed. not one. so when you start looking at why are we here and who do we represent and whose voices are we speaking for, you would think -- i respect those people with differences of opinion because i know that where your constituents lie because i'm sure you're all communicating to them. i've always said we're entitled to our own opinion, not of the facts. we purchase 7 million gallons of crude a day. 7 million that we're purchasing. it's not a misnomer. it's a fact. let me tell you where we're purchasing it from, and if that's where we're going to continue because we refuse to build this line, let me make no mistake about it, this line is

40% constructed. the line will be built sooner or later. we're delaying the inevitable. with that being said, we buy 1.3 million bears a day from saudi arabia. now i'm not convinced that the resources and the tremendous wealth that saudi arabia has gotten from us is being used to the benefit of the citizens of the united states. i'm not convinced of that. next we buy 755,000 barrels a day of heavy crude from venezuela. from venezuela. i'm not convinced their human rights and the way they oppress their people is something that we condone. we have a chance to be dealing with a country, our best trading partner, 35 states out of 50 number one trading. the best ally any country could ever have. and we have a chance to do more business with them. we already buy 2.5 million barrels a day from canada.

we're already using this oil. we're all benefitting from it. but we're being told right now if we don't, i mean, if we don't build this line that the price -- if we build the line, the prices will go up. i've never understand that -- i just don't understand economics. i understand one thing. the security of our nation depends on us having the ability to have control of our own destiny. and if you have your own energy source, i'm so proud to say what we contribute to this great country. we've had one of the first oil finds in the united states was in west virginia. we supplied most of the coal. the best metallurgical coal that's built the ships and the country, we're done it all. we're willing to continue do the heavy lifting. and you know what we have some of the biggest wind farms east of the mississippi we're developing solar. we have an energy portfolio that encourages use of everything.

but we need this oil. i'd rather buy it from canada than venezuela, than i would from saudi arabia you and then i would have russia. and we're buying crude from russia. they say it's going to be sent down and loaded in a ship that is not factual, that will not happen. we will have control of this. this heavy crude has to be mixed in order to ship it. if you're putting it in a pipeline basically it commingles and comes under american law. if you want to continue shipping of any oil refined in america, stop exxonmobil bp stop them all box they all do it. you're shutting the whole system down. the economics are what they are. until we find let's say commercial hydrogen that changes our dependency on fossil that's fine. we don't have it yet. next of all on this, we have an opportunity to have a piece of legislation that we can have

input. i've been here for four years. this will only be the third time that i've had a chance in my career as a united states senator to have input on the bill. i agree 1,000% with senator cantwell. that i believe the canadian oil should be paid into the oil spill trust fund. i believe that. that's a good piece of a good amendment. american steel. believe that. we could have a good piece of legislation, that we could have 67 70, 75 votes on a good product that we can get done because we have that opportunity. i'm excited about this. i would hope that people look at the facts we're entitled to know the facts even though we're entitled to our own opinion. right now, my opinion is that we should build this as quickly as possible because the american people need it and i want to quit depending on venezuela, saudi arabia, and russian oil. thank you. >> thank you, senator manchin. appreciate your leadership on this. and, again, a very keen reminder

that this is not just the united states in an internal issue. this is clearly global. clearly a international security issue. i mentioned we have members who need to be in other places. but i also recognize that there are some of you who definitely want to make a comment before we take up any of the amendments, potential amendments or a vote. and so i would ask those of you who perhaps can wait a little bit, if you would be willing to defer, and those that would like to make a statement, i know, senator gardner, you have another committee that you're looking to move off to if you feel that you need to jump ahead, i'm certainly willing to make that happen. i know senator heinrich, you might want to make a statement

prior to amendments. so, i would ask if there's any, on either side that would like to do so at this time, we will certainly advance that. senator heinrich. >> i'll make a quick statement, then we can get moving along if that's okay. or i'll wait until after the vote, either way. >> i want to make sure that you have time to make your statement. >> i will make that. >> all right. i appreciate that. with that then, and the indulgence of the members who have not yet spoken and thank you for allowing us to move to the amendments as we all know we are here to consider the original bill to approve the keystone xl pipeline. this was listed on the agenda circulated to members on january 2nd. copies of the text and the

agenda are on the dias in front of the senators last night. senators portman and sanders bioed some amendments. i would ask you, senator portman, if you'd like to offer your amendment and speak to it. >> thank you madam chair i appreciate the opportunity to offer it and congratulate you. i'm strongly supporting the bill. there's a study out there saying it's a $3 billion boost to the economy. whether it's tubular project made in ohio, steel pipes, or whether structural steel that's used, made in ohio. monitoring equipment made in ohio. pump, and compressors made in ohio, keystone is about jobs. and it's about jobs far outside of the states that are directly involved in the pipeline. states like ohio that will benefit. earlier senator wyden talked about the importance of american

