the obama administration was already committed to making a final decision by the end of the year. by that year, i mean 2011. the bottom line is that we still do not have a final decision. next, we were told a dispute over a portion of the route from nebraska needed to be addressed. the governor of nebraska and notified the president that the issues have been resolved. ,he secretary of state's office through their supplemental environmental impact statement, noted that this project would not have-banked environmental impacts -- would not have negative environmental impacts. we invited someone from the u.s. department of state, the bureau of land management, the wildlife service, the u.s. army corps of engineers were invited to this

hearing and no one agreed to come. ,hroughout all of the delays two things have not changed. the nation still faces unacceptable levels of unemployment. this project would provide employment. going into the summer, we are going to have higher gasoline prices. this would provide additional oil for our consumers. to put it in a nutshell, any energy project today turns out to be a fight between environmentalists and people who want to make available energy independence in america. we have a unique opportunity to be energy independent in america. there are more safeguards put on this pipeline than any proposed to be built ever. at this moment, i would like to two the gentlemen from

nebraska, who introduced hr-3. you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. we have been involved in this issue over two years. not until congress got involved to give the administration even begin to move the process at the state department. one of the bills that actually passed and was signed into law, we know they stalled the process when the state department recommended denial and the president denied the permit in january of 2012. here we are, april 2013, still mired in the process. 3 puts an end to that. it declares no presidential permit shall be required. of thes additional work

nebraska deq to be sufficient. the additional provisions of the bill will ensure the pipeline is built. history is a great educator. in 1973, congress passed and president nixon signed into law to ensureska pipeline that because of the extensive governmental studies already made of this project and the national interest in early delivery of oil to domestic markets, the trans alaska pipeline be constructed properly without further administrative or judicial delay or impede immense. -- impediments. sound familiar it? that is what we are saying. congress greenlighted the project. is the trans alaska

pipeline of our day. we need to cement our relationship with our best trading partner in canada and secure our national security interests and energy security interests by approving this pipeline. i yield back. at this time, i would like to recognize the gentleman from illinois for an opening statement. you, mr. chairman. i watched the game on monday night. i thought of this hearing and i thought of my colleagues on the other side. pitino showed mr. was that he can adjust his game. i think my republican friends cannot adjust their game for the american people.

pitino is going to the hall of fame. the republicans on the other side will be inducted into the hall of shame for their refusal to have a hearing with scientists on climate change. we can appreciate the irony that we are here [indiscernible] ongoing state department review process. [indiscernible] limits citizen's ability to file lawsuits against the project. exxon and mobile are still scrambling to clean up oil and in myarkansas home state of illinois and the

gulf. shame. it is still unclear [indiscernible] yes, my republican colleagues are here to try to force through another major pipeline project before the american people even have the answers for what caused the most current oil spill. shame. let me state the obvious. this hearing does very little to bolster the minority side's argument [indiscernible] the review process. shame. this subcommittee would be much better served by holding hearings on issues that affect americans and families and plainsrs, farmers on the and those who have seen drought

and crop loss to the business owners and home owners [indiscernible] homes and their livelihoods [indiscernible] in floods. the firefighters who have been wildfires in colorado, arizona, and california over this last year. know,airman, as you ranking member waxman have sent to you two dozen letters. 2011, requesting that this subcommittee holds hearings into the science of climate change and the likely impact of rising temperatures so that members of this body can better understand the nature of

this risk that faces this nation. your march 14 response, u.n. stated in then theh congress that committee frilly addressed climate change issues and that they heard from -- committee frequently addressed climate change issue is -- issues. your letter to me and mr. waxman failed to acknowledge the dozens of hearings and 30 plus panelists that testified before this subcommittee and the vast majority of those represented utilities, coal companies, oil refineries, and chemical manufacturers.

unaffectedbiased, scientist was never invited to testify to any hearing. we have scheduled only one hearing dedicated to learning about the actual signs of climate change. that was held in 2011 and only after submitting democrats a chance to exercise our rights. mr. chairman, everybody in this room understands that [indiscernible] will never see the light of day. i yield back my time. -- i greater than recognize my colleague for an

opening statement. colleague mentioned change, i thought he meant be changed to 56 votes. i want to remind folks that one of our goals is to develop a north american energy independence plant so that we are not at the mercy of the middle east or venezuela. gas prices have more than doubled in this country since january of 2008. this administration has predicted that the average gas price will be $4.15 a very soon. our most vulnerable cannot afford these prices on top of an already weak economy that already created pebble -- that only created a very few jobs last month. here is a $7 billion

construction project with more than 20,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs. after more than four years, what are we waiting for it? as policy makers, our job is to ensure -- after more than four years, what are we waiting for? ais committee has embarked on path to explore american energy abundance and technological exploration. this will lead to increased american prosperity and fewer imports from geopolitically unstable places in the world. do they help contribute to increasing american energy self- sufficiency? can they help reduce volatility from foreign sources? help maintain our contribute a the first energy supply portfolio and are protective of the environment? i am happen to say that this

bill passes the test. we heard the employment numbers associated with this project and the tens of thousands of jobs that will be created. today, i am happy to welcome a face -- a person who will put a face to these numbers. jobs that go with them are an important part of keystone and it. these jobs do not happen unless the pipeline to its building. this pipeline will also include a number of state of the arts features that will make it the safest pipeline in existence. it will in corporate 57 additional safety standards imposed by the pipeline and hazardous material administration. it adheres to the strongest pipeline safety standards that were signed into law by president obama last year, part of legislation i helped develop along with my colleague, john dingell and every member of this committee. even the obama demonstration

state department concluded that the project in poses minimal -- poses minimal environmental risks. the project has broad bipartisan support in the house and senate which nearly 100 co-sponsors and enjoys broad public support as well. among republicans and democrats. it is time for congress to come together to make this legislation and reality. this important bill takes -- was met with unnecessary roadblocks. ae keystone project will be game changer in the opposite of north american energy independence. i want to think chairman with field for his tireless efforts for his tireless efforts. i will yield the balance of my

time to joe barton. >> i support with the chairman just said and i would like to yield to the gentleman from georgia. originalroud to be an cosponsor of this legislation. every day we do not act on this project, the united states becomes more dependent on countries that do not like us for the transportation energy we need. critics believe this project will only make us more dependent upon oil as our primary source of transportation energy in this country. you cannot be more dependent on something that we already are. we can only become more dependent on countries that are friendly to us or become more dependent on folks who are actual rivals of ours who do not like us. i am proud to support this legislation. i look forward to moving this legislation forward. i yield back the balance of my

time. >> i recognize the gentleman , forcalifornia, mr. waxman five minutes. >> this committee is holding a hearing to make climate change worse by giving preferential treatment to transcanada's keystone xl pipeline. i believe this will be a terrible mistake. step outside today. the temperature is going to be around 90. the normal high temperatures for april 10 in the district of columbia is 65, according to the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. this is not an isolated incident. last year, the united states broke or tied 34,000 high temperature records. we know climate change is happening now and the costs are beginning to mount. the government accountability organization added climate

change to its high risk list because of the exposure it poses for the united states. countryand 2012, our experience whether and climate disasters from hurricane sandy to droughts and floods and all sorts of problems that afflict -- affected our farmers and coastal areas around this country. if you add up the cost of these disasters, came to $188 billion. these disasters are not over. we can expect far more disasters in the future. faced with a climate change issue, this committee, you would expect, would be holding hearings to what together on legislation. that is not what we are doing. we will not even hold a hearing on the science of this issue. look at the record of this

committee. house last congress, the republicans voted to say climate change was a hoax. they vote 23 times to block any action on climate change. they voted to defund research and block measures by the epa to stoprol pollution and to i the administration from encouraging countries to do their part to address this serious, international and global issues. this is a problem. we asked the republicans to hold a hearing with the experts because they have said over and over again that the science is not clear. they will not bring in the scientific experts to talk about the matter. they say we need a north american energy independence plan. part of our energy independence is to be independent of using oil.

we can fuel our motor vehicles by electricity, hybrids and other sources, natural gas. instead, we want to develop more oil. we will need oil for the foreseeable future. i wish we did not need as much of it. why do we need a source of oil from the 30 tarzan's -- dirty tar sands of canada? it goes to an enormous process that takes a lot the energy to make the oil available to go through that pipeline. if we did not agree to import oil, canada is forg to find difficulty what to do with it. they want to take it to be united states in a pipeline with all sorts of problems that pipelines offered and bring it

