liberia, it would not take weeks to get there. about thisit operation that makes it seem to be unrolling in a much slower pace then sending u.s. troops to protect americans first? >> the protect americans peace is a small number. we have five times that we have sent in to libya to protect the u.s. embassy in that situation. there, withructure all the ability to sustain themselves. the other challenge in liberia, as you can imagine, their whole nation is overwhelmed. their health facilities are overwhelmed. that is all broken down. we have to bring in everything at the same time. now, they are dixit --

they aren't even located in all the locations they want to be. we just want to overwhelm them, and thrust things in their that they can't absorb. the airfields the same way. -- fairfield is the same way. us how thetell decision was made to not have treatedical personnel ebola directly, and do you have concerns about manning these ebola treatment units on the ground? there have been calls from doctors without borders that more people are needed, not just more facilities. >> i'm not sure how the decision was made. the bottom line is, that is the position of the leadership area. it is the international community's role right now, that is where everyone is encouraging people to come forward to do that. that is where we stay to where adapt to whatally

is going on on the ground. we are filling in demands that the international community needs us to do. that is for command and control. it is for engineering support. it is for logistics. that is where we are focusing our efforts. that is what they have asked us to do. believe that there is a scenario that you can see that 3900, and onu past the question of security, do you think the concerns in congress about the security of u.s. troops there for this decontamination risk, in a situation where people are trying to get into an area that was off-limits -- do think those concerns are overblown? -- servicewe have members wherever they go have

the ability to defend and protect themselves. they will have that here. i think we will meet that standard, no matter where we go. we will do that here too. >> if the contaminated person is unarmed? >> we have the same rules of engagement. that is about protecting the self, self-defense. we want to make sure you understand that when people get infected, they are not capable attack. amounted the only one can get into you to use of the sickest ones. they don't have the ability to move. they have had zero problems that i know of in the ebola treatment units right now, handling people at the gates. it's a very small element. >> 4000? >> it depends how everything

goes. i can't answer that question. i don't for see more than that right now. things can change. fast-changing situation. we are still gaining understanding throughout the whole region. i think that would be the deciding factor. the latestgive us estimate about how long it is going to take to get all the treatment centers and do the work you need to do, up and running? can you give us a sense of how long american troops will be on this mission? >> the treatment centers, to get the ones we have been tasked to build -- probably until mid-november. they are working on an effort there to get more people to build some of those at different times. we will just have to see how it flexes out. towill probably be able continue to improve the speed

with which we build them. after you get one done, the second set goes factor. that is the estimate to get all 17 done. what was the second question? >> how long will troops be doing this? >> the critical thing to this this, based on- cdc numbers is to get 70% of people infected into an infirmary. the curve will go down. how fast the curve goes down, and how the international unity picks up. >> six months, a year? >> i do not. i'm sure he will be about a year -- it will be about a year. we have to play it by year. it is all about the transmission rates, and when that curve starts going down.

senseld you give us a region of countries in west africa, have we seen other countries other than liberia are safe? and guinea are also threatened by this. we are working with the french and the u.k., who are also doing some things like putting a hospital up, like a 25 person hospital. are beingose efforts run and controlled by the united nations and the international community. we coordinate and to medicate with them. -- communicate with them. cost -- can you tell us where the $750 million is coming from? is that coming out of the continuing resolution? do you anticipate the pentagon

needing to request more money in 2015 for the response? >> you would have to ask the comptrollers for that. it is a reprogramming effort, i don't know what that is coming from. osc policy is leading that effort. they could tell you where it exactly is coming from. >> thank you. i wanted to clarify one thing -- it is in fact service members who will be operating this testing labs in the field? >> correct. >> we have been told that service members are not going to come in contact with patients. now we are being told that is changing. >> the labs are a separate specialty element of the force. that is probably where that has come from. as far as the general population, they won't be coming in contact. these labs are trained to a specially skilled level. it is the highest level.

they can operate in a nuclear, biological, and chemical environment. they are specifically trained to do that. that is their primary skill set. we had one in their that has been operating for several years in the country that works on infectious diseases. we have both the navy and the army with medical labs in many countries doing just that, to monitor these things. >> how many do you expect will be running these labs? or four per lab. it is a testing facility. full,est it in a biological suited up -- they meet the highest standards of operating in that environment. --a clarification on that will they be in contact with individuals or just specimens? >> individuals. it is a very high standard that

these people have operated in all their lives. this is their primary skill. this is not medical guys just trained to do this. this is what they do for a living. >> and -- >> there are three labs, and a request for four more labs. we are working to generate that. focuses whoreally you need to treat, and who don't need to treat. with similar up symptoms. impact,e had a major and the more the better for the effectiveness of the effort. you expect generals alaska to be on the ground? >> the way that command-and-control is set for the component is that it has the ability to do small humanitarian things for a very short period

of time. this is not a small effort. it is not a short period of time. we will get a headquarters from the united states out there to do that. general williams also has a significant job doing lots of other things everything will day that we need him working on in the rest of africa. that is the way the design structure of command and control itself. >> when we get there? next three weeks. >> thanks, we appreciate you coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> president obama resists a ban on travel from companies affected by the able outbreak. new screenings were not elaborated on. at the moment, passengers leaving the three nations most affected by the virus, liberia, guinea, and sierra leone come are screened before departing. pipeline, what is happening? we will find out at 1:00. how canadians are viewing the proposal. that discussion is live at 1:00 eastern here on c-span. tonight's debate night. as a move closer to midterm elections, we have live and recorded campaign 2014 debates. first, the west virginia senate debate.

two, incumbent democrat mark warner and republican challenger ed gillespie will face-off. on c-span3, the massachusetts governor's race, rated a tossup i several polling firms. -- by several polling firms. all live tonight, starting at 7:00 eastern. early this evening, a north carolina u.s. senate debate, where kay hagan is being challenged by republican tom tillis. that will be shown tonight at 9:00 eastern here on c-span. just a few of the comments we recently received from viewers. >> you don't have to be einstein to know the only way to keep ebola from coming into the united states is to have the president demands that no one from africa be allowed to come into this country for at least the next 10 years, or more.

until the bowl is completely eradicated. i can't comprehend how people are so nonchalant about this ebola getting into the united states. i'm so glad c-span put out this number for reviewers to call in. i hope all the people who feel as i do will call in and state their outrage as to how this problem is being handled, and demand the president to take the action i have suggested. >> what did these people expect about this ebola outbreak? they said it would never reach the united states. now look, look what has happened. it put 3000 other people over there, are you kidding me? we are falling for this bunch of bulljack that these doctors are giving us. we have this under control, it will never spread. it wasn't supposed to get over here either. >> there is a wonderful discussion going on right now. a discussion on the ebola virus.

it has been revealed over the a person morning that left liberia and came it from west africa over here. home inff, went to his northeast dallas. virus --cted the ebola his family contracted the ebola virus from him. that could be construed as a reckless disregard to americans, when this guy was allowed to leave a place plagued with the ebola virus without somebody having checked him out before he boarded the plane. the plane anding coming over here, nobody checked them out. he goes right into the dallas community, and now, as a result of that, there are people in quarantines. he's in the hospital.

is going toif he die. i haven't checked in local news yet, i have it on c-span right now. to see whether he is going to live or die. >> that is know what you think about the programs we are watching. call us or e-mail. you can send us a tweet. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. again, the latest on the keystone xl pipeline coming up at 1:00. right now, look at moveon.org's efforts to keep the senate under control democrats. from washington journal. we talk about moveon.org's role in the midterm elections. what a show you a little bit from their online ad, describing their efforts.