steel. he mentioned that we do have some challenges on the trade front. we sure do. we had two big entries last year one in february and one in the summer who were able to get anti-dumping tariffs to companies unfairly trading their steel. we've got to continue to fight to make sure american workers are protected. we'll do that. and we want to make sure that the steel is being used in projects like this. i'm interested in continuing to fight on that. i will respond to senator wyden he thought the ducks would score in the time it took him to talk. he talked for 6 minutes and 16 seconds. i doubt that the ducks will score during that time period. i'm confident that the bucks will score twice during that time. madam chair the amendment that you've worked on you've worked

on for a long time. senator manchin would like to join us as a co-sponsor, and i appreciate him if that's acceptable. it's an amendment that has to do with energy efficiency. we talked about producing today. and i'm a strong advocate of producing more as my colleague senator sanders said years ago, we should use what we have more efficiently. and this committee has voted twice overwhelmingly to support energy efficiency measures in previous conferences. i'm confident we will again based on your comments this morning, madam chair. this amendment is not the broader shaheen/portman legislation that many of you supported it. this is provisions, really important provisions all four have passed the house with overwhelming support, all of the members here, senator caddie and daines supported the legislation. and it's voluntary, there are no mandates. the congressional budget office

tells us these four provisions do not score, however, they are incredibly important. they have not only, you know passed the house butter they have passed this committee. and they have been on the floor before. we're not able to get them done previously, because a few senators, frankly objected otherwise it would already be law in my view. so i hope that we will be able to add this amendment to the keystone effort. the first provision is one that is incredibly important to many of the members of this committee and the congress because it's an approach to the interests of commercial building owners and the tenant. tenant star. senator ayotte has taken the lead on this. and the other one water heaters, and senators mansions s ss smanchin and others have taken part in this. if we don't stop it now it will actually make our country less

energy efficient. it's urgent because the manufacturers of these water heaters say if you don't act now, we're not capable of producing these water heaters. we've got hundreds of co-ops that use these electric water heaters to store energy at night. and peak. it's the kind of legislation that we ought to pass. unfortunately, the program that's why we hear from co-ops that are interested getting this soon as soon as possible. finally, there are two that are making sure that the largest in the world the u.s. government, practices what it preaches. and again ensure we're taking what we preach at the federal level and actually put it in place. it requires the federal agencies

to coordinate and develop best practices and so on for the use of information saving technologies. finally, a final fourth provision that requires the buildings benchmark and disclose energy usage data. and this again is going to be incredibly important to deal with this problem. as it comes to the use of energy. as you can see, madam chair these are important provisions i think they're appropriate to be added to the legislation under the theory we should be producing more strongly in support of keystone pipeline. but also in a more common sense way. i did receive a commitment this morning from you, madam chair, i appreciate that. and also from our leadership that we would have the ability to offer this amendment on the floor. now, it's a special commitment. and it's one that i appreciate. and in light of that, senator manchin and i have decided to withdraw the amendment today from a vote. we do believe we have the votes

on the committee to pass this. but we also in good faith want to move this process forward let everybody get to their committees but also assure that we do have opportunities on the floor of the united states senate to talk about this broader issue of energy efficiency to pass these provisions that senator shaheen and i support and others do on both side, of the aisle to get this to move forward on this important underlying bill to make sure we have a strong economy and energy independence and we have the ability to do so together. thank you, madam chair. pie don't know if senator manchin has comments he'd like to add. >> senator manchin? well, senator portman thank you for your leadership on this issue of energy efficiency. you and senator shaheen have been dogged in pursuing the larger bill over the course of several years now. you've had senator manchin's support. and you have had my support. and i think for good reason.

you think about the energy portfolio that is strong and sensible. it's not just about increased production. it is about how we use our energy resources. whether they are our fossil-based fuels or whether they are our renewable energy resources but how we utilize, how we access, how efficient we are, how we're able to conserve these are policies that we must constantly be addressing updating and innovating on. leading on. and what you have outlined in your legislation i think is good, strong legislation. and i would like to see us be able to advance that. the fact that you have taken the slimmed-down version that the house passed out, as you note,

375 to 36 pretty overwhelming, and in its support i think that says a lot about it. the fact that you the cost aspects so that it is cost neutral. the fact that these are voluntary. the fact that frips with the water heretos is a very time sensitive issue. april 16th is coming up pretty quickly. so i want to work with you and to all those that agree thooat this is an important, important provision to ensure that we are able to advance it through the congress. you do have my commitment to not only work with you to get a vote on the floor but an early vote on the floor. and i make that commitment to you because this is something, again, that we've been working on for a long period of time, and i want to see that happen. so i appreciate the fact that

you continue to pursue this and you have my word that i will work with you to see that we address these issues of energy efficiency that huff worked so hard to bring to the attention of this body. so i appreciate the fact that we will have an amendment process on the floor that is open and fulsome and that's not me as the chairman speaking to that, but that is what the majority leader has made very clear to me, very clear to those on the republican conference, that the opportunity for amendment will be open, transparent, led by the committee as floor managers working through an amendment process that kind of takes us back to i guess the good old