, where itf of mexico will be taken on freighters to go to china to help them with their demand for oil. , they say, wes will need more oil. that is right. market economics tell us the most competitive oil will be produced. s oil is expensive to extract. producers are already facing lower prices for their products because of transportation constraints. sands to the market will cost more and it will be less competitive with the alternatives. this includes oil from shale sources. i think it is a mistake to agree to the tar sands pipeline. this is under consideration by

the obama administration. i hope they do not make the decision i disagree with. this committee would like a special earmarked to help this particular project. no other project is going to get this special treatment. oilhis committee, the people get special treatment. those who worry about climate change do not get a chance to be heard from. our job is to do something about problems that will affect the future of our country, our children, and our grandchildren. this committee is absent without leave on that issue. >> the gentleman's time is expired. i would like to introduce the witnesses that are with us today. first of all, thank all of you for joining us for this important hearing as we explore ways for america to be more energy independence. first of all, we have with us mr. alexander pourbaix, who is

the president of the energy pipeline at trans canada. keith sttler, -- stetler, the president of industrial valves. molino, thedavid legislative director for the laborers national unit. and we have a professor and research director at simon fraser university. thank all of you for being with us this morning. i will recognize each of you for a period of 5 minutes for your opening statement. there is a little box on the table that will turn red when your time is expired. you should be aware of that, not that we cannot let you finish. for five minutes for your opening statement.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify once again today on the keystone excel pipeline and the pipeline system. pipeline and the pipeline system. it will secure supplies of u.s. and canadian crude oil and significantly improved north american energy security. the first two phases of the keystone pipeline system are already in service, with the capacity to deliver a 600,000 barrels a day to refineries every day. the existing keystone system has safely delivered 400 million barrels of oil, meeting in final market need. in 2008, transcanada filed a permit application for the 830,000 barrel keystone

pipeline. the state department conducted an environmental review, concluding with a final eis in august of 2011. it concluded that the project would have no significant impact to most resources along the proposed project corridor. second, the project would be safer than any typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system. construction and operation of the pipeline would not constitute a contribution to carbon emissions. transcanada's application was denied because it cannot complete its review by the deadline imposed in the 2011 tax deadline legislation. transcanada refiled its application to allow construction of the xl pipeline from the u.s.-canada border to alaska. was a previously studied

northproved route through dakota. following completion of the public review process established by the nebraska legislature in january of this year, the governor approves the new route, which is incorporated in our pending application. the state department conducted a public comment which on the draft scia, continues through the 22nd of this month. a number of further procedural steps are expected to fall upon completion of the public comment. bank. -- public period. period.c comment i would like to highlight the

need for and the benefits of the keystone xl pipeline. is about meeting the need of u.s. crude -- crude oil refiners for crude oil to supplement declining supplies without turning to greater reliance on middle east sources. the primary purpose is to transport heavy crude oil from western canada for delivery to oklahoma and gulf coast refineries. the proposed project would provide needed transportation capacity. that can be little dispute that these enhance u.s. security at a critical juncture. the need for the project is demonstrated by the existence of long-term contracts of western canadian crude oil to be transported through the pipeline and the golf course coast projectf

refinery. there is crude oil produced in montana and north dakota. 65,000 barrels per day. fromansporting crude oil growing, said to our north american basins in canada, oklahoma, and west texas to the u.s. market, keystone could serve best part of the solution to hire u.s. consumer energy prices by increasing crude oil supply to the united states, improving the procession of u.s. supply availability. the project would provide significant economic benefits with no government subsidy or expenditures. the project is privately funded and financed and is waiting only for the pending presidential permit decision. the march 2013 draft recognizes a wide range of socio-economic benefits that would be derived

from construction of the project. it would contribute $3.40 billion to the u.s. gdp. materials and support purchased in the u.s. which totaled $3.10 billion. 10,000 construction workers must would be required to complete the proposed project. 42,000 jobs throughout the united states would be supported by construction of the proposed project. workersrnings of supported by the proposed project would be approximately $2.50 billion. project is subject to pipeline safety regulations. to protect the public and environmental resources, keystone is required to maintain, inspect, and monitor the pipeline in compliance with

regulations as well less relevant codes and standards. complye has agreed to with 57 special conditions developed for the project. taking these 57 special conditions into account, the draft recognizes that these measures provide for additional safety factors on the proposed project that exceed those typically apply for in domestic oil projects. i want to reiterate that the project has undergone a thorough and comprehensive review over the last four years. after all of this review, the march 2013 draft concluded that the analyses of potential impact associated with construction and normal operation of the proposed project suggests there would be no significant impact to those sources among the -- along the proposed project route.

the draft found that it is unlikely that the proposed project would have a substantial impact on the rate of western canadian oil sands development. if the project were approved, there would be no substantial change in the global ghg emissions. thank you. >> the light is not working. i let you go over quite a bit. mr. swift, you have five minutes. "washington journal >> -- >> chairman whitfield, thank you for this opportunity to testify. my name is anthony swift. . am and energy policy analyst we are a national nonprofit organizations dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. the keystone pipeline is a linchpin for the expansion of tar sands production in canada. market analysts and the

environmental community agree. industry's plan to triple tar 2030 and theion by significant by mental impact of that plan cannot take place without the approval of keystone xl. alternative proposals will not allow the same level of tar sands expansion as keystone. it is public and first nation's opposition. it requires the use of aging pipelines to move tar sands through communities and sensitive watersheds. of arkansas community mayflower made us realize the risk is becoming apparent to the public. the state department acknowledged that tar sands is significantly more carbon in tens of over its lifetime. caragency mistakenly --

been intensive -- carbon intensive. we know that the conclusions and underlying assumptions were wrong. is the example of rail used by oil producers in north dakota. north dakota producers increased ,heir use of rail to move crude over 500 million -- 51000 barrels a day. they have even rejected -- 500,000 barrels a day. light crude is moving from the bakken oilfield. it is not northern alberta's tar sands. than 21,000 barrels per

day, less than 1% of day tar rail to u.s.by refineries and markets in the gulf coast in december of 2012. there are two major reasons why producers have not turned to rail to move their product to market. it is significantly more expensive for them to do so. they have significantly tighter profit margins. sands is significantly more expensive to move by rail. northern alberta is about 1,000 miles farther than the refinery in north dakota. railg having tar sands by has additional complications. a cannot move heavy crude on rail car. special rail cars are required and operating facilities are required. there are not being built to handle tar sands.

all these factors increase the cost of moving a barrel of tar sands by rail. twice --uces our pain are paid twice of what was estimated. they have tight margins. some have costs above $100 a barrel. maybe these projects will not move forward with sam's -- forward with since -- with substantially higher real costs. -- rail costs. the state department has indicated keystone xl would have no impact on gasoline prices and would increase oil prices it in the midwest by a significant margin. -- prices in the midwest by a significant margin. there is a permanent risk to american communities. we need to protect those jobs,

not put them at risk with the type of blowout that has poisoned 40 miles of the kalamazoo river in michigan or the recent spill in arkansas that spilled 420 gallons of tar sands floating to the community of mayflower. the disadvantages outweigh its benefits. pollution associated with it. it would threaten american communities, and lance, and water resources to transport tar it cano the gulf where be refined and exported internationally. keystone is not in the nation's interests. thank you for the opportunity to prevent the best present my views. i will answer any and all questions. >> thank you. >> i have never done anything like this before.

i am not an expert in anything, just ask my wife. i think mr. upton probably inviting me here because i am in a unique position. we are a manufacturer of american main valves that are used in oil production. i know the technology. probably spent more time sands thant the oil everybody combined. foremost, the canadians are completely perplexed. i am just talking about the general public. as to why america is thumbing its nose at having this crude. somebody said it is as if he owned a catering company and you were having a wedding in your

friend chose an enemy to do the catering rather than your friend. the need for crude oil when not -- will not go away anytime soon. it is in everybody's best interests to get away from it. the technology needs to be developed and brought forward. as a member of the private sector, when things are in demand and the technology is there, we will grab hold of it and run with it. other sources of power, if they were available and private -- capital and consumer wanted them, we would be all over the -- all over it. we started in the early 1990's with the zero oil sands where there was a handful of crazy guys who had an idea of getting oil from the frozen tundra. if you look at my testimony, they are the world's low producer of cost per barrel.