>> the congressional election is just weeks away. the koch brothers, a pair of extreme oil barons, are doing their best to buy america's democracy. cronies planaire to spend an unprecedented $500 million in states across the country to ensure their candidates take back the senate for the gop. but the koch brothers 1% cash can't overcome our people power. so long as the same progressive voters who powered president obama's win in 2008 and 2012 turn out and vote. host: ben wilker is the washington director for moveon.org. tell us about the ad there. why is the focus on the koch brothers. ? guest: thanks for having me on. when we look at this election, there are a couple of big differences from 2008. there have been 130 million people who turned out.

in the midterms coming was 90 million people. there was a huge difference. it's all about who decides to go to the polls. the second thing that is happening -- at the same time, there is much less interest and awareness in what is happening. there is this flood of dark money, of tax money. money from the likes of the koch brothers, often flowing through these largely unregulated political entities. you can't tell where it is coming from. it is essentially trying to convince people that their votes won't matter. the effect of negative ads is not persuasion. it tends to be much more voter suppression. he will want to turn out to the polls. most often, they just don't show up. we see the core of the selection, is making sure that people know their votes actually counted. there are a handful of states that will determine which party controls the senate. progressive voters, we call them drop off democrats.

if they know what is going on, they turn out, they can make the difference between a democratic and republican senate in 2015. host: a democratic pollster did a survey for you. saidound that democrats they may not show up because they don't know the senate is up for grabs. guest: for folks in washington dc, it might be hard to imagine that people don't realize which party had the majority in the senate. but in our polling of people who did not vote in 2010, we find many people have no idea which party is in the majority and senate appeared all they know is there is noise and obstruction from congress. they also do not know the control of the senate is in balance this fall. the third thing they do not know is there specific state, like i was in colorado, like their states could determine whether republicans or democrats have a majority in the senate. once people know those facts and they know what is at stake if the republicans take over the senate, they go from being

unlikely to vote to highly motivated to vote. that is what they told our pollster. from our point of view, this is an information problem. we want to make sure they have all the information they need. we are not trying to convince them this is important. we are trying to give them the information they need so they can act on their values and turnout this fall. host: what about the role president obama is playing? gallup put this together. look at the number of democratic leaning people they polled who said they would send a message of support for the president in the 2014 election. 38%, down from the last midterm elections, when it was 45%. are you concerned the president is a drag on the midterm elections? guest: what we found in our polling is people in key senate states that will determine the control of the senate, they do not really look at this as a referendum. the thing that is most motivating to vote is a message about what would happen if the republicans are in control of the senate, whether they will extend, as we described, the one

-- the war on women. access to birth control, whether they will vote to cut education funding, and whether they will have another government shutdown. it is all about who has the power in congress. we think that is on the ballot. host: what about the decision of the supreme court to not make a decision on same-sex marriage? guest: we found that to be good news. we would prefer if they took up questions around gay marriage and issued a national ruling that recognized a constitutional right for everyone to marry the person they love, but what the supreme court did by not making a ruling this time and allowing all courts that of reached the same conclusion, which is that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, what they did is in effect legalized same-sex marriage in a range of states. today, there are people in utah and wisconsin and virginia who are finally getting marriage licenses. what you see over and over is when the doors open and when people are able to marry the person they love and there is no disaster and not a catastrophe

and it does not disrupt other families, people's views change quickly. they're finally able to legalize relationships. there isn't a sense of calamity. for people scared by the prospect of marriage equality, it is more the prospect of it than the reality of it. what we will see is a more rapidly shifting cultural landscape where people recognize another family's happiness does not affect their own. host: where is moveon.org's advertisement playing in what states? how do you decide who you are going to support or oppose? guest: there are five states where we are focusing our energy. we are an 8 million person progressive grassroots community. so it is a very broad election of people who are united by a certain set of fundamental values and fairness and equality in the united states. when we look at the election, we

look at places where members can wholeheartedly pour in their energies where they can help save the senate from republican control. our five key states are michigan, looking very strong, colorado, and iowa, both in positive territory, north carolina, the most promising potential opportunity for democratic retention in the red states, and then in kentucky, where moveon members both in kentucky and across the country see mitch mcconnell as an icon of republican extremism and obstruction and as the person who has done the most to block a vote to increase the minimum wage. the person who has promised more shutdowns to come if the republicans take the senate, moveon members would like to defeat mitch mcconnell this fall. those are the five states we are putting our energy. a couple of states like alaska,

we would love to see mark wynn. he has been wonderful with social security, not just opposing privatization, but supporting an expansion of privatization. he was one of the democrats who voted against that on background checks for gun sales. he voted against closing the loophole. before that though, we consulted our membership and made an announcement that is democrats voted against common sense safety measures, almost all gun owners as well as non-gun owners support, if democrats voted against that, they would not be getting an infusion of members support this fall. when we say something like that, we mean it. so the senator in alaska and in arkansas, we hope that they win their races, but that is not where we will focus our attention this fall. host: the total spent is $5.7 million in this cycle. where does the money go and how do you spend it? guest: we have done a lot of research and we have been working with social scientists

and analysts to figure out what the most effective way is to stretch a dollar to win an election. it turns out it is not in negative advertisements flooding the airwaves. overwhelmingly, the most powerful thing is individual conversations with people who believe in what they are saying. it is not phone bankers going door-to-door, but volunteers. what we're doing is investing in state-of-the-art, cutting-edge, voter to voter contact program. the goal is to make 5 million phone calls to drop off democrats in key states this fall. we are connecting across the country with democrats through technology, and auto dialer. you pick up the phone and it calls and once it connects to someone, it connects you to them. you do not sit there and wait and listen to answer machine after answering machine.

if you are a volunteer in this election cycle, you can make dozens of phone calls as a volunteer. through the call, you can talk about what is at stake and talking to people about control of the senate. our goal is to get 5 million phone calls through to voters and make sure they turn up on election day. some do not turn up in polling, but they can move the needle a couple of points in election day. a tossup like this one, it could mean control of the senate. host: we will go to greg in san francisco, a democratic dollar. -- caller. good morning to you. you're on the air. go ahead. caller: good to talk to you, ben. i wish you could've called that guy out who was just on who said he lost his insurance because of obamacare and in the next sentence, he brought up, his deductibles went up because of obamacare.

he said, i do not have insurance and now he talks about deductibles going up. i about fell off my chair, i did. but here is what i want to talk about. republicans deny science like the medicinal value of cannabis. we see all these people helping them deny these people the same treatment. i tell you, if there is a war on christianity in this country, it is being waged by right wing, republican, conservative christian evangelical types. i cannot imagine how you would sit there watching someone going through all this pain knowing there is something out there to help them and as a person with aids, i can relate to this. if it were not for cannabis i , would've him dead in 1995. a doctor agreed with me. i am so worried republicans will

come in and tried to do what bush and reagan did in 1983. that is, try to go to our institutions and remove the literature pertaining to the medicine from our shelves so no one can know about it. guest: it is interesting. thank you for your call. i am glad you are alive and getting the care that you are. it is interesting with medical marijuana and access to cannabis. this is something republicans used to use as a wedge issue. it used to be republicans would compete to become as tough on drugs as they could possibly be to throw people in jail. what happened in the last few years is a natural seachange. it has been a lot quieter than the one on a marriage equality, but similar insignificance. -- immense significance. what we see now is a growing coalition of people ready to partner with progressives and democrats and reform our drug laws, to be serious about medical marijuana and potentially and the mass end the mass

incarceration of millions of americans their the question is, if republicans take a majority in the senate, will they advance these things or merely stop using them as a platform and elections? when you look across the country, it is more likely it will stop, as opposed to things actually moving forward. on this particular issue, i am kind of encouraged. i think if the indication of the kind of change still possible even in a polarized and divided country like the one we have got, if you have goodwill on both sides working together on an important issue, there is a chance. that is not to minimize the states, especially for health care, if you think one year ago today, the united states government was shut down to prevent a bill that allows millions of americans to access health insurance, to make sure no one would be denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition. if republicans had their way with the last shutdown, millions of people would not have coverage today.

millions of women wouldn't have birth control covered by their employers. that is the kind of shut down there talking about doing again. host: we are talking with ben wikler, the washington director for moveon.org, talking about the progressive agenda they would like to see. rob, independent caller, good morning to you. caller: my voice might sat -- might sound bad because i am home sick today. turning foodgrain into ethanol, greatly increased prices, malnutrition, and old world health number was 28 million people per year, a major factor in deaths of people. that is a lot of people. the number may be smaller now,

but ethanol, i think, should be banned. tens of millions of people. it also takes a lot of carbon dioxide from the heating of silica and to make the aluminum, so they are not carbon free. host: energy policy. guest: it is absolutely on the ballot this november. there are enormous questions around a whole variety of different energy sources. i also think about natural gas, the amount of methane lost in pipeline systems that could swamp they reduce carbon footprint of natural gas is pure and simple. the most important thing is that we not stop research to figure out the cleanest and most effective energy sources for the future, and move away from fossil fuels. one of the central questions in the election, one of the central thing that will be determined by who gets the majority in

congress, is whether or not the united states congress does all it can to block the president's climate change policies from moving forward. this is something mitch mcconnell essentially the vowed to do. provisions to gut the environmental protection agency's new regulations on power plants there if that happened, the president will either have to veto spending bills and shut down the federal government, or allow the air protections to be gutted and potentially signal and acceleration of climate change and the deaths of thousands and thousands of people due to increased air pollution from power plants. this is a terrible choice, something we should not be choosing between as a country. it is literally what he wanted to do, is republicans take the majority in the senate. host: ed from georgia.

