opportunity with the new american congress that this president can work with us and looking at the bipartisan bills we have put on the floor, i'm hoping he puts people before politics >> congressman davis brought a bill forward to have americans have more opportunities and move forward with the 40-hour workweek bill and seen a shift from full-time jobs because of effects of obamacare that made it hard to find full-time employment and later this week on the keystone pipeline a bill that obama administration said it will create over 40,000 american jobs. i would encourage the president to create those jobs and get our

economy moving forward. >> the american people were loud and clear and give america's new congress to get our country back on track. we heard this call and we are ready to get off to a quick start. by week's end we will grow the economy and create jobs. the hire more heroes act, the save america cans act and approval of the keystone pipeline. the president has not acknowledged the call of the people and threatened to veto the approval of the keystone pipeline. americans can't afford another two years deterred by politics and can't afford threats and posturing instead of legitimate legislating. the american people deserve a congress and president focused on them, not the next election.

i don't know what direction president obama will choose for the last two years of his presidency but i can guarantee you that your priorities will be our priorities for america's new congress. >> prior to coming to congress, i served as a energy regulator and i carried the portfolio and when we sighted the original keystone pipeline, 217 miles across north dakota, i saw firsthand the real jobs, the real jobs, the entrepreneurial opportunities that flourished as a result of building that pipeline. i believe america's national security and america's economic security are tied directly to america's energy security. it's been over 2,500 since transcanada filed its permit application. congress passed a bill that

unanimously that the president signed that said he has 60 days to approve the keystone pipeline unless he can state and demonstrate that it's not in the nation's best interest. i believe it's in the nation's best interest. there are real jobs. the time is now. it's now more than ever to get the keystone pipeline bill done. we are going to pass it and i hope the president will sign it into law. >> yesterday, as i raised my right hand to get sworn in in my second term, i thanked the citizens of south and central illinois to serve in this great institution. and yesterday, we had the opportunity, because of this republican leadership team, putting bipartisan bills first in this new congress, to show the american people that we were here to govern. we don't always have the best ideas, but the ideas don't come from us, they come from our

constituents and hire more heroes act that passed unanimously yesterday that will hire more businesses and heroes, it wasn't my idea or anyone's standing behind me but brad who is standing in the back of this room who said wouldn't it be great to make sure small businesses have a chance to help post-9/11 veterans get jobs. and the leadership believed in us today, yesterday, to make sure that that idea, hopefully is going to become a law. and i would urge the president to sign it and the other bipartisan bills that this new american congress inteppeds to put forth. thank you. >> simply unfair to finance health care for some hard-working american people on the backs of other hard-working americans through a reduction in hours and wages. that is what the affordable care

act has done and that's why we introduced the save americans act. and why we are re-introducing it this congress. currently, the definition of full-time employment under obamacare is 30 hours. yet the average workweek in this week is 34.4 hours. restoring the 40-hour workweek we get rid of this perverse incentive. now, people are experiencing cuts that can least afford it cafeteria workers around the country and substitute teachers at public school corporations and employees at our youngest firms that are still fledgeling and trying to stay alive. 2.6 million workers who make less than $30,000 a year are

most at risk of losing hours and wages on account of the 30-hour provision. all we propose to do once again is to repeal the new definition of full-time employment in obamacare of 30 hours, replace it with the 40-hour standard and i'm most hopeful we will get bipartisan support for this once again and pass it to the senate ap the president will have to make a decision. thank you very much for being here today and for your attention. >> couple of questions. this question is for steve scalise. [inaudible question] >> when you see the people that know me best both here and especially back home people i have served with and people on

opposite ends, who know the truth and what's in my heart, they are the ones who speak the best. so with that, i think that's what says it all. >> why did you speak to them knowing what they stand for and it has been reported that -- [inaudible] >> i reject bigotry of all kinds. i refer you back to my statement. that's where it ends. [inyou had able question. ] >> we were in a situation yesterday we had to consult the rules committee because of the activities on the floor, two of our members weren't put back on the committee immediately. i have not had a chance to talk to them or our members. but this morning i told the members the same thing i'm saying here. we are going to have a friendly

conversation which we had this morning about bringing our team together. and i expect that those conversations the next couple of days will continue and will come to a decision about how we go forward. >> i see the democrats have used this issue and expect to use it again politically and the white house has spoken out against it. why keep mr. scalise in your leadership? >> i, like mr. scalise served in the state legislature. i remember my freshman term in the state legislature when i had a half of a staffer. you get asked to speak to a lot of groups. and i think mr. scalise made it clear that he made an error in judgment and spoke to a group, not clear who they actually were. now, i know this man. i work with him.