if the pipeline does not go through, the oil sands producing companies will not close up and go away. china wants that oil. i am up there constantly. up therea is constantly. they are buying out the entire facilities. they will get pipelines put into the west coast. there is no doubt about that. it is a done deal if we do not do the pipeline. no we matter -- manufacturing, i can tell you that companies like mine, with the help of mr. upton and other people in the government, are taking steps to make our plants more efficient. we have gotten away from toxic chemicals. i can tell you that our counterparts in asia and china in particular are not doing those things. to call it the lesser of the

evils, if somebody is going to get their hands on that crucial oil, i think it is in our best interests that companies in america who are trying to do the right thing and be more efficient are able to get ahold of that. i will comment also that in the time i spent out there in the last few years, a majority of the projects we sell are going into the environmental portion as opposed to direct production of oil -- production of oil sands crude. in the 1970's and 1980's, until the early 2000's, the cars pumpingar sands were into big pines and leaving it. they put can outbid to keep animals from going through them. the canadian government has gotten strict. they are on a fast track with a thing called the tailing

reformation. because of that, they are claiming these large deformation kinds --reformation pmnds. ponds. they have to replace dead trees in that area. if you go by there, you would never know it was used for oil production. i hold some pants in valve designs for a company that manufactures them. if you buy a tire, the technology of that tire is sound. if you run it for 1,000 miles and do not rotate it, it will blow out. the same is true for a pipeline. seen on alem i have pipeline has been a maintenance issue. they were not maintaining properly.

the technology is sound. >> thank you very much. mr. molino. five recognized for minutes. to thank you,e ranking member rush, and all the members of the subcommittee for allowing me to testify. we support construction of the keystone pipeline. the benefits of this project are too great to allow it to be derailed by environmental extremism. it will require millions of hours of work with good wages and benefits. not just theis pipeline. it is a lifeline. the construction sector was hit particularly hard by the recession. with unemployment in the industry reaching 27% in 2010.

salaries in construction remain far higher than in -- in industry. it is double the national unemployment rate. out ofy americans are work. the keystone pipeline will change that situation for thousands of them. transcanada has executed a private labor agreements with four construction unions to guarantee this pipeline will be built with the best trained, skilled conception workers in the world. regardless of the characterizations by the project's opponents, it is indisputable that jobs will be created. these jobs will have a ripple effect on consumer spending and a positive impact on the states and communities where the pipeline will be located. some of the pipeline's opponents have resorted to attacking the nature of the work that our members have chosen as careers. they have imposed a value

judgment that holds these construction jobs to be of lesser value because a construction project has a completion date and that individual job will come to an end at some point. they called these jobs temporary to diminish their importance and they recruit others to join the chorus of negativity under the mistaken belief that these jobs have no value for society. to attack the project, they have called these jobs dirty and dangerous. construction is a dangerous occupation. if not performed by trained workers, it could gain -- lead danger. when it is performed by train workers, it is less dangerous and can be performed in an environmentally safe manner. resources can help our state and local governments

protect their communities from harmful budget cuts that have led to layoffs and the elimination of much needed services. keystone pipeline will be the safest pipeline in the world. the 57 special conditions mentioned before have a degree typicaly like any domestic pipeline under the current regulations. to address environmental , transcanada rerouted 195 miles of the pipeline. the nebraska -- nebraska governor recently sent a letter to the president approving trans canada's 1 95 mile reroute. mile reroute. denial of a presidential permanent increases the

likelihood that american markets will miss the opportunity to secure our long-term commitment for this american resource. the northport hr-3, american route approval act, which will clear the way preventing construction of the pipeline. similar legislation was necessary to allow construction of the trans alaska pipeline, which has been a great boon for our members, as well as other unions that worked on that friday. if opponents of american jobs succeed in preventing be pipeline from being built, no local, state or federal revenues will be generated by the construction and operation of the pipeline and there will be no additional income for property owners and businesses along the pipeline route. the jobs that will be created by this mass of private investment will be lost.

i appreciate the opportunity to testify. i will try to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. doctor, you are recognized for five minutes. the nine keystone xl will not slow development of the alberta oil sands.-- -- alberta oil sands. from --ons to this come contradictions to this come from the pipeline manufacturers themselves. are the proposals of er gave way -- its way

northridge. i live in vancouver, british columbia. i am a frequent adviser on energy and climate policy. industry analysts rate the probability of these two projects at a low 50%. with good reason. on the coast, oil tanker traffic when increased dramatically. they are strongly opposed. they have a powerful legal position in the canadian courts. just as important, there is strong public opposition to both projects. the city of vancouver opposes the use of export to export oil. the provincial opposition vows to stop the gateway if it forms the next government. the election is next month. ofask for the denial keystone xl.

yes.nswer is a resounding without these three projects, be sand production will slowed. this is nothing most important question to ask when considering a project like keystone. we must have the honesty and political courage to ask a more important question. we must ask what we must be doing to slow the global rise of pollution and what role can keystone play in this difficult challenge? it is not an easy question. oil industry executives do not want to talk about it. it wants to extract more fossil fuels from the earth's crust. it is a classic tragedy of the commons. each source of carbon pollution is a percentage of the whole. each polluter argues it must continue or expand. china argues it must burn coal

as long as america is burning fossil fuels. canada says is that it was used as china is long still burning coal. given the incredible amount of fossil fuels in the earth's crust, science has been clear that this game's in stage is dramatically harder and an unstable planet that we are hurtling toward. if we are arguing about this tragedy, u.s. political leaders know that the effort to reduce carbon pollution is meaningless if it is not taken together with serious efforts from others. in canada, they are not doing their share. this is unpopular in a large percentage of the canadian population. in 2009, president obama stressed the urgency and set a

target for the u.s. to reduce its emissions by 2020 to 70% of its 2010 levels. in solidarity, the canadian government promised to achieve the same target for 2020. the canadian auditor general said emissions in 2020 are likely to be 17% higher than 70% lower. the main reason is the projected oil sands growth. it provides the ideal of a ton before the u.s. government to signal to its allies and the rest of the world that the climate strategy of the commons cannot be addressed if we are not pulling together. it cannot be addressed if we accelerate the extraction of fossil fuels from the earth also crossed. it cannot be addressed if countries like canada are free riding on the efforts of countries like the u.s. in the nine keystone, the u.s.

government will explain to canada that it is extremely concerned with rising crime and pollution and it is incurring costs to keep its pollution reduction promises and expects other countries to meet their promises, too. it will explain that we will be in solving this extremely difficult global tragedy of the comments, we should expect nothing less from the world's most powerful nation. thank you. i will be pleased to enter the questions. fornd thank you all of you your testimony. members of the panel will be asking questions. i will recognize myself at this point for five minutes. in america our co2 emissions of the lowest they have been in 20 years and yet we know china and some other countries -- their co2 conditions -- their co2

emissions to to be to increase dramatically. it is difficult to talk about any energy project today anywhere without a discussion about the impact on climate change. many of you have read the 5 page article of the most recent issue which talksomist," about the temperature rise, which has been flat for the last 10 years, even though carbon dioxide emissions are growing significantly in other countries around the world, except in u.s. and maybe some of europe. there are some interesting developments coming out on this issue. we have inproblems the u.s., we feel like we do not have to take a back seat to anyone on the good job we have done with the environment. china talks as -- good game. they are buying more fossil

fuels now than ever. here in the u.s. we are the only country in america that you cannot build a new car plant if the greenhouse regulations are bealized, which they will soon. we're shooting ourselves in the foot. this is about the keystone pipeline and our ability to the energy independent. question ix, one would like to ask you. we had a hearing on this about a year or so ago. one of the members raised an interesting point. he was talking about -- the estimated 800,000 tons of steel would be used in this project. this number is indicating that he was upset -- he understood that transcanada was not going .o be buying u.s. steel he specifically pointed out

that it would be coming out of an indian multi-national company and a russian company. this member said he would feel a little bit better if just one small amount of the steel for this project would be coming from america. would you address that issue? with their peace deal coming from america of this project goes through? >> i would be happy to, chairman. we started procuring -- in order to be in position to build this pipeline we had to start a procurement of pipe for the pipeline years ago. we have procured approximately 75% of the pipe for this project from north american suppliers mixed between canadian and suppliers in saskatchewan and one in arkansas. more buthave procured

at the time those with the two companies that had the ability to produce steel with the very sophisticated specifications we require. announced aime have number of extensions to the keystone xl project and 100% of the pipe for those projects, 40,000 tons, has been sourced directly from american suppliers. purchasede already this steel? >> yes. >> can you share the amount of money that cost roughly? >> it would be in the ballpark of summer between probably $1.5 billion to $2 billion. >> there is not any government money involved in the keystone project? >> it is all private dollars. >> you had mentioned in your testimony that the labor unions had signed a project labor agreement with transcanada. that is the case, right? >> it is. also, if we could get a couple

more heat lamps on me. if i am not truly a crimson my mom will be disappointed. transcanada has been a great partyner. the part -- of reporter in this. the project agreement was a couple of years ago. this pipeline will be built 100% union. there are five unions involved. >> how many jobs would you anticipate that would bring? >> this has been an issue, i do not want to take up too much time, in the construction sector we talk about ours. depending on how many people you have on a job you can get it done much more quickly. it would be millions of hours for the laborers. right now have done about half a million dollars on the southern gateway project just in the last six months of the last year. there is probably an equal number down there on that

project. the keystone xl is a multiple of that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. jaccard, maybe you can help me out. it seems as though the environmental community, of which i have had a lot of colaboration with over the years -- it seems to me they are really downplaying the impact and importance of jobs as it relates to this particular issue. i represent a district that is struggling economically. unemployerational

ment. it seems as though there is no concern of the problems my constituancy and other constituancies acoss the country -- across the country have. where is the creation of jobs in place of priority on this? represent the environmental community. studieseconomist who how economies respond to different kinds of policies. 10 years ago i wrote a book called, "sustainable fossil fuels." the fossillieved fuels are a valuable resource for humanity.