caller: just two things because this guy is all over the board. anyway, number one, he started talking about money. his organization is really george soros's money. he keeps mentioning koch brothers like it is a code word. my second point is, just the other day, grimes in tennessee, who is running against mitch mcconnell in kentucky, her staff was caught saying that voters are suckers and she is really against coal, but she's pretending she is for coal just so she can win. she cannot win if they find other truth. now they found out the truth. all the.org money ain't going to help her win. you will see a big change in the polls when people realize that she is lying.

host: i think these were volunteer supporters of her campaign that made those comments. we will take up the issue. guest: thank you for calling. i love about washington journal that there is a chance for all of us to participate, regardless of our backgrounds. one point of information i would like to add -- we are entirely member funded. the average contribution is $19. it is true in 2004, george soros made a contribution. that was to help elect john kerry and defeat president george w. bush. neither of them have been on the ballot for a long time. we actually do not accept contributions over $5,000 from anybody, which is a rule we put on ourselves. significantly lower than the threshold the federal law requires. we are independent and grassroots funded. to the question about grimes, that was a volunteer and the

central question in the election is if mitch mcconnell should come back to the senate. if you ask in kentucky, they are sick and tired of mitch mcconnell representing them. they believe he had been in washington so long, he represents lobbyists and corporations now and not the people of kentucky. across the country, volunteers calling, that is what we are focused on. we think mitch mcconnell has an uphill battle to convince people he is on their side when he promises policies that will benefit the 1% -- your friends, the koch brothers, and people who want to hold on the minimum wage rather than increase it. host: georgia, democratic caller, you are on the air. caller: i want to join moveon.org. i was googling it and i saw the black guy in missouri, the tea party saved his life and you all cover that up. you are all supposed to be for the poor and the blacks.

up there in missouri, half to death. in the tea party, bob and to beat him to death. host: are you following what he is saying? guest: i think you are referring to an incident that happened for a number of organizations. i can tell you there are 8 million moveon.org members. our members are a peaceful and democratic people who want to make a country to work for everybody. it is an incredibly diverse people that are united around progressive values. i hope you will join and see what it is like for yourself. there are counsels in cities across the country. you could go to their meetings and see whether you like people there. what you will find is moveon.org members are civic and care about what happens in our country. i hope you get involved and spread the word.

host: henry, independent caller, new jersey. caller: unemployment extension plan was taken out last year and it has not happened since '97 and just got reinstated. i was wondering if it is going to be reinstated. it happened in the senate and the house and it is kicked around. the other thing is with ebola. flights coming into the country -- why can't they slot or take a blood sample? delay the person's flight one day. all the planes that come into europe from the u.s.? it is a simple fix, i think. host: let's just take unemployment. guest: i think all of us hope that everything that should be done is done to make sure ebola does not reach the united states. with unemployment insurance, this is another one of those things that should not be put up -- not be a political football. it should be a consensus issue. people are laid off and cannot find another job through no fault of their own. they're looking for another job and suddenly, they're not getting the support that would

help them move on to the next job. this is something republicans are steadfastly blocking. it has turned into a partisan issue thanks to a republican party issue. mitch mcconnell said is number one priority was preventing president obama from being reelected. it is president obama's second term, and as far as we can tell, his number one priority is preventing anything good from happening if he can do anything about it. unemployment insurance is one of the things republicans are unfortunately blocking. we hope after the election is over, ask -- after the dust has settled, hopefully with a democratic majority in the senate still, we can pass an extension. when republicans take the senate, there are no guarantees. i think it is more likely they would try to block insurance and blame president obama, then to pass it and help our country. host: what do you want to see them bring up first if they pass the senate?

guest: if democrats take control, block bills on how spending. the second thing is immigration reform. this is something republicans in the house, they were almost ready to pass it, and then they shied away because they were looking at this fall and were concerned about primary challenges from the right. we would love for the house to pass immigration reform, as the senate was done, and get this signed into law. the other thing the senate can do is confirm federal claimants. -- federal appointments. republicans in the senate have basically done all they can to jam this process up. last few years, this is something a republican majority would almost guarantee, basically a stoppage of people to fill vacancies and now crossed the federal government and the judiciary, that is something that would be a crucial priority for a senate majority -- excuse me, for a democratic senate majority, something that is very much in

the balance right now. host: jim, a republican caller. caller: good morning. i would like to voice my full support for ben's group as a former republican who is desperate to get rid of mitch mcconnell here in kentucky. host: you called on the republican line. you have got to have everybody respecting the rules here. if you are a democrat, call on the democratic line. republicans call on the republican line. earlier, you said president obama is not on the ballot. this is not about him, but he himself last week said, my policies on the ballot this fall. take a look at what senator mitch mcconnell is doing with what the president had to say. >> allison grimes says this is

not about support for president obama and failed policies. but obama himself says a vote for allison is a vote for him. >> make no mistake, these policies are on the ballot, every single one of them. >> obama needs grimes and kentucky needs mitch mcconnell. guest: there is a big difference between president obama being on the ballot and attends to repeal the affordable care act being on the ballot, attempts to gut for clean air on the ballot. when you look at polling on the affordable care act, you find overwhelming support in both parties for things like protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions to get health insurance, for guaranteeing employer coverage of birth control. things with broad bipartisan support. you at obamacare to the program, and suddenly, republican support plummets.

you can say obamacare is on the ballot this fall. you can say birth controls on the ballot. both those things are true. make no mistake, if you vote for mitch mcconnell this fall, you are voting for someone who is doing his best to repeal the law and that is the choice we have to make. host: mississippi. democratic color. caller: i would like to go back ago.ple of callers we were discussing the deductibles for health care and make a comment on that. what people don't realize is ort when you have a $5,000 $7,000 deductible on insurance, most people cannot afford that. you know who is going against a quiz that bill is going to be the doctors. i work in the health care field, i can tell you that doctors cannot afford that kind of loss. it all boils down to the bottom

fact that without a doctor's, without any hospitals, it is not going to do anyway to have insurance. we'll move on to bill in chicago. caller: i've gone to the polls on moveon.org. there is a petition for social security. those to receive social security income can benefit. it lets recipients have an advance equal to one month of their income. this be replaced with the advance must be repaid before another can be given. no credit check is necessary. the advance should be enough. host: what about his idea?

caller: i appreciate the call. i appreciate the use of the petition platform. we thought about how the model worked for a people powered grassroots network. we created petitions and let people sign them about policies people wanted to see. we opened it up so anybody can start a petition. there are hundreds being started -- of petitions being started by citizens across the country. about parks, libraries, national policies. this is one of many petitions on the website. anyone can go on and start a campaign about what they care about. we will send it to people in your area and see if they supported as well. this speaks to what i think is one of the most astonishing changes in our politics over the last decade. for years, a lot of republicans called for cuts in social security.