i know what's in his heart. he is a decent, honest person who made a mistake. we have all made mistakes. >> did the republican national committee web site urges donors to abolish the i.r.s. will you guys vote on this? >> speak to the r.n.c. about what they have to say. [inaudible question] >> i said what happened over there reminds us that we should be vigilant. terrorists around the world who are intent on killing americans and other freedom-loving

individuals around the country. i believe that the president's executive actions with regard to immigration are outside of the constitution and outside of his powers. and i believe that we can deal with that issue in the department of homeland security without jeopardizing the security of our country. >> i know you had a family conversation about what happened. there won't be any realigning of the committees? >> we are going to have a family -- friendly conversation. and when we report, you will be the first one to know, jake. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> friends colleagues, country men, especially the people of

ohio's 8th congressional district, thank you for sending me here and let's today welcome all of the new members and all of their families to what we all know to be a truly historic day. >> today is an important day for our country. many senators took the oath this afternoon. 13 for the first time. and a new republican majority accepted its new responsibility. we recognize the enormity of the task before us. we know a lot of hard work awaits. we know many important opportunities away as well. >> follow the g.o.p.-led congress and see the new members. the best access is on c-span television c-span radio and c-span.org. new congress, best access, on c-span. >> on friday, the house plans to debate a bill that would

authorize construction of the keystone pipeline. the house rules committee met to discuss floor proceedings for ta measure, which the white house announced president obama will veto. here's an hour-long portion from today's meeting. >> thank you very much. i welcome our second panel that is here. and i know you have been waiting for quite a while and thank you for coming. we have mr. shiferse. and we are delighted you are here. thank you very much for taking time to be with us today. we are going to move to the h.r. 30 save america's workers act of 2015. excuse me, we are moving to the keystone pipeline, which is

building america's workers some number of thousands of jobs and the consumers who would benefit. h.r. 3, keystone x.l. pipeline. i would note that we have two gentlemen that are with us who care very much about this bill and one who has concerns about it from energy and commerce committee, mr. pallone. mr. chairman, i'm going to defer to you first. and have you open. any without objection anything you have in writing will be entered into the record. mr. shuster is recognized. >> thank you for having me to discuss the rule in consideration of h.r. 3 to approve the keystone pipeline act. it is based on the cassidy pipeline bill that we passed in the last session. the keystone pipeline is the most extensively studied and vetted pipeline in the history

of the country and we know the arguments that have been made by both sides. pipelines are essential part of our energy transportation infrastructure. they are the energy lifelines that power our daily activities. they supply 2/3 of the energy used in the united states. keystone will be a critical addition to this extensive network. increasing our nation's supply of oil reducing the cost of oil. the state department concluded its final statement a year ago, but there has been no action by the administration on the pipeline. there have only been excuses and the last is pending litigation in the state of nebraska. h.r. 3 takes that into account. given the numerous benefits it will provide our nation. it will be a boon to the economic development and one that doesn't require a single federal dollar. the very nature of the infrastructure improvement

creates jobs and keystone is no exception. the project will produce over 42,000 and $2 billion in employee earnings. some say these are temporary jobs, keep in mind all construction jobs are temporary and we have a list of unions that are very supportive of this. the teamsters have endorsed it. international brotherhood of electrical workers, the operating engineers and united association of the plumbing and pipe fitting industry in united states and canada. has significant union backing. i hope my colleagues take that into consideration. all infrastructure jobs are temporary. this pipeline is no exception, but will add to the economy of $3.1 billion in construction contracts, materials and support services. further, it will help keep the price of oil low which puts money back into the pockets of