my--- my eyesose to the impact of carbon pollution. >> thank you. are aking to jobs, there lot of jobs created in cap -- in making alternative to fossil fuels. >> in the united states the environmental jobs is the fastest-growing sector in the u.s. economy. it is one of the only sectors that grew during the recession. if you look at the dollar investment in clean energy, it generates about three to four times as many jobs per dollar than it does in fossil fuels. the sources tested the jobs that state with us, manufacturing jobs, jobs that the oilto export to

dependent communities. >> thank you very much. mallino, how many of these jobs are in the private sector that are currently operating? what is the minority participation in terms of contract and jobs? >> we have answered this question in the past. we responded for the record last time, we do not track those numbers. but our union reflects the communities where we are located. in areas where there is high diversity our unions are very diverse. in areas of low diversity we are not as diverse. we reflect the communities where the locals are located. pourbaix, do you track

those numbers? >> we try to track those numbers. is on the southern leg of the gulf coast it does depend on community. i have asked for this information a day or so ago and i saw that it ranges depending on what community -- it was anywhere between 12% minority participation in the workforce to 55% minority participation in the workforce. we do have significant minority participation in the southern leg. at this time i would recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you. is a secretnk it that i am supportive of the keystone pipeline. i think it is redundant to asked to many questions. i would point out that people like me that support hydrocarbon development do not deny that the

climate is changing. i think you can have an honest difference of opinion on what is causing that change without either allly being in -- it is all because of mankind or it is all just natural. i think there is a divergence of evidence. i would point out that if you are a believer in the bible, one would have to say the great flood is an example of climate change. that certainly was not because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy. in any event, i would ask the gentleman from the canadian government if you agree with the professor at the other end of the table that if we don't do will be these projects developed to get oil to the west coast of canada and on to japan

or china. energy will be developed in some sense elsewhere? with that disagree characterization and a similar characterization made by mr. swift. reason there has been so much more rail transport is there were very few existing pipelines so rail was the only option. until very recently alberta, the campus -- the existing pipeline have the capacity to take that oil. speaking with the senior people in these oil companies on an almost daily basis. all of them are executing on strategies to move and build more rail terminals and move

more oil by rail. the number we see quoted is $15 per barrel to get that oil from the oil stands to the u.s. gulf coast. that comes with a three times higher emission of greenhouse gas to move a barrel of oil by rail than by pipeline and a much significantly higher risk of a spill by doing it that way. is going to be produced and is quick to be moved by rail, which i think the evidence is clearly in favor of xlt, by denying the keystone permit you are almost certainly going to increase global ghg as these rail sources proliferate. that is exactly what we are seeing right now. if you talk to the major canadian real companies they see the largest area of growth is moving oil to the u.s. markets. >> of what we call the keystone pipeline, which is not a legal

term, it is just a general term, how much of that is in existence or already permitted and in the process of being built? peace-keystone. that has been in service since 2010. that was a project that was in the debt that was arranged. it was a $70 billion project. it moves 600,000 barrels of oil a day to cushing and refining market in the midwest. we are presently building the southern leg of what was originally the keystone xl. all of that is soon to be in service. >> how many miles is that? >> i would probably get it wrong -- >> it does not have to be exact, this is the government. >> if you added it all up it is probably somewhere in the range of over two thousand miles.

>> you have 2000 built or even being built. how much is in question in this permit? >> just the portion from the operation -- from the alberta border to nebraska. probably about 800 miles. glaxo about two-thirds of it are already -- are built or ready to be built. >> exactly. >> my time is up. us who are for it are going to be for it. those of us who are against it will be against it. i would recommend we schedule a vote and bring it to the floor. but a senate to the senate. the senate.nd it to >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to think your panel for the testimony today. i want to thank the chairman for inviting a balanced panel this morning. how do you believe construction of the keystone

pipeline would affect domestic gas supply and domestic gas prices? >> one thing to understand is that keystone xl is really a oil into theet the gulf coast. what it will do is divert oil to the midwest, increasing oil prices in the midwest. the only thing to understand about the gulf coast refineries are exporting a significant amount of their product. 3 million barrels a day was exported from gulf coast refineries in december 2012. >> can anyone else into that question? how will the keystone pipeline effect domestic gas prices? >> i would be happy to give a brief comment on that. mr. swift did make an accurate

characterization with respect to right now. because there is a lack of ,ipeline capacity in the u.s. recently crude oil prices in the u.s. midwest have been lower than they have been on the gulf coast. that is being solved by our gulf aast project, enterprise has project, and it has a project, that bottleneck is being removed. this keystone product is only from alberta to cushing. it is not going to exacerbate or change that problem. that difference between coastal prices and midwest prices are going to be removed by the products that are under construction. one point i would say is the fact there have been well priced -- lower-priced oil in the midwest has not led to lower gas for midwest consumers, it has led to higher margins for refiners that have been

benefiting by that. to suggest that any of those products will increase gasoline prices would be incorrect. say on balance. but keystone is doing is adding another source of supply to a finite demand. it has been a long time since i took economics. typically when you add incremental supply to a fine and the impact should be to reduce prices. i do not think anyone is suggesting it will be a very significant reduction. >> thank you. mr. swift, how much more carbon is emitted per unit of castling produced -- of gasoline produced and sold to consumer from tarzan's versus conventional oil? >> i think the estimates were upward to 70% as far as the life --le emissions for your unit per unit of gasoline.

much of that is from the production side of things. >> would anyone else care to answer that question? >> just one quick comment. given wasthey have somewhere between 12% at 70%. debased that analysis on the average share of oil and refined in the west. it is worth noting that those gulf coast refineries that keystone is targeting are presently configured and run heavy oil. they will not be replacing a barrel of canadian heavy with a barrel of light. it will be replacing it with a barrel of venezuelan heavy. that percentage would be smaller. jaccard, you believe that global warming is cost a huge degree by human activity? >> i believe in listening to

scientists. >> one of the things in your written testimony that was brought up was that in order to achieve a less than a two degree celsius change in global temperatures the keystone pipeline needs to be a part of that, whether it is prevented or not. could you comment on that? >> the keystone needs to be part of it. what i would like to say is that i am involved in a lot of analysis. what happens to global energy markets to be the constraints of two degrees celsius that scientists -- this is been publicly talked about. when we run those we do not expand while fans in canada. he did not expand the venezuelan heavy oil. the wealth that would run for decades when not trying to co- production. products like keystone and british columbia products are feasible of that o

future. >> thank you. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a question to ask you. first i would like to note that the chairman introduced into the record the impact of climate change. we have been debating that for years. dr. jaccard believes in listening to the scientists. we have been listening to much to the scientist and the liberal press has not reported everything to the people. we have sent 22 bills over to the senate. one of them got through and the president vetoed it.

none of austenite climate change. we have to keep an eye on that. we have to be aware of it. i am telling you who is keeping an eye on us, the taxpayers of this country. $43 billion and have not changed one iota. the testimony and all of the acts of this conference has been -- of this congress has been to look at, be aware of it, come here and tell the truth. my question to you in your written testimony, i am not going to allude to you that you did not tell the truth. you mention that 60% of the southern pipeline is complete. would you give us some examples of the economic impact that is having.