the conventional wisdom was that it needed to be slashed. we needed to cut benefits for seniors. this would somehow balance the budget of a program that is fully funded until 2040. now the debate has shifted. after the grand bargain exited stage left from the political scene, people started looking at the retirement situation and realized that the slashing of pensions, with the uncertainty of the stock market, some people just don't have enough to be able to to have a basic standard of living. some seniors rely on social security for half of their income. we need to talk about how to expand the safety net to ensure that seniors have enough to live on as they retire. the petition is part of that debate. there are a range of senators , from elizabeth warren to mac inuettes -- mark baguettes

alaska, and we would welcome support on the republican side as well to expand so security and making sure that it is fully funded. every senior should retire with dignity. they need to live with dignity for the rest of their lives. host: shirley is on the line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. i been listening to you. i know you are a democrat and you want the democrats to stay in charge of the senate. could you please tell me one good thing that they have done in the last six years that was good for the american people. guest: i appreciate your call. i would guess that you and i will disagree on what was good and what wasn't good. i would call the affordable care act of most positive piece of social policy of my lifetime. i am 33. we have had job transition in my own family and we're been able to go on the exchange and buy

coverage with a lower deductible and lower rates and we were paying with cobra after i left a previous job. many families are experiencing this. if some we has a pre-existing condition like cancer or surgery, they were living in fear that if they left their jobs they would lose their insurance and they wouldn't be able to get it again. that is over. i have a 3-year-old son and he will go his life knowing he will have access to health insurance no matter what happens with his employment. that will make a significant difference in his life. that would not have happened without the democratic senate and the house we had until 2010. that is an accomplishment that i will be proud of for the rest of my life. host: we will go to joe in indianapolis on the independent line. you are on the air. caller: a couple of things. moveon.org is a george soros idea.

this will overwhelm a society with immigration laws. one party, one idea, overwhelm the constitution. one party, one idea prop of , these fake corporations. you talk about the environment. look what a windmill does. the whole food chain is disrupted by windmills. host: you talked earlier about george soros. guest: moveon was founded in 1998. by married couple in silicon valley. they found hundreds of thousands of americans that supported their call to not impeach president clinton. six years later, when a lot of people were concerned about george w. bush's reelection, george soros made a large contribution in one year. to that one election campaign. he is never been involved again. 10 years later, we are 100%

member funded by average donations of $19. no one can donate more than $5,000. we are proudly citizen powered. not billionaire powered. we are an independent political group. we welcome the exchange of all parties and all ideas. we hope that the values of fairness and inclusion will win out in the end, as they have in the best moments of american history. host: hillary clinton and joe biden and martin o'malley have begun campaigning for democrats at a serious pace. with personal appearances at crucial presidential primary states, iowa, new hampshire. by contrast, senator elizabeth avoided stops in those two states, but has campaigned for democrats elsewhere, lending credence that she will resist mounting pressure for a white house bid. guest: this is what i can tell

you. when we poll members about the 2016 election, there is a consistent response. we ask who you support for president. the number one winner every week is -- it's too early. the attention is in the 2014 elections. a three year campaign is too long for anybody. after the selection, we will see -- this election is over, we will see with the field looks like it we know there will be a primary. we hope it is one where progressive ideas will be debated. this is all about who controls the senate starting after this election day. our attention is so focused and making sure people understand the stakes and people turn out to vote in 2014 the way they did in 2012 . host: elizabeth warren is playing a role. what kind of clout will she have after november if immigrants maintain control of the senate

-- if democrats maintain control of the senate? what will be her role? guest: her strategy has been to be a voice for progressive values for the middle class. everybody deserves a fighting chance. if the races where these issues are front and center, economic fairness and equality and supporting the middle class and not just giving tax breaks to the top 1%, if those issues are shown to have saved the senate, i think i think that will move the center of gravity of the democratic party. people recognize they need to support any increase in the minimal wage and protections for health insurance for women. they need to expand social security if they want to have a shot with the core progressive base of the party. that is the key part of what elizabeth warren is doing. we are excited to see that develop. this is a fundamental idea that the economy has to work for the

middle class in a way that it hasn't for far too long. if that comes through, we will see this be the new common ground starting in 2015. host: eric is in alabama. caller: good morning. my question is about safe red states. we have some key races in the governorship and maybe three congressional races that are highly contestable with medicare expansion and people being anti-obstruction. we have a possibility of having a sweeping democratic win in alabama if african americans in the election cycle. they only participate in about 5%. if we can raise that to 15% with voter turnout being so low, it could be a sweeping win for

democrats. i want to know what your organization was doing to help out in some red states where the incumbents refused to debate and do anything or even campaign. guest: we had to look at our opportunities and make decisions about where to focus our energy. we did a lot of polling. we are fundamentally member lead. our ultimate decision was to focus on saving the senate. that is the area where a few thousand votes could make a difference for the entire country. that is where we thought our impact could be highest. we been working on a 26 date campaign to ensure that the expansion of medicaid happens or if it does not happen carries a political price. there are republican governors across the country that of refused 100% funding to expand health insurance to hundreds of thousands of people and millions across the country.

those millions of people being denied health insurance that has already been signed into law, that is a political outrage. this is something that is turning. there was a time when it seemed like a great way for republicans to score points with their base. what we are seeing now is voters hate the idea of refusing health insurance for people when it has already been paid for. they are moving to expand medicare. all of them are probably going to do it. alabama is one of the states were politicians realize a refusing to extend medicaid is a political disaster and do the right thing or get thrown out of office. host: these are the top targets. colorado, iowa, kentucky, michigan, north carolina.

steve, republican caller. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. this affordable care act that they keep talking about, if it was so affordable the price would've been lower. my second point is if it was such a great program, everybody including obama and congress should of been a part of the program. host: we are running out of time. guest: congress is part of the program. that is part of the bill that went through. congressional staff have to sign up for it. the prices have risen less than was projected. do you remember what happened to health care costs for the affordable care act? it went up double digits year after year. there were corporations that were going bankrupt or slashing medical coverage for employee because costs were rising so

quickly. that cost has actually slowed. this is what most positive things. i urge you to take a look in your medical bills and a member -- remember what was happening before we passed the law. host: one more tweet comes from john. we started talking about the koch brothers. and your focus on the koch brothers. guest: i appreciate all your hash tags. i would ask the koch brothers to support the middle class and working people rather than ultra billionaires like themselves. i think we do need campaign finance reform. this is only top issues when we poll members. this is when the top issues across the board, no matter the political situation of the moment. i think the reason they become

such a lightning rod is they have come to embody the problem with money in politics. they are worth $100 billion. they support policies that suppress the minimum wage and make it harder for people to vote and harder for people to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits. these are policies that hold people down and keep people like them up. the power of billionaires to do that is what the reasons why money in politics is so disastrous. i would rather that no billionaires exercise outside control in our system. host: we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thanks much for having me. >> congress is not in session, but we are still talking about it. coming up live at 1:00, a forum on the keystone xl pipeline. it is designed to pipe oil from canada into the u.s.. three phases of the system are under way already, the fourth is awaiting state department

approval. energy and legal issues of the pipeline will be the focus. that is coming up in about five minutes. at 1:00 eastern here on c-span. reminderhave a moment, of our life campaign 2014 debate coverage tonight, across all three networks and c-span radio. that starts at 7:00 eastern. the west virginia senate debate, with a seat being vacated by the retirement of jay rockefeller. on c-span two, the incumbent democrat mark warner and republican challenger ed gillespie will face off. on c-span3, the massachusetts governor's race emma rated a tossup why several firms. there are three independent candidates that will be a part of the debate also. that is like tonight starting at 7:00 eastern. also happening early this evening, the north carolina u.s. senate debate where kay hagan is tillishallenged by thom

tonight at 90 clock eastern. -- 9:00 eastern. >> the latest poll shows in north carolina, the incumbent with a- democrat slightly over her republican challenger. 44% to 40%. is the washington correspondent for the raleigh north carolina news and observer. thanks for being with us. this is the latest poll that ,hows the incumbent senator democrat, slightly ahead of her republican challenger. what is happening? >> we have been noticing in polls that for the last month, senator hagan has been ahead a little bit. the race is still a tossup great. close to call. at least have a dozen polls have shown her head. >> why? >> that is a good question. has been tight.