americans and they can buy new cars or imimprovements. this will help the economy. further, this provides more opportunities to expand the current north american energy renaissance and this project will be safe. 95 special mitigation measures and 57 recommended by the department of transportation to prevent spills and make this the safest pipe lynn ever built. i look forward to moving h.r. 3 through the congress. with that, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you for being here. this is not your first time to be here on this issue and we are glad you are here. mr. pallone you are recognized. >> good to see some new members of the committee. although this is a new congress, the keystone bill approval is

not new. less than two months ago under an emergency rule and the republican majority will send to the house floor without any committee process and probably without any opportunity for members to offer amendments. that's my fear. my main -- i want to make two points here, mr. chairman and members, and that is, as a process argument and a substantive argument. this bill should be considered under regular order by the committees of jurisdiction. we should hold hearings and markups and when the bill is brought to the floor, it should be considered for a -- a vote under the new rules. we have over 60 new members who deserve a right to provide input and all members have a right to consider new information on

legislation to approve the pipeline. right now, the nebraska -- and i use it as an example. the nebraska supreme court has yet to rule on the route of the pipeline. how do we deal with a bill on the floor without going through committee and hearings where we don't know what the route is going to be, because the court in nebraska hasn't made that decision yet. i know the chairman mentioned oil prices at one point. and you know, this should not be perceived as a bill -- again, i'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but there are some saying this is so important because of oil prices. and somehow it's going to reduce oil prices. we all know oil prices fell to their lowest prices just this last week. get away from the process. my concern and the concern of many of us is if you go ahead

with this bill which deems approval of the pipeline basically says we don't have to go through the environmental process, then, i want to weigh the fact that it doesn't appear to be any real positive benefits in terms of this bill in terms of oil production and oil prices, versus the fact that we have this very dirty tar sands supply of oil, that is going to have a major impact on the environment and greenhouse gases. to give you some statistics here. canada projects that its greenhouse gas emission will grow by 25% and emission will be the single largest contributor accounting to 44% increase. all studies estimate shifting from conventional oil to tar sands fuel substantially increases greenhouse gas

emissions. we are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions. the president has put forward various proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the problem is still growing. we are trying to make it less of a problem, but still a huge problem. so we shouldn't be, in my opinion, and i know for many democrats, we shouldn't be increasing these tar sands productions of oil, which has a negative impact on the environment, at the same time when we don't have a problem with oil supplies and oil prices at an all-time low. the bill grants basically -- deems the pipeline approval without any need to go through the federal regulatory process, environmental process, environmental protections, if you will, that apply to every other construction project in the country.

the president has said, i still need some time to decide whether this is in the national interests. and we have a court out there that still hasn't decided on the route of the pipeline. so why are we pushing this automatic approval of this thing with all these concerns out there. i think it makes no sense if you weigh these things back and forth, mr. chairman. so basically, my opinion is, we don't need tar sands because of the carbon pollution that comes from it. we have our own sources of oil. and using less oil because cars are more efficient. the pipeline isn't going to enhance our energy security or fight climate change. for these reasons i oppose the bill and request the committee to allow amendments. >> mr. pallone, i appreciate you being here and taking time to be

a witness today, but also it's good to see you. i hope you have a good new year. mr. cramer. you have been with us on the resources committee and now a member of the energy and commerce committee. >> i am. i'm the prime sponsor of the bill. >> we are delighted that you are here. and the gentleman is recognized. cramecrame thank you very much. -- >> i appreciate the issues raised in opposition to the bill and have sympathies towards them. i think it's important for the committee to understand prior to coming to congress, i spent 10 years on the north dakota public utilities commission. when we sighted the original keystone pipeline. 217 miles 600 land owners and

yet, we sighted it after the president's permits were signed. we routed it after. that's common ta the permit would be signed by the president prior to the routing taking place because routing takes place not just in a hearing in advance but as you are building a pipeline because you come across things that you didn't know that were there or the scientists. so the routing of a pipeline doesn't happen prior to the presidential approval. i want to make that point. i appreciate the gentleman's point about price. and the issue of price at the pump. that said, first of all we have to understand these arguments are built on a false premise that somehow the oil sands aren't going to be developed apart from the united states.

whether it is developed is not our call. our call is