>> the small portion of what was originally keystone xl pipeline was in and of itself a two $0.5 billion to $3 billion pipeline. we have put 5000 construction workers directly to work working on that project. consumables, all of that equipment that is required for the project was largely sourced from american sources. all of those spin-off benefits are improving the communities that supply the equipment. >> tell me specifically how that is affecting texas. specific datethe of right in front of me. obviously the line share of that project is in the state of texas. a large part of those economic data -- those economic benefits would be accruing in the state of texas. >> are you exercise in domain in

texas at this time? are you purchasing any land? massiveve purchased quantities of -- we have purchased easements' which give us the right to go on properties. over 99% of those easement's were negotiated. >> doesn't require you to have the land owners right to offer to let you go on the property? >> absolutely. >> that is not the way it occurs -- i live in the smallest county of texas. i support the bill overall. i support telling the president that we do not agree with him on international boundary because of the influence of this amount of money and jobs would be to all of us. when we talk about anwar, it is

19 million acres, we want to drill on 2,000 acres. if that ruins that 19 million acres it is like seeing a drop of silver dollar in dinkey stadium and everyone runs after you. agree with that? ell mehave changed t where we have. >> i think it is a fact that the efforts to have had relatively little impact on global temperature. i have seen a number of studies done on keystone if it were denied and not built. if the oil stands were not developed it would have an impact of less than 51 hundredths of 1%. hundredths -- five one-

hundredths of 1%. >> at this time we recognize the full committee ranking chairman. >> thank you. i appreciate your testimony. some supporters of the keystone xl pipeline say that using will from the tar sands produces much more carbon pollution than conventional oil. they recognize this extra carbon pollution will make climate change worse. not all on this committee. they are due to move this tarzan's well would not make climate change worse. their argument is that oil companies will carry out their plans to triple production on tarzan's whether or not keystone xl was built. oil companies could only do that if they have real alternatives to keystone xl.

expand the tarzan's if they cannot it will to the market. right now that is a big problem for the oil industry. this is a big question. the keystone xl is necessary to tarzan's extension plans. is there any way the producers can realize their plans to triple production levels without building new pipelines are figuring out ways to get parts and oil to market? oil to market? >> that will have its own challenges about allowing massive amounts of rail transport of oil, even as mr. pourbaix talked about what those risks and impacts are. if you start building a pipeline, not the keystone but

in my jurisdiction, that is how you slowdown climate change. the environmental trust acknowledged that the keystone pipeline could affect the climate. the currently a prose -- currently proposed pipeline productions were blocked, tar sand would be lower. the state department assumes that if keystone xl and other pipelines are not built producers will move all of the to trade instead. willirst key question is canada build other pipelines in the west coast of canada? if you years ago is the department assumed if we did not approve the keystone xl pipeline key will would simply go west to china. oil wouldne pipeline

simply go west to china. >> when one says canadians support developing oil sands, alberta supports that. there are many places in the country where they do not support that, and british columbia is where it is difficult to find that support. crossing british columbia is very strong and mathematically politically. >> the state department basically agreed with that and said -- the state department assumed to be would use roads to coast. sands to the is this really a viable option? >> it is not. on eway to evaluate this.

under the same architecture by rail. tar sands managers have not been able to manage it. there are unique to challenges in move tar sands by rail. northern alberta is a lot further away. simply stated it is far more expensive and tar sands producers to not have the margins to afford it. >> the real options is for economics. they must travel farther and is heavier. any less can be moved per car. current rail costs are $31 per barrel as opposed to $8 per barrel for pipeline. new tar sands projects have high, break even costs. transportation costs applied to make them much less attractive. >> that is correct.

>> approving the keystone xl pipeline is key to get tar sands oil off the market . approving keytone xl would give the green light to a huge additional common pollution. the only responsible action is to say no to be keystone xl pipeline. administrationa -- i am just saying this to do not use this in any way as rationale because it is just not accurate. is that a fair statement? >> yes. >> thank you. >> we recognize the vice- chairman of the committee.

>> thank you for this hearing. have given americans up because the economy is so weak. literally with the stroke of a pen president obama can create more than 20,000 new jobs in america. it is just that simple. this doesn't require a cap of congress did fortunately we are here today because whatever reason, for more than four refusedhe president has to approve the keystone pipeline. that over 109,000 jobs -- the over 100,000 new jobs would be created in america. when you talk about america's energy security, there would be a million barrels per day of oil from canada that we do not

have to buy from its eastern countries to do not like us. america's oil demand has dropped. still use the same number of barrels of oil a day. problem is the gas prices are going up every day. they talk and talk because they are -- when you talk about approving the key some pipeline, there are more advantages to doing it. if you look at the trading relationship we have with canada, canada is a great friend. there is no reason for the president to be harming our relationship with canada by stringing them out for years when everybody else looks at this. anyone who is impartial look of this and says it should have been done years ago.

the keys to a pipeline should have been approved years ago. if you look at the relationship with canada, if we trade the same barrels of oil for canada we did get about 85 or 90 cents on the dollar back for every dollar sent to canada in trade. that same dollar that goes over to middle eastern countries we get less than 50 cents off dollar on the back. we are using the same amount of oil. but who are we going to get it from. has a greatda which historical relationship with us. middle eastern countries use that money against us. it boggles most people's minds when they look at this and say why does the president continued to say no? >> is a keystone. but rather -- for whatever reason the president was to do it, there have been

large bipartisan votes in support. it is not a bipartisan issue. these aren't traditional republican groups. because youk you talked about your testimony what the lazy to jobs in america, if you could expand on that. we have heard of businesses that either closed down or delayed operations. not even canadian businesses. american businesses are being hurt every day by inaction of the president. can you expand on that and give us some examples? >> as i mentioned in my testimony we have been blessed to expand to other parts of the world that we have not been selling to previously. i know that some of our -- some of the big

players in the pipeline industry and labor, even though they are still high demand, it is definitely scaled back because of delays in cancellations -- delays and cancellations of a lot of these products. >> there is no reason for those jobs be lost. we could have them today as i mentioned earlier. there has been some suggestion that this oil is just going to sit there and the american president needs to wait a couple more years in canada is going to sit and do nothing with this valuable asset they have. i have also heard reports to the contrary that i read to the contrary -- to the country that china wants to get ahold of these will. -- of this oil. can you tell us what happens if the president does not say yes to the keystone. does it just sit there in the ground or does it go to in the country who could gain from it? >> i have said this many times.

the oil sands are truly the economic engine that will be driving the canadian economy for several years. the canadian government has been supportive of our product and all other projects to get the oil out of the country. we are in a great situation that we have productions in far accessing our needs. -- we have productions far exceeding our needs. i take exception to the characterization that the pipeline projects will not be approved by the regulators. foranada the regulator pipelines is the national agency board. he approved the canadian portion of keystone xl years ago. the approved the base keystone and the canadian federal government went on record repeatedly saying they are supportive of both the western projects and products to take the oil east.

i think it is absolutely clear that the oil sands are to be developed. the only question is what market is going to get to. >> time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five minutes. >> double, mr. chairman. -- thank you mr. chairman. good tonono -- elaborate on that? >> i was a child. i was not around. moreld have to get much specifics. >> i was a state legislature in texas. remember that talk -- that congress had to step in and approve the trans atlantic pipeline. it sounds a " we are trying

to do here. break in atry to particular crowd of legislation. i visited the oil sands last summer. in 2007 canada began regulating large amounts of sources and bring out gas emissions. for march 2012 statistics come over 34 million tons of emissions have been avoided. they also mentioned they will revisit this in the future to update the law. from what your testimony -- canada as a nation has not made a decision. obviously provinces of alberta has paid its british columbia taking that kind of stance? , i helped columbia with the work on the policies, has a carbon tax across the board of $30 per ton of co2.

thatso have a requirement no electricity generated that produces greenhouse gas, even though we have very cheap and cold -- >> how much electricity as the british columbia produced by hydropower? >> 93%. we have the cheapest natural gas and coal in the country. >> 93% of your electricity comes from hydropower. obviously in texas we do not have that. we will not allow any delay not to be used because most of the electricity comes from hydro, just like british columbia. effort tos made an control the g h g in their process. the regulation and have studied carefully tracks the normal emissions gains. is affectively

coast close to zero. glucks the refineries in my area, particularly the heavier crude, do you know if any of our importing countries that we have that have done when alberta has done? >> $8 per ton of co2 tax know. but it is inconsequential -- a dollar per ton of co2? and now. but it is inconsequential. >> a question for you both. i represent refineries where most of the oil would go. they continue to seek supplies from heavier crude, whether it is keystone xl. the problem is to secure oil supplies from canada --

correct? >> the instance reports suggest that venezuela was going to decline either way. >> i agree with you, they are losing production like mexico. are those countries that we are quick to import from have stronger stance or even -- -- stronger standards or even equal standards? [inaudible] >> the even would decline more if we had a trans-canada pipeline. pipeline developer and operator working in western canyon -- do you agree with mr. millano and mr. swift's

assessment? as i said i believe there is a very high likelihood that national's and the board of canada will find a need for those pipelines. national energy board will find a need for those pipelines. >> i guess we will send it to asia. thank you for your time. >> i will recognize the gentleman from nebraska for five minutes. >> i appreciate you being here. need to obtain a presidential permit, which is the basis of chart 3, can you discuss some of the other outstanding, permitting issues. issue isvious biggest the presidential permit. some other federal

approvals. key among them would be some issues with respect to migratory birds and endangered species and water crossing. those types of issues. >> what specific permits are required for those? where do have to get a permit from? >> that is the army corps of engineers. to cross majord wetlands for and their bodies. >> if transcanada fails to receive any one of those permits what impact would have on the construction of the pipeline? >> we are not able to proceed with the construction of the pipeline until we are in receipt of all those required federal