north carolina is very closely divided between democrats and republicans. senator hagan has been making this as much a she can devote about what her opponent, house speaker thom tillis has done in the state legislature. quiteave taken the state to the right, and has made some reductions in education spending compared to what growth would require. that is her main talking point in the campaign. >> in a number of ads, she has been quick to point out that she has been the independent voice for north carolina in the u.s. senate. how does the tillis campaign respond to that? have beenng, they saying that senator hagan is to closely aligned with president obama. policies that are unpopular with the large segment of the population there, particularly the health care law. the upcomingk at

debate between these two candidates, courtesy of wr ao tv. what you looking for? >> is a chance for candidates to show voters exactly how they are different from one another. another. some experts think perhaps they will bring up things that did not come up in the first debate on september 3. that might be issues like voting rights, gun control. it's also possible that something may have been in the news in the past few weeks, like the ebola virus and the fight against the terrorists in iraq .nd syria, will come up speaker tillis has been trying to use some foreign-policy issues to show his strength and outwardly criticize senator hagan. >> can you give the audience a sense of the ground game, what does that tell us campaign have on the ground in north carolina, conversely, from the hagan perspective? parties are working hard to turn out voters. it is more complicated than a midterm election when there is

no presidential race. both parties have people knocking on doors every weekend, as much as they can. they also have groups that support them with doing the same thing. >> we are a month away before the midterm elections. where this campaign is right now, has it surprised you, or is ? what you expected >> it is so close, and everyone expected that, so it is still remains to be seen. >> the latest on the north carolina senate race. newspapers,cclatchy thanks for being with us. coverage of that race and others coming up tonight as part of our campaign 2014 coverage beginning at 7:00 eastern across the c-span networks as we bring you more than 100 debates or the control of congress. a look at some of the campaign

ads running across the country. >> im am mark warner and i approve this message. >> enron, the largest corporate fraud in history. enron paid gillespie and his firm $700,000 to block regulation of the energy markets so they could raise utility rates. then it got worse. enron, and gillespie, million dollar lobbyist to put enron ahead of you. through a direct carbon tax or directly through cap and trade, we will put a price on carbon. >> mark warner and obama want to kill coal. obama-warner program will killed thousands of good paying virginia jobs. i will fight any coal tax. my plan will lower the economy.

ed gillespie, the enron part withe sin is attacking false as the experts call misleading, completely made up. the truth, mark warner is working to fix health care and find a bipartisan solution to cut the national debt. includingrepublicans, a former governor, u.s. senator, and 14 legislators, have endorsed him. i'm mark warner. i approve this message. >> i'm ed gillespie, i approve this message. i worked my way through college. i worked from the parking lot to the white house. there is opportunity and dignity in work but today too many virginians are squeezed by mark warner's and president obama's policies that raise taxes, increase prices, and kill jobs. it is time for a new direction.

are losing our choice of doctors. higher deductibles, higher premiums. she supports having your health insurance covering pre-existing conditions and the affordable from job to job. will get more expensive, will be more costly for small businesses. this administration has put a big damper on our way of life and our love of freedom. >> when she was a week old, our daughter had open-heart surgery that saved her life. friends, family, and folks across west virginia prayed with us that the insurance company called her a pre-existing condition. i know health-care reform was not done right. there is a lot i can do to make it better for west virginia but i will not go back to the days of leading insurance companies and i coverage to our children.

we are now seeing politics at its worst. my opponent is tacking my personal integrity and my family would have that are blatantly false. i am disappointed but not surprised because she had shown from the start she will say and do anything. misleading voters on purpose just to get elected is not a way to go about. i will fight just as hard for my family as i have for all west virginia's. what do we really know about congresswoman shelley moore capital? on the financial services committee, she helps bankers get rich. in return, they have given her $2 million, but there's more. west virginians were losing their jobs and savings to wall street. she gave her husband, a wall street banker, insider tips, and they made over $100,000.

she keeps getting richer and west virginia pays the price. live to the wilson center for a forum on the keystone xl pipe line which runs from canada into the u.s.. >> let me introduce our first panel. the next battle will begin promptly at 2:00. elena schwartz is a reporter for politico. she will tell us how we got to the point, what happened to the country and where we might be now. morton has been a washington correspondent for the omaha world herald since 2006. he will discuss the history of the fight in nebraska and how the keystone xl pipeline created strange bedfellows. paul writes for the globe and mail, from here in washington, where he covers international affairs and security issues. he will talk about how the pipeline fits into canadian foreign-policy and why it's important to prime minister harper.

each of our guests will speak for about five kilo seven minutes and then we will turn to discussion. for clarification, today's session is not about whether or not the keystone xl pipeline should be built. we are trying to analyze its long and propagated history and what it means for politics and regulatory processes here in washington and the united states , and for canadian foreign-policy. >> thanks so much. ifstart off, i don't know anybody else was following keystone xl as far back as the spring of 2010, when i started covering it, but if we could jump into that, it helps to understand how we got here now, the biggest environmental story in washington was the cap and trade climate bill. if you remember in 2009, house speaker nancy pelosi pushed through the bill by a very slim ofgin, and over the course 2009-2010, its momentum in the senate was stalling. lindsey graham was a key

republican involved in this, he was getting cold feet, citing lack of trust with white house and immigration. all eyes were on cap and trade. died itsin trade informal death, politically, in 2010, there was also the bp oil spill, which was a gigantic environmental story, and a lot of people were paying attention to changing the offshore drilling regulatory system in america. under the radar was keystone and there were a lot of environmental groups that cared about it but they care about all infrastructure projects to an extent. everyone has a policy analyst keeping an eye on something in this town if you work for a nonprofit. it was a smalltime issue. you even had republicans in nebraska expressing a little bit of concern over the fact that this pipeline would go through the aquifer. fast four years. every republican is on board, urging the administration to cut short the review process.

democrats like jon tester, who in 2010 was saying, i do not want to give transcanada a .afety waiver now he is with the republicans. so what happens in the ensuing four years? the environmental movement dusted itself off after cap and trade and a lesser but no less significant to the, i think, on to the bp oilonse spill. it said, we are going to focus on infrastructure. a lot of environmental groups see the climate change problem increasingly as a carbon budget issue, a certain amount of gigatons of carbon that can be by a certain year, let's say 2050. if we exceed this carbon budget, we are locked into more than two degrees centigrade of climate change. that is the frame that environmental groups adopted and said, if we taken infrastructure focused approach, look at

specific projects, among them keystone, we have a better shot at winning, to their minds, halting climate change, the most insidious effect of it. so when i look back and ask why did keystone become the be-all, end-all infrastructure project in american era environmentalism, it goes back to a column that james hansen did which you probably know as the game over column. that column has been interpreted in different iterations via any number of americans and canadians ever since. if you look back at the actual text, he made the same assumption that environmental groups working against the pipeline still may come in which is the keystone is the linchpin to essentially getting the lion's share of the oil out of the ground. that is in itself debatable, but he used the course option to say

it keystone is rejected, the oil sands essentially slowed to a halt, the cost of extracting this heavy fuel pecans potentially untenable for most players in the industry. if it gets built, it's a free-for-all and it is "game over." as canadian officials have pointed out umpteen number of times, the oil sands, when seated in the frame of rotter is no lesss important. nevertheless, this was galvanizing too many. many have told me privately and sometimes publicly that it is hard to organize against an epa rule. 11done will say, section 1 forever! but a pipeline, a piece of steel that you can picture running through farms, is something that gets people riled up. it is an easy organizing tool, easy to understand.

before you know it, it takes off in 2011 and we kick into overdrive in the summer when ,here is a white house sit-in when the 1000 people are arrested, and then there is this stylistic shift that pushes the policy and politics in a direction that no one could afford it did. could have predicted. when i started studying this, i thought it would be good for a couple of stories and a couple of angry letters full of terminology. everyone, including people working on it, had been shot at how fast the politics have taken off. , i think, for that is it's a combination of unique timing for the environmental movement, as i was explaining, going through the stylistic shift, and the unique lyrical moment where congress is not doing much. the appeal of stopping something as opposed to getting something done becomes heightened because we rely on congress to get something done.