days. i don't know if they were good, but they were definitely a few years back. and i want us to get back to that point, and i think that our republican leader does as well. so those of you who do have amendments, and i know many of my colleagues do on both sides of the aisle, and i think that's good, we should welcome that and welcome the process. it's healthy and it works. and i'm anxious for us to be able to get to that early next week. i thank you for raising this again, senator portman. senator sanders. >> thank you, madam chair. i have an amendment at the desk. very short amendment, about half

a page, speaks for itself and i'll read it. but the bottom line is a very simple one. this is the energy committee at the united states congress and we have to make a very fundamental decision. do we agree with the international scientific community that climate change is real or do we not? differences of opinion. i happen to agree with the scientific community that climate change is real. some of the scientists are telling us if we do not substantially cut carbon emissions, this planet could be ten degrees fahrenheit warmer than it is right now. just think about the devastation that means not only to america but to countries all over the world, coastal communities.

the department of defense tells us that one of their great concerns is that climate change, which leads to drought and flooding and international instability where desperate people are migrating for food, for water, and all of the international conflicts that that may bring about. that's what the department of defense tells us. we have insurance companies who tell us right now as a result of hurricane sandy and other extreme weather disturbances that the cost of insurance is soaring and that will have huge economic impacts. so what this amendment does is simple, can't be more simple. here it is. it is the sense of congress that congress is in agreement with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community and a growing number of top national security experts, economists, and others that, one, climate change is real, two, climate change is

caused by human activity, three, climate change has already caused devastating problems in the united states and around the world, and, four, it is imperative that the united states transform its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy. that's it. pretty straightforward. and with that, madam chair, i submit the amendment and ask for a vote on it. >> if i may speak to that, i like the first three. >> well, you got all four, joe. >> the fourth one's a killer, bernie, and the fourth one basically says that you believe it's a north american problem and not a global problem. >> no. i believe it's an international. >> and basically we use less than one-eighth of the world's fossil fuel, and we're not acknowledging that basically the rest of the world is not going to follow suit because we're going to cripple ourself. we should be finding this the technology that uses the energy that we have in this country in a much cleaner fashion. we spend nothing -- that fourth amendment should basically -- be

we invest technology to use the resources we have. i believe that we have a global problem. i believe we need a global fix. you can't blame north america. it's all our problem. we'll sacrifice everything and cripple our economy and put a hindrance on the people in this country. and for that i can't support the amendment. >> further discussion. senator hogan? >> thank you, madam chairman. i understand that senator sanders wants to make a statement in regard to global warming, but specifically relative to the legislation at hand, the state department conducted three draft environmental impact statements

and two final environmental impact statements and found that this project will have no significant environmental impact and that if dwroint build the pipeline, either this oil would be piped to china where you would have higher emissions than without the keystone pipeline because you'd have to transport that oil by a tanker across the ocean to china where it would be refined in refineries that have higher me igss than our refine refineries refineries.

at the same time, we'd have to continue to tank in oil akosz the ocean from places like the middle east or places like as senator manchin pointed out, venezuela. the other possibility or likelihood would be that the oil would have to be railed to refineries, and that would take 1,400 railcars a day, creating not only more green house gas emissions but also more congestion on the railroad and greater risk of accidents, so that the -- now, again, back to senator manchin's statement about the facts rather than our opinion, this is information from the environmental impact statement. five of them -- again, three draft and two finals so that nobody challenges when we say there were five of them -- those are the facts in the statement. no significant environmental impact related to this project. and, in fact, higher green house gas emissions without the pipeline than with it. that was the findings of the obama administration's state department. over six years of study. we're now of course in the sefrt year of this approval process that some people feel has somehow been rushed, but i wanted to make sure that was of record. >> madam chair, briefly? >> senator sanders. >> another time and place maybe senator hoven and i will have a debate on what he said. but if you read the resolution, the words keystone pipeline is not in it. what it does say, where senator manchin is in december agreement but it says it, it is imperative that the united states transform its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy. that is what is in the amendment. >> madam chairman. >> senator alexander. i wonder if i might ask a question of clarification of the sponsor. >> certainly.

>> i would ask the senator from vermont whether within his definition of the kind of energy system he on point four, that he hopes to transform our country to -- whether that includes nuclear power, which today produces 60% of our carbon free electricity. >> senator sanders? >> i have serious concerns about nuclear power. find it hard to understand how people want new nuclear power plants when they will be the most expensive form of new electricity production in the country, far more expensive than wind and solar.

and also wanting new nuclear power plants at a time we don't know how to get rid of the very substantial waste that we have right now. to answer my friend senator alexander, moimy hope is that over a period of time we will phase out nuclear electricity -- powered electricity in this country. >> thank you, madam chair. >> i do think that this will be part of the bigger and broader debate that we will be able to have when the measure reaches the floor. it's my hope we will be able to move the out of committee very shortly here. but the questions that are presented about the future of nuclear, the future of our energy systems, are what this process should be generating is full, good discussion on that. i will be opposing senator sanders' amendment in anticipation of the upcoming debate on the floor. as has been pointed out here,