permits. it would continue to remain on hold until we receive this permits. what litigation would have transcanada facing courts over the destruction of this pipeline? >> i do not have the exact number of lawsuits. the opponents of this project have long came to the conclusion that ultimately delay means the nile. generally their strategy has been every possible stake in the process to put legal claims against the project. to this point we have won every one that has been brought against us. legalhave been many many suits filed. >> do you anticipate any more? i fully anticipate we will have many more. our opponents are to be focused

on a strategy of delay. either the project proponents for the ship will give up. >> the opponents have not been high -- have not been shy about saying we have petitions sitting on their desk ready to file. ha these lawsuits have yet to be filed? could it seriously delay or impacts pipeline? >> this is nothing new. our opponents have brought the same suits in all major pipeline and energy construction projects. in all cases that we have been involved in -- we have been able to succeed in all of those legal cases. we expect we will succeed in these. wintley received the presidential permit we will commence construction and fight the lawsuits. >> since i represent omaha,

nebraska, which has a history of rail -- we grew into a corporate account because of the railroad. withhave told me that even saytone pipeline the insf they still expect to be hauling from the al baca and alberta are oil sands. >> there will always be a role for trucking and rail in moving will around. they serve a legitimate purpose. the point i have always taken is that as the distance is it very long and the volumes did very large the benefits of the pipeline become very inherent with respect to their cross benefit. it is much cheaper to move oil through pipelines.

their safety record is higher. there is less likelihood of spill. there will still be real movement and truck movements to get oil to those main collection points where the pipeline to take away from. >> thank you. >> i recognize the gentleman from michigan for five minutes. >> i thank you for your courtesy. most answers will be yes or no because of the limited amount of time. -- e is currently an open >> yes. >> when does this dead end? >> at the moment i believe is april 21. the environmental

statement currently open for public comment the same as the one record in hr3? >> yes. >> this legislation demes approval for certain permits in the department of state and interior defense. it would provide permits under the clean water act. is that so? >> yes. >> are we certain that all of the information has been gathered to justify issuing these permits? >> no. >> mr. chairman, never have the american people been comforted by the words "i am from the government and i am here to help." public toallowing the know how this project will affect the communities is simple common sense. i would point out that if we are going to go to nebraska over a very sensitive aquifer and found out that imposed enormous risk

-- that information was not available to the public. author i can tell you it was created to create transparency so people will know the impact of a project and what it will be on their communities. this bill will circumvent that as a public even comment period is in progress and only going to bring more delays. instead of allowing the process to properly play out congress is choosing to rush the administration without allowing the established process to run its course. this has already cost us a trouble on one occasion. by rushing the administration to make a decision at the beginning of last year they were forced to start this process back again at square one, further delaying a final decision. i have repeatedly said that i support the building of this pipeline.

it is also in the national interest the wish to comply with the law to know the facts and say that the permits are properly -- and see that the permits are properly issued and reflect public interest. that is why we passed the clean theer act and why we passd national environmental policy act. i would much rather see the manufacturing and construction jobs that are going to be created in this to go down south through the united states rather than going west to china, where the oil will be processed and dirtyand burned in a very way. this bill will do exactly the opposite. to circumvent the established process and potentially open the process and the product to a

plethora of lawsuits were the lawyers are. have a wonderful goal but going to have a wonderful time delaying the process and construction even further. instead of legislating the process where it is not needed, this commission is starting to focus on comprehensive energy legislation and on supervising the process of this to see that it goes forward properly. i have observed the keystone pipeline. in my opinion it should be a useful part of our national energy strategy and not be given into litigation of this kind. it should be viewed as an opportunity to make technological advances, changes in the economy, and gather new information, and we should be giving consideration to this as a part of our national energy policy, including a large number of things like renewable nuclear reform -- like nuclear renewable fossil fuel.

to aill is a solution problem that does not exist. i very much want to support this legislation. i believe is in the national interest to support this pipeline. but you are compelling me and many other americans to oppose this legislation and oppose the construction of the pipeline because you do not assure us you will do it in a proper way in conformity with the law. these unnecessary changes that you are making to hasten the process are counterproductive in the extreme. i beg the committee not to engage in this kind of silly and. >> the above. at this time i recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. chairman fore the recognition. let me just ask you -- you just heard mr dingall speak about this.

feel like we are rushing you? >> and atomic come here we talk about the key some pipeline. it has been that way for two and a half years. >> without dispute i think it is the environmental review hasess for this project certainly been the most involved, the longest, certainly in any experience i have had with energy infrastructure projects. we have had dozens of public hearings, we have had hundreds of thousands of pages of cullman rid of public comment and testimony. i do not think anyone can argue that the material issue related to the project has not been exhaustively analyzed. >> texas is my home state. presidentf last year obama went to cushing, oklahoma and said he wanted a pipeline

built from here to the gulf of mexico, meaning from oklahoma to the gulf of mexico. it has not been without some anxiety at home. i will admit that. people have had their lands disrupted by the placement of the pipeline. it is national interest to get this going. texans are understanding of energy issues and the necessity of getting energy to market. here is the problem that i have. build theok to pipeline from oklahoma to the gulf of mexico and disrupt the lives of hard-working texans when the administration apparently never had any intention of completing the other part of the pipeline that would actually make it economically relevant and economically beneficial to the nation? we would ask texas to give of their land for the pipeline and

yet an administration still seems in mobile in its ability to make a decision -- in mobile in its ability to make a decision for the benefit of the country. transcanada took the initiative. we saw the opportunity to sever the larger portion of the keystone xl application because this is a need in the industry to connect cushing to the u.s. gulf coast. we took that opportunity. that was not a free kick that was not something the federal government encouraged. it was an ability and an opportunity we saw to take that portion of the product had independent utility and remove it from the presidential permit application process. one, i would say on your comment about land -- there is no company that takes those issues

with the right of way and land issues more serious than canada. 99% of our land owners reached a voluntary negotiated easement and not have to go into any eminent domain procedure. we are down to literally a handful of land owners. >> i appreciate that. i appreciate the fact this was a privately instigated and funded venture. cushingident went to oklahoma with 200 invited guests and took a photo op in march of last year. i have always felt a little bit of unease by the willingness of the administration to capitalize. if we are catabolized -- america is good to capitalize on the problems of delivering this energy where it can be refined

to mr. green's district, the rest of that pipeline has to be built. i do not know if i am smart enough to do this. we'll have the gdp figures coming up for the first quarter of this year. last quarter of last year was disappointing. i will submit if you were to subtract the texas component to the gdp for this quarter we just finished in the last quarter i would not be all surprised if the country was still in recession with negative growth of two successive quarters. for leading energy activities in the field that has presented critic has presented the recession from being more desperate. when people talk about the reindustrialization of america they need to take a look at what is happening in north texas and south texas. it has been making changes. if we really were serious about free employing americans -- about re-employing americans i

think we should focus on this effort. thehis time i recognize lady from california. five minutes. >> thank you. thank you each of you for your testimony. this is an issue that we are all very familiar with. that is why i must say i am disappointed that one of our first legislative hearings is again on this issue when there are many other important issues we could be considering i continue to have serious concerns about this legislation and potentially devastating impact of the keys to a pipeline on public health and the environment. one of the main issues in this discussion is jobs. rightfully so. there is no denying that construction of the pipeline will create temporary jobs. these jobs are so desperately needed, especially in the construction industry. aspolicy makers we public -- policymakers i believe we must look to the big picture. when you are estimating job losses of 750,000 do to

sequestration creating a few thousand temporary jobs does not constitute the comprehensive jobs legislation our needs -- our nation needs right now. it is our responsibility to pursue policies in the benefit of our nation as a whole. development is even more carbon in sensitive than traditional developments. this is a big step in the wrong direction. it makes far more sense to promote the clean, renewable technologies we know we need. they reduce our dependence on oil and create long-term jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. i see this all the time in my district.

harnessingnies are clean sources to create jobs and strengthen economic growth. in your testimony, if you focus how thempact of keystone pipeline plays into that. could you explain this, briefly discussed the economic clean and -- and renewable energy- >> in california, i follow the numbers. passed the rule of clean electricity, it meant that two coal plants and a natural gas plant were not built. instead we developed a small scale hydro wind and wood waste

power. they traded three times as many jobs. >> perfect. thank you very much. i have a question for anthony. jobs are critical to economic growth. environmental and public health are critical to a strong work force. in 1969 at my home trichet was a victim to one of the worst oil spills and united states history. i know that local communities bear the brunt of this for a long time. the proposed pipeline would cut through stricter america's heartland, putting numerous communities atlas. they depend on clean soil and clean water. a bill could have devastating effects on local wildlife. ?ould you elaborate on this

>> there are 500 agricultural jobs. they depend upon clean water and land. majorrned prove two spills that this has significantly different in longer-term impact. nearly three years after the nearly $1800,000 in billion in cleanup activity, 38 miles of the river is still contaminated. they do not think you'll be able to put the river back. the spills poses unique and pretty dramatic risks to sensitive waterways. >> i could ask you very briefly to discuss some of the

the states between the use that would keep the pipeline. would you go into the difference on that? >> it is something called diluted been the men -- benimen. it has to be moved as a thick substance through the pipeline. state department estimated that fictional heating on keystone xl will send of the torture between 130 degrees and 150 degrees. we learned that high-temperature pipelines are much more likely to spill. when a spill occurs, the light stuff gases off and the heavy tar sinks below the water body. at that point, this bill responders have a difficult time containing its or cleaning it.