certainly not a comprehensive environmental bill, as we remember they could not fund the government last year. stopping something became a lot easier to conceive of politically than doing something. , theese two forces organizing, and the political trend toward lack of process on capitol hill forum this tidal wave of attention and focus and before you knew it, everyone was into keystone. here we are today. the republicans tried more than two years ago to force a presidential decision. they lost that battle. here we are again with president obama taking this until after the election, for substantive reasons that joe will get into, but we have essentially seen a groundhog day scenario going on politically. i don't know if everyone remembers that bill murray movie where he lives the same day over and over again. environmentalists feel like the longer we wait for a decision

the better position they are in. i don't know if that is necessarily true, but the fact is, there are some folks in the industry betting on the .resident i'm not sure that is true either but it gives you a sense of where we are emotionally. exhausted byle are the issue, even those environmental groups who oppose it. me, i am just wondering hillary clinton will weigh in on it. >> thanks, elena. joe? >> thanks, and that was great. i will talk about how nebraska fit into that. if you go back to the end of 2010, there were not many people other than you who knew about keystone xl in nebraska or outside of it. when the republicans took over the house in 2011, congressman lee terry from omaha -- he will take some credit for getting the ball rolling on this. he describes how the republicans

on the energy and commerce committee got together and were kicking around the big ideas for the next congress. he said, there is a pipeline. is environmental community all bent out of shape in nebraska. if you can imagine the other republicans going -- keystone? what is this? they found it interesting and went to draft some legislation. he became one of the loudest pro-pipeline voices on capitol hill, has your head at the legislative efforts to force the president and. at the same time, other nebraskans were concerned about the route and the potential for spills, over the aquifer, with the construction might mean for , andandhills environmentally sensitive area of the state that many people outside of nebraska had heard much about before this. it was very interesting to watch the politics develop as you had congressman lee terry, a big

supporter, holding press conferences with labor groups who he disagrees with on just about everything else under the sun. at the same time, you had mike johanns, conservative or republican, who was out there expressing reservations about the route and the potential impact on the aquifer and the sandhills. senator who is more likely to be writing epa to complain about regulatory thereach was saying some of same things that the sierra club was about the potential ramifications of the route. it was interesting to watch those politics play out. once the state legislator got together and the governor and the public got increasingly concerned about the route, transcanada agreed to change the route to avoid the sandhills. opponents will argue that they are not far enough out of the sound his -- sandhills.

over time, the politics sorted themselves out and now it is very much a public in supporting the pipeline, it is still a red state -- republican supporting the pipeline, it is still a red state. at the same time, there is a dedicated group of landowners and activists who are upset about the pipeline and are fighting it out. it's been interesting to me to see how the concerns in the state are not the same on a national level which deal more with climate change. in the state, concerns are more about the impact of potential spills, land owner rights, eminent domain. so the landowners have been pushing those concerns. they won a legal victory when a -- the way the state legislature handle the appeal -- that is now on from the state supreme court. we are waiting for a decision. it's safe to say that will come

after the midterm election. it should be coming in the next couple of months. it's also clear the fight goes on. congressman terry told me that he will not let up on this until the pipeline is built. he is very committed to that view he is in a tough reelection race right now, so we will see if he can come back next year to continue the fight. the anti-pipeline activist from nebraska, they are trying to make sure that he does not come back here they are going onr-to-door, playing too, horseback in his district, trying to urge his constituents not to send it back. that is a bit of an overview of the things in nebraska. >> ok, paul? >> good afternoon. i would try to pull some fax facts, not so much from the canadian sands point, but from the canadian perspective, i guess. canada is sitting on this huge

resource. it will decline in value. it might be the second or third largest hydrocarbon reservoir in the world. you can make a very strong argument that in 100 years, 50 years, it will have no value. so it is difficult and it's expensive to extract. perhaps three times the cost of some light crude in the middle east. it is a long way from world markets and it is a long way from world prices. so when you have is excessive canadian governments, but particularly the harper government, has made getting the -- the tar sands difference in terms with oils and depends on where you stand in the argument -- getting oil sands to the market as a major national priority. that is not about energy independence in canada. it is about extracting this

massive resource before it declines in value or before mining it becomes politically impossible because of social and environmental considerations. this is not the first time canada has taken a tough sell interested stance on economic issues. governments do that. some of those possessors have been small economically, but injured are strongly in canada, things like the whitecoat seal hunt. other things have been amazingly boring but important, like softwood lumber. bigger, both in terms of its imagery and its importance economically. there is another thing that for me sets keystone xl distinctly .part it's the first time that i can remember that a canadian government has made a specific

, that able champion as part of a national policy. this national policy, at its base level, is let's get these resources to market and to world prices, but you do not hear the government saying we don't care which refineries it goes to, how it gets to your -- there. keystone.about that has created political difficulties for the canadian government. it does not look like it is championing a policy. it looks like it is championing a project. the third thing i would like to say -- and both of my colleagues have referred to this. times have really changed in the last five or six years. when transcanada first proposed keystone xl and ottawa first started to champion it in a very loud voice, this was the

landscape they were talking about. they were pointing out that americans were pre-occupied with land wars in iraq and afghanistan, so energy independence had a lot of political importance. so did this undercurrent which canadians which really do not want to own but the government played on it, which is, wouldn't you rather buy your oil from nice friendly people close to you instead of those unsavory and unreliable people far away? they never say in that directly, but it is very clear that is part of the argument. when keystone was first proposed, no one in the united states thought that, today, one of the big issues in the oil patch was whether we would ok the export of domestically produced oil. ago, when the keystone debate was really in its first flower, unemployment in the united states was 9.7 percent, and the jobs argument had a powerful ring.

now it may be that there are really not many jobs associated with this pipeline. you could argue it is a few dozen or tens of thousands -- and both sides make those arguments, but the current reality is, the jobs arguments simply does not have the same power anymore. four years ago, oil was close to $150 a barrel. a $5.5e xl was billed as billion project. today, oil is under $100 a barrel and people out there claiming it will be at $80 and even $75 a barrel. at $75 a barrel, there is a lot of reservoir in alberta that is never coming out. last two things. as we all know, this is not really about keystone. this is not about laying a few hundred miles of pipe to get alberta oil sands to gulf coast refineries.

every constituency with a stake in this sees keystone differently. for the environmentalists, it is a high-profile, easy and useful icon to go after the administration on. for the oil patch, it is, do you care about jobs and development? in the greater scheme of things, 800,000 barrels imported into the u.s. a day. not that big a deal. much bigger deal in canada where at,000 barrels a day export significantly lower cost than the alternatives. that is a bigger economic impact. lastly, looking ahead a little project has,this according to many, really bedeviled canada and u.s. relations.

i think it has, largely because the canadian government has been banging the drum incessantly on it. you see canadian ministers and the prime minister makes him truly extraordinary, it's, given the supporters and -- supposedly cities of diplomatic relations. when the head of a country tells another country that the decision is a no-brainer and when a foreign minister says you have to make a decision. any decision, we do not care, just make it now. unlike bigprisingly league diplomacy. but i do not think there will be much impact long-term. there have been spats before. residence and prime ministers have disliked each other before, although this one, the mutual antipathy is pretty obvious. very different view. keystone that is too many

canadians, not because they care about oilsands exports, although some do. as much as they care about being snubbed by americans, if you listen to the debate in canada, it is always why won't the americans do this for us, as if canadians are owed a favor, or owed this permit. on the other hand, keystone and is onlyquite rightly, incidentally about canada's national priorities and with it consultant resources before they decline in value. in the u.s., keystone is a larger domestic lyrical issue on conversations. i don't think most americans care and i don't and they should care whether the canadians feel snubbed by it. thank you. i am guessing the informed public, which includes you, has heard about keystone and has an opinion one way or the other, questions about the politics and

process. i have some questions for the panel as well, but since you came, i would like to give you a chance. we have microphones and we are being filmed today, so please wait for the microphone. nobody. in the back, with the glasses. could you introduce yourself ways. >> canadian business council. i'm just trying to help you out by kicking off the questions. i would love to get the panel's of the three big canadian proposals that would take canadian crude out of canada to the market -- the one that goes to the west, the one that goes west to east, and keystone, which one do you think will go first, if any? if not, what do you think about oil on rail? >> can i throw something into that, going north into northwest territory.

i like it better the usual way. i do not have a clue is the honest answer. as you know, i am based in canada. opponents are watching very closely. what is happening in the united states, the strategy and the political effectiveness of the anti-keystone movement which has ranged across a full spectrum of groups. if delay is part of winning, so far the anti-pipeline effort has been extremely successful. the idea that there will be a quick approval in canada on any

of the projects seems far-fetched to me. have proposals to ship oil north into the northern territories. full disclosure. when i was a baby reporter in the late 1970's, i was working convergingn covering pipeline inquiries and people were saying the same thing then. if these pipelines are not built, that gass will never come out and it will cripple the oil fields. it is 40 years later and other -- neither of those pipelines are built. pipeline fatigue goes on. the last thing on oil by rail. it is expensive compared to pipelines in the ground and working. oil by rail is pretty cheap compared to a project that may never start. i saw a number last week, the expectation is that 800,000 barrels of oil will move by rail by 2016.