>> it is different. >> dramatically different. good afternoon. welcome. i represent a suburban houston district. is verytone pipeline important to my state. we are entitled to have our own opinions. none of us are entitled to half hour along facts. i just want to reiterate a few facts that seem to be forgotten. is alreadyberta coming to the united states. is keystone pipeline bringing over 500 billion barrels a day to our country right now. clip is bringing.

there are 25,000 miles of pipeline over the offer right now. 25,000. 2000 over nebraska. this canadian oil will be brought to market. to the united states or china or india. jay carney echoed my reasons to support this. theaid "moving oil from midwest to the world class state on the texas gulf coast will modernize infrastructure, create jobs, and encourage energy production. lookford to working -- forward to working." almost halfway done through east texas. can you please describe the

steps you're taking to ensure the safety of this pipeline? >> right up the bat it is important to understand that the keystone pipeline system is truly a state of the art pipeline system. a uses modern, high strength steel. multiple redundant early detection technologies. inaddition, you heard this my statements, in addition to following federal code when you agreed to follow 57 additional special conditions. those are things like reduced spacing of isolation valves, pipe deeper. we are doing a horizontal direction will drill so we are 20 feet or 40 feet below the bottom of the river in bed rock so we do not have to worry about the kind of problems that

occurred at kalamazoo or the yellowstone problem that exxon had. these modern pipelines have incredible records with respect to spill and safety. we are building the most modern pipeline ever built in the u.s. >> your opinion is that it is designed to be the state is pipeline in the world. >> that is actually the finding of the department of state in the environmental impact statements. >> in your opening statement he said the keystone xl is that a pipeline, it is a lifeline. of these jobs created are going to be temporary. can you explain how a lifeline is not a temporary job? >> our members were job to job in our industry. sometimes you go onto the job

and do something else and come back. your benefit package is structure, it the way you earn your help insurance and pension credits, it is determined by the numbers of hours you worked in a given quarter. without a project that create hours, whether a highway project for energy, water, without projects are members do not work. without work they do not earn a living in benefits. in that sense it is a lifeline. a temporary job has been used to dismiss these jobs. that is unfortunate. it does not take into account of the construction industry works. it is done in a very derogatory way by people who dismiss the importance. >> what is the salary range of these lifeline jobs and the

educational level necessary to have these jobs? i make $75,000 max in the navy. salaries are the not raised. >> it varies by kraft. -- craft. depending on what skills you have in which union, it would vary. in some parts of the country, our pipeline workers make about 20 bucks an hour plus a benefit package. in other parts, it is much higher. if you are with the operating engineers who may still be in the back of the room, the salary structure is entirely different. there's will be much higher. it depends upon what your doing. there some of the best jobs in the construction industry. >> 800,000 barrels a day, 20,000 good paying jobs, security.

the recognize ms. christensen for five minutes. >> there is a lot of bothers me about the bill. i am concerned of the one project with hereditary umar. should gete why one special treatment. my constituents are citizens who are experiencing a high energy price in a community with limited resources. legislationpecial to the americans and the u.s. virgin islands or hr 92. the subcommittee is proposing to move a third bill in two years concerning treatment. there are four hearings and the same time. as a physician, i am concerned about how the keystone xl pipeline would affect public health. affectil could directly

the public. we're reminded of pictures of oil flowing down the streets. despite your testimony, at report does not many confident that they would do without accidents. i understand low income and minority communities are have a 50% higher rate of contracting leukemia. they are worried that we're finding out more tar sands that add to the pollutants that are harming their health. do they have a right to be concerned? doesn't adequately address the

impacts -- doesn't adequately address the impact? >> to the first question i would say yes. tois the sort of emissions expect from these high-sulfur benjamins. notstate department did adequately address the increase inssions on communities their refineries. they assumed they would be processing these right away. how much not speak of how would be refined. >> venezuela had heavy crude. wereommission inventories

out of the road in the virgin islands. could we note that keystone xl pipeline will acerbate climate change? that has devastating health impacts. could you also please speak to this? it granting special treatment to transcanada will benefit our citizens, do those benefits outweigh the harm? >> the point i was trying to make is it is very difficult to deal with climate change. you have to have the political courage to say we start here and have to push for things to happen in canada and china. there is no other way to solve it. what you're trying to do is prevent the certification of oceans, dramatic changes of extreme weather events and also problems with ecosystems would

all come back to human health type of issues. the science is very clear on this. >> i agree. toing from a place prone natural weather disasters and also where we are relying on that is and recreation, very devastating to communities like mine. thank you for your answers. i yield back the balance of my time. >> and recognize the gentleman from west virginia for five minutes. >> i heard several comments here today about these temporary jobs. the construction industry. i started in 1965. i never thought my job as being a temporary job. that was my way of life. i find it almost a demeaning

comment when people make that statement that these are just temporary jobs. i disagree with that. i am just one of two engineers is congress i concur there global warming. there's climate change. is issue however i think is a manmade or is a natural are cyclical? i'm not convinced that i will join the chorus of those of trying to build a consensus around man-made. because of that i am troubled by the fact that we're holding back because the administration believes it is man-made. he's holding back 20,000 jobs in this market. a thousand more jobs would likely occur after were doing maintenance and taking care of the line. i remember the testimony over the past few years of how many

things we talked about, all because their focus on ideology. when i have talked to paleontologist, at the often the bering strait. i would like to hear from your perspective. in the bering strait 25 years ago, the ocean levels dropped some 50 meters. we were not using the keystone pipeline. we were not driving too many s tv -- suvs. there is a natural, cyclical change in the glow of the cause the temperatures to be as such level but the water level has dropped. can you enlighten me or tell me where they are wrong on that? mass became exposed and

people from asia came over and populated north america. i would behat arrogant to pick and choose among the science i wanted to believe that is convenient for me and inconvenient for me so when i take the body of climate science, it will tell you that climate has changed over longer time. in the past and sometimes accelerated. it also says there making something happen very quickly. the oceans asing well. i have read the reports, interacted with leading scholars in the world. we are very honest people with no particular agenda. --y are saying we are chain charging -- causing the change. >> there are people that agree with you. there's a document floating

around up 42,000 scientists disagree. i am torn over. we are still arguing over it. science has not been determined. we are holding of 20,000 jobs in america. people want to go to work. that is their livelihood. we have a disagreement. i am troubled with that. i really am. the beringabout straits. i can talk about a medieval warming time. i do not think there are too and yet you the -- suvs, we had the globe heated up. i am somewhat more in that field. i'm leaning that way. is this natural or cyclical dax could a man be contributing? of course we could be. are we the ones causing it? what are the implications of its? in the balance of

this year that we will have some opportunities to discuss global warming more. costing 20,000 jobs to people who could be working? >> we create jobs as we reduce carbon pollution. just as we did acid pollution. i have seen so much evidence i can not buy that we cannot create jobs while reducing carbon pollution and maybe use more fossil fuels will doing it. >> did me say we create one job for every million dollars in epa standards? there are 1.5 jobs for every million dollars spent on it. >> i have not read that. i am talking about historical analysis of which i have been involved. >> the gentleman from new york.

>> thank you. i am torn. i have a lot of environmental concerns but also have concerns about energy independence. i was the founder of the oil and natural security caucus. i think it is important that north america become energy independent. i can see both sides. i has of questions as to whether we want to circumvent the process. this project should be done. they tried to guarantee that america is energy independent

and try to guarantee that our environment is not destroyed. it is hard for me to see everybody. why can we not guarantee that the oil that is refined in texas state in the united states? you have heard here today, and we always hear colleagues expressed concerns, that if we are going to take the chance on the oil pipeline, and there's .lways a chance we get the benefit and that is going to come down the pipeline. guarantee,get a maybe when hundreds arm of it back maybe we can get some --

hundred% of its maybe we can get some back. >> i have a couple of comments on that. the first set the draft supplemental eis went into great detail in examining this issue in came to the conclusion that it was highly unlikely that keystone xl xl would be an export -- keystone xl would be this pipeline. it is very important to understand that the u.s. gulf coast is the largest refining center in the u.s. but the u.s. moref typically means gasoline and less and diesel. when you refine a barrel of oil you get a certain components of diesel. the u.s. needs more gasoline. to get enough gasoline it tends to produce in excess of diesel

which imports to europe because europe means respectively more diesel benefits gasoline. you have to be careful about unintended consequences of putting in place any type of hard and fast rule. if my constituents new that by having this pipeline they would get a reduction a rear -- peopledown the line, would see something tangible. people are very skeptical and , if weem i to a degree are talking about making north independence, what would be the benefit to the taxpayers who are taking this kind of risk if we are getting ase oil but exporting more

well? we are exporting oil as well. >> i understand the issue. the important point though it is once the pipeline system is set up where this oil is going to the gulf coast refineries, it is entirely open to the u.s. congress should they choose at some point in their future. if there's a war and requirement to keep the oil in the country, and the only place the oil can go is where it is being pipelined to. it just by having that the infrastructure, the u.s. has the comfort that they have that energy independence and security. >> perhaps you are the one. are told by we people who oppose it, and we're saying it has to come through

the united states if canada does not wanted to allow it to come to the west and pacific ocean. can anybody answer that ? >> i would be happy. the practical reality is the u.s. gulf coast is the largest refining center on the planet and refiners are largely configured to run heavy crude production out of canada is overwhelmingly heavy crude in. . it was natural to connect the large supply with the large demand. that is why it goes the direction it goes. i think that is the most rational and economic place for it to go. if it cannot go to the u.s., and it will go to china and india, from the canadian government's perspective, the view is the right way to go. >> we know it is not going to

try and a large volumes. china does not have the heavy crude processing potential to process canadian tar sands. there is a small pipeline going west to british columbia. we know that 99% of the crude oil on the pipeline is going to the u.s. if there was an interest by china to receive this crude, it would be buying it from the pipeline the already have. this argument that it is either the u.s. are china is a false one. you look at the pipeline through the u.s. to the gulf coast. 600,000e the number is barrels of gasoline was exported from the gulf coast refineries. the state department indicated that over half of refined products would likely be exported internationally.

this is not energy that is going to benefit primarily the american consumer. the department of energy did a study as well that was significantly lower on what they estimate the imports would be. i would recognize you from virginia for five minutes. >> i appreciate the opportunity. i do have a lot to get through. i apologize if i seem short. say in response to mr. mckinley's question, in your written testimony indicated that china might not have grown but it couldar well be above 5%. you do acknowledge that using a lot of fuel doesn't -- does in fact create jobs. >> it would have created more

jobs in that same scenario. it would have been more labor intensive. more laborbe intensive. >> that being said, i think the times in regard to the keystone i will complement you. he at least pay attention to the camel. -- to you at least pay attention to the camel. today we're talking about the keystone xl pipeline. i support the pipeline in the use of coal. there is a really interesting that in there. china has increase its production of coal 43 times since 1949. it passed the u.s. being the world's number one coal producer. the profits are now over 100

billion you want a year. increaseave an 11 fold in those profits. . think this is instructive the energy efficiency control of the coal power industry in china is still behind the most advanced levels in the world. the capacity less than 100 megawatts is 24.8% in 2007 while only 7% in the usa. i am on page 13. not only be efficiency is 80%, but mostnd

are between 60 and 65. ofe only have an efficiency 30 or 40% actual application which is lower than that of developed countries. 3.5 billion tons of coal are mined in china just under $1 billion in the u.s. it is instructive. i do not believe the chinese are take away jobs in order to make everything better and more efficient. and also submit to you in that 19, and i'mon page going to edit this a little bit, and there are five problems. one, at the existing regulations

are insufficient, most of staging principles without practical value. the existing regulations and policies are issued by different government offices. the policies have no means of encouraging the widespread use for sustainable development. my suggestion is that we use energy and we bring these jobs to the united states because we do it more efficiently. we can do with less pollution. the pollution from china did about 10 days to get from the to thesert all the way eastern shore of virginia. we have got to bring those jobs back. he's the pipeline is one way to do it. the chinese are using a whole lot more by being less efficient.

they are using more energy to produce the same goods we could produce and we were allowed to use our resources. would you agree with me? >> i would. >> thank you very much. i yelled back. >> i recognize the gentleman from new york. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> you can watch more online at the c-span video library including hearings, a think tank panels, and call in programs. those are all at c-span.org /videolibrary. the 2013more with congressional directory with listings for committee assignments. $12.95 plustory is shipping and handling online at c-span.org/shop.

>> next on c-span, supporters of the pack to citizenship hold a rally in washington, d.c. then officials testified on immigration legislation and border security. acting irs commissioner steven miller testifies on oversight of his agency. really learned this week how humanizing politics is. it is about people that really interact and that we learned that we can do this. we are all capable of being leaders of our country. it is about working together and finding common ground. >> before this program i was not optimistic about the future. all the media shows is the negative aspects about the future. i think this program made us more optimistic about the future and more positive about where our country is going. >> we get negative opinions.

did the fact of the matter is to putay, we're able aside differences. our senators are able to eat lunch together and it happens every single day. >> i think president obama some this up perfectly. he will say that our country has always been in turmoil throughout its history. we as people have always found a way to get through it. i am not saying i'm not worried about the future and we do not have problems we need to fix. i see hundred in three minds to what to make a difference for this country and want to do good and sure there plenty of other people who want to make a difference in do good. i believe we will be able to solve the problems that we face today. >> each year, high school students meet in washington as part of the senate youth program. this should be met with leaders from all three branches of government including president obama, elaine akkadian, and

senator richard burt. here there in size from the week sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. we hear their insights from the week sunday night at 8:00 on c- span. >> one and the rally's was held on the national mall in washington, d.c. and included remarks by vincent great. this is about 45 minutes. >> that afternoon. ourme welcome you to nation's capital.

this rally right here shows america that we care about immigration reform. we per fare -- we care about it that way to citizenship. i am honored to be here -- i am honored to be at this gathering of everyday people. they are supportive of comprehensive and humane and immigration.

>> i want to extend a special thank you for all that organize thesthis rally. as mayor of this great city, i signed executive orders to make certain that no d.c. government public agency which at our ask anyone for their immigration status.

while serving as the chairman of our counsel here, i introduce legislation and we pass legislation to fight against real i.d. what we want is for congress to pass a bill that creates the process for undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship. >> [speaking spanish]

we want a law that keeps our families together. we want a law that enacts the dream bill. we want a right that respects the law for all workers. we want a law that protect the muslim herbal on long does, our women, and children, and ---- a law that protect our most vulnerable, our women, our t community.d lgb

there is strength in numbers. nobody can ignore us because the time is now. the time is now. the time is now. at ththe time is now. let's get it done. let's get a lot to protect the 11 million on document immigrants in america so they can are and citizenship. mayor.k you, >> i am here with my young daughter to support immigration reform. i have with us, today we have a lot of great leaders that would

anna us, will campos, gutierrez. spanish] >> [chanting in spanish]

washngton]g in -- in spansih] it is a great pleasure to be here. i want to tell you something. families in the united states, no matter what their status and where they choose to live, rent and work, contributes to state and local revenues by paying property, sales, also, gas, payroll, and income taxes. our schools, roads and other government services. the immigration status is not accept -- exempt anyone from paying talus. spanish]

the united states had a poweprod tradition of being a land founded and built by immigrants.

in 1783,shington said while addressing irish immigrants, the bosom of america is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger but the impressed and persecuted of all nations and religions whom we shall welcome to a participation of all of our rights and privileges. [speaking spanish]

introwoudl like ld like to duce a sister in labor.

in spanish] not jsut a labor leader, but somebody who was a leader to me. executive president, pez.rie lo >> the time is now. it takes champions in the hours senate to make sure we have a bill that leads a pack a way to citizenship. is one ofb mendez those champions. he represented new jersey's 13th congressional district and he is fighting for a bipartisan way to

make sure we get a bill that we can be proud of. senatornd gentlemen, bob mendez. >> it is time now. it is time. thrilled. i am thrilled. hrilled to stand here on ofs beautiful day in memory senator ted kenndy, someone who

championchampion and of immigrants to say it is finally time. that ted kennedy stood at an immigration rally just a few short years ago and said "i look at this historic gathering and i see the future of america." today we stand as brothers and sisters to shape america's destiny. i am thrilled to stand here on a similar day to reiterate those words and to honor all he did to focus america's attention on the need for immigration reform and to stand with my colleagues to comprehensiveke immigration reform in reality this year.