inside and outside canada. that is the same volume keystone would move. , in some ways, are better suited for the kind of very heavy oils that alberta has, rather than the light, reserves. >> i do not really have the industry expertise to know which pipeline will go forward, but in the political debate, you hear from proponents of keystone all the time. if we do not build it, they will find other ways, other pipelines . i also recently saw the argument that farmers are having trouble moving their product by rail because so much traffic is being tied up in transporting oil. if we would just build a pipeline, that could open up and farmers could get their products to market much easier, which i thought was an interesting way -- particularly in my part of

the country, to get at the rural voters who may be concerned about the impact on the land. concur, i do not know in terms of the pipelines themselves, but with respect to oil by rail. number one, this morning, the european union announced it would not label oilsands crude as uniquely polluting and incidentally, a 700,000 barrel last week.to europe so oil by rail and tanker is viable. whether it would take the place of the keystone is impossible to say. also, when the state department stated its final environmental impact statement on the pipeline, it pointed to around $75 a barrel as the point at which rail is no longer assumed to be likely to take the place of keystone. so the topline conclusion got a lot of attention which was no significant impact, but it left

the door open, if oil gets that cheap, we just do not know. are we getting close to that $75 point? i do not cover oil markets but something we might be. transcanada, add, they say the pipeline is more expensive than it used to be. secondly, the president of transcanada has been saying they are happy to look at oil by rail to bridge the gap across the boundary. that will create an interesting political dynamic. if there is a no decision or an and ag decision to delay, canadian company backed by the canadian government says we found a loophole in the regulations and we are just stuff andffload the ship it across by rail and put it back into the pipeline -- that, to me, would be pretty volatile for us. note, the transcanada

ceo told me and others last month that even if keystone is approved, transcanada will be involved in rail. that just shows how far the debate has come. sick -- lachman got gantic, rail car going through cities, weaker standards on some oil cars the my where is this going, how does this play out lyrically, does it? u.s., thespect to the department of transportation is in the middle of crafting a very closely watched oil by rail safety rule and the initial version of the rule assumes that more than 20,000 old cars that would no longer be allowed to carry crude could be repurposed to carry oilsands. >> because it is less volatile. >> exactly, but it is a costly process. we are not talking about the

diluted format, but what they call raw bit. much harder to ship without expensive heating equipment. the industry thinks that is somewhat silly, as it said in the comments, but a lot of companies will invest in these older cars because they are sitting there. megantic should not have happened for a lot of reasons, but it was not really -- in many ways, this is not a oil industry or rail industry. no are poorly regulated railroad should ever have been allowed to do what went on there. that was nuts. you leave a holly volatile cargo sitting at the top of the hill with nobody watching it overnight. unbelievable. >> i will be interested to see if this ships more true rail and how this affects the dynamics in a state like mine where a lot of

the landowners who have problem with this have problems because of the in the domain concerns, the potential for spills. would they be more comfortable with rail? i guess we will have to see. >> api. i have worked on this for some time. i think the all politics is local hits and what you are talking about but it should be a state department decision, it is a national decision. 10,000 miles of pipe have been made in those countries since keystone was approved. when you are talking about the european union and their decisions, other markets we have been talking about getting to the head of epa saying it will .e developed another thing to consider it is the most efficient way of it our refineries or anywhere else. what you are looking at with the other proposals that scotty mentioned in canada, just another way to get it offshore.

that does not mean that it is going to the same exact place that keystone would be flown to. so from the political aspect of this discussion -- do you think the holistic view of factors are being in play or is it just -- yes, i am a student with the project, too. where does this come into play? ae conversation may give it bit too rail, but that could come into play with fracking here or anything else. equationt the holistic and whether it should be approved in the political element, do you think those factors are really being considered either? to myill go back suggested, i do not think it is about keystone. i don't think it's about the pipeline.

the debate focuses on the project because it is an easy way to focus the debate, but that does not make the broader debate legitimate. there are lots of people who are opposed to keystone who want to hold the president's feet to the fire and see if he was blowing smoke when he said i am going to do something that preserves the planet for future generations. now you can make all sorts of arguments and you cannot draw a straight line to another, but that is what the political debate is. just like -- you see all kinds of issues where the debate gets focused on a particular thing. should the pentagon be giving high tech weaponry and also rifles to local police departments? that is what the debate is focused on, but the mark broader issue is about policing in american cities.

i do not want to diminish the importance of keystone, in and of itself, but i don't think that's what the debate is about. i think it's a bigger issue and keystone is just an icon. >> with respect to going beyond keystone, i would propose that everyone in the audience and those watching go back to look at executive order 13337, signed in 2004 by george bush, that sets up the system that we are working under four presidential approval of cross-border pipelines. you will be surprised at how broad it is. there is no definition of what the national interest means. it is essentially one sheet of paper in the federal register that gives a lot of latitude to people on both sides to influence this. you might argue from both sides that it has deemphasized substance because we do not really even know what we are talking about, so we could be talking about everything. considering this also applies to other ross porter infrastructure. there is another oilsands expansion.

both sides again should ask themselves, do i want a system to continue with such a broad parameter? it does not make a lot of sense. >> i don't think there is any question keystone is a proxy for the bigger debate, bigger battle. clearly, both sides seem comfortable with having picked this hill as the one they want to fight on. we will see who made the mistake picking this as where they wanted to hold their big fight. >> dave jones, retired a department officer. i wanted to direct a question to mr. morton. i wanted to know if you could give us some detail on the sense of the juridical or size, how it is going on, what the court looks like? you said a decision in a couple of months. regardless ofve,

how difficult it is to bet on what a court will do, what they will do? more than that, give us a sense of the process and how this is going forward. >> as the washington correspondent, i was not the one covering the arguments for the court but i follow it closely. the supreme court, you get into trouble if you try to predict what they will do. listening to the chatter out there, both sides feel like they have some support on the court. someday question marks. at oral arguments, they asked 5r questions and the bulk were to the states, who was appealing the lower court ruling. there are a lot of questions. the big ones are what happens if they uphold the lower court's thus far i have not seen a lot of indication from

transcanada is that just starts everything over again. ere is a lot of uncertainty as to whether this -- where this goes. everyone is just waiting to see what the court does. i'm sorry i do not have a better prediction than that. it seems like both sides have some support on the court and we will just have to see where it comes down. say,will just jump in and i guess you could say, my judgment, if the decision is upheld by the lower court, transcanada would apply with the nebraska public service commission. they say the process takes five to eight months. no doubt, folks that joe deals with in nebraska will then start aggressively trying to influence that process. >> this was the central or apinning of the suit, big part of it, in giving the authority the power of to allow

transcanada to allow the governor or the public service commission, they violated the state constitution. opponents of the pipeline feel like they have a pretty good chance at shutting this down if it goes to the public service commission. the governor, by the time they rearrange this, was supportive of the pipeline as long as they got the route right, in his words. that is why they went to him. opponents feel confident they could bring some pressure to bear on the public service commission to do it differently if they wind up having to go to them. >> again, going back to something i said earlier, if the opponents prevail on the district court ruling and it stands, s k scenario, five to eight months at the public service commission. you can see a lot of bureaucratic here and there's. keep in mind, the obama administration does not plan to wait until the process is done. the venue envision this potentially going to the next

president. just something to keep in mind. the administration has not said it will decide, once the nebraska judicial process is concluded. it said it will not decide at least until, or at least while. there is no promise from the it ministration on a decision. we have an election coming up next month. you mentioned, joe, for lee terry, it's an issue. is it an issue in other districts, what does it mean for the president? paul, what does this mean politically for stephen harper? >> i don't know, i don't know. the liberals back the pipeline too. i assume that if the ultimate decision is no, canadian politicians will do what canadian politicians do when they feel snubbed by the united states, which is to jump up and

down and stamp. all sorts of nasty things and then go on with the relationship. which is what the ambassador did. >> the last two federal cabinet ministers -- every five years, the minister that came to washington talked about keystone, made a point of it. some ladder and some softer. the last two that have come have not said anything about keystone until they were asked about it. whether this is to settle to be a change in strategy, or whether ottawa has finally gotten the , as secretary kerry keeps putting it, there is a process, we will let you know when it's over. >> in nebraska, you alluded to senseefore, there is some -- we write about it -- wake me

up when they make a decision on this. it has come up in debates. ,e have written stories about on a statewide races, it is clear the democratic candidates are very much opposed to the pipeline. republicans are in favor. and congressman terry's district, it's interesting. his opponent is not opposed to the pipeline but they say they should follow certain processes. he would like to cut the process short. we will see what voters say. it is definitely getting talked about. >> do you see this as an issue for other political discussions around the country? >> absolutely, there is no shortage of keystone focus. centered onis a man named tom stier, who has a super pac dealing with keystone

and other issues. that said, you look at the polls. the majority of the public is showing to support the public -- project when they are asked. it's arguable that using keystone in as does not necessarily move the needle. you saw a lot of ads in 2012 and the record was somewhat next. i think you will see a lot of sound and fury, but what is it defies in terms of moving races outside of nebraska is little. -- one-story was talking about democrat saying that it may cost me a bit of labor support, but they will probably vote for me anyway. supporting itd may cost me a few landowners who would otherwise vote for me but they will probably vote for me anyway. occursof the things that to me, if republicans win control of the senate next month , it will be very interesting to ,ee legislation, from congress

either changing the process were proving the pipeline, and see what the president does with that. so far, harry reid has protected the president from that. they cannot get legislation on keystone physically through congress. a fully republican congress is going to have lots of things to throw at the white house, but this may be one of them. i will also interject, i mentioned that the opening of my -- end-of-life opening remarks, if this goes on until the 2016 primary season, environmentalists are already pressuring hillary clinton to take a position on this and to understand why -- think back to october 2010 when she told a public audience here that her state department would be "inclined to approve it." using some of the same logic to paul talked about, talking about energy security. just yesterday, she deflected yet another keystone question. especially if she gets

challenged from the left by perhaps someone like the vice president, i think you should be prepared to see this moving a lot of democratic votes, but that is a big if. >> i agree. in the democratic primaries, this could be an even bigger issue -- it could take on a whole new dimension, which would be bizarre for a canadian-backed project of a few hundred thousand barrels of oil. i have spoken to republicans who say how they feel pretty good taken get something up and passed. they say we have close to 60. 1.i would make is that in order to gain control, they will have to defeat a lot of the democrats. that is not necessarily picking up votes. add a layer to that, there is no indication the president would sign a bill with keystone even if it got to 60. it takes 67 in the senate to override a veto which republicans have no chance of getting.

i am a masters student. i am wondering, i know it is way down the line, but the name is keystone. you have mentioned it as the linchpin for environmentalists. is there any chance of rebranding it so that it is not so obviously named after tipping the scales of the environment? is it already such an independent issue that they cannot play baseball with it? superne, if you do it environmentally, you can give us something back, and then we will let it through. i think it is too late, but i bet transcanada wishes they had called it american independence freedom antiterrorism pipeline. you know, that is how they have tried to sell it. >> it's funny you mentioned

that. the house has passed a bill -- it has a name that iou wh. but it would allow transcanada to reapply a very expedited processing regime, even if they are rejected. a democratic member joked with me exactly that, that they would come back with the puppies and ice cream pipeline. it was just a joke, but with respect to your other question horsetrading, there are some well respected voices that have talked about something like that. at this point, the younger, more insurgent energy in the movement that has helped to make keystone an issue, would not stand for that. i just smacks of the same beltway dealmaking that they thought killed cap and trade. >> a lot of the activist that devoted time and energy to this would feel a huge letdown. we got this epa rule but we will let the pipeline go forward, even if the national level environmental folks thought it

was a good idea. it would be quite a blow to the grassroots. >> i want to pick up on a question someone asked earlier. does it matter that there has been a lot of pipeline instructed elsewhere? we have this one thing that is like the golden bullet and all of this buildup around us. as you said, elena, even if we killed the oil sands, it does not really matter. why doesn't the bigger question and other things happening have it is likeg -- keystone is it. what health ends around you? that is what a symbolic totemic thing is. it is less about what it itself means you to be clear, if you look at the emissions, the epa rule is more carbon saved. so it is not about going just to

keystone. maybe that is not a satisfying answer. if there were an environmental group activist up here, they might say, does it matter that a lot of oil sand spilled in arkansas in 2013? that scared me. that, not connected to transcanada, causes a lot of agitation and inspires them to fight hard. change andclimate greenhouse gas omissions is going to be one of the biggest, issues for a generation, maybe longer. i think there will be the next totemic issue as people work through what is an incredibly itficult political debate on . sometimes these things come because of accident, the bp oil

spill or some catastrophe somewhere, and people look at the bigger underlying issue. manipulatedey get into totemic fashion. in the case of tees -- keystone, it probably was manipulated by both sides into having an importance that nobody who originally intended or expected. debate -- this is a fundamental debate for the 21st century. that will be other totems people focus on, as that debate is working through, i think. >> it's an interesting question, what will they fight over if this ever gets decided one way or the other? the next pipeline? scorched earthn craters everywhere and everyone looking around. ok, now what, what do we fight over next? >> the whole question of infrastructure. let's say magically the price falls and we can no longer get

oil for a reasonable price and solar and wind power prices drop and we can do it, but we need infrastructure to get it to market. does that pose a problem for people? transmission lines are not pretty either. pipeline ornts the the nuclear reactor or the windmill or anything else in their backyard, unless you pay them enough, and then they are ok with it. advantage of this infrastructure focus strategy for green groups -- i'm not saying they all believe it, but a lot do. even if we lose, we win. if you get a keystone defeat, that gets more excitement for pipeline 2. true.hink that is i don't think the opponents could lose anymore on keystone. --y may have more difficulty if the decision is no, it will be very hard to find a successor issue that is quite so easy to

brand. if there is a decision to let , i think it proceed will be a shot in the arm for environmental activists because it will show that they did not do enough. i think it will re-energize the movement. >> my name is russell. i'm a member of first nation in canada. not to get into all of that, but i am very interested in finding influence thisof frustrated tar sands exploitation agenda, especially for harper's government, had on the recent sketchy adaptation of china asment with

possibly under the way to expedite getting tar sands product out. thank you. >> well, i do not know the answer to that, and maybe there are those that do. we could be asking you about the northern gateway. but i think it is clear -- ok. it is clear that the canadian government has been saying for , if we cannot deliver this oil to the americans, and making it sound like the americans needed, right? they keep saying it will not be further exported. we will send it elsewhere. there is a almost an implied threat. if you do not buy it from us, if you do not like us well enough to buy it, then we will send it to india or china. so i think you raise exactly the issue that the government has tried to instill. we will go and be cozy with

other nations it in other markets. the reality is 97% of canadian oil exports go to the u.s. that is a bit of a moot point right now. is it 97? it is huge anyway. >> last question before we move to the next panel. taking the me in first panel. [applause] and my staff will change the name cards and you can sit down. maybe you can join us for the second part.

introduce the second panel. to my left is adam van, a legislative attorney with the congressional research service, where he specializes in energy and national resource issues. i hope he can help us understand how the state department got to be in charge of cross-border transmission in the first place. to his last, ben lieberman has served as counsel in the house of representatives energy and commerce committee since 2011. he would discuss bills the committee is writing, what he sees coming from congress. to my far left, stephen reed, a he isgton partner, where the pipeline group, working on federal energy regulation. overview of the process that pipelines must go through to win approval, how domestic and international

processes differ, and how it differs for oil and gas and other infrastructure. here we are going to look at the nuts and bolts here it will all come together and why we are where we are. adam? >> i am the legislative attorney with sierra. my role here today, as many of you know, is to give you an idea why we are here, what the federal role is with respect to why the state department is supposed to dutch some of the other agencies will tell you what it should be. for those of you who do not know, oil pipelines are generally not a federal matter at all, unless federal lands are involved. so, how did we get here? know, the proposed keystone project would cross an international border. if the pipeline started at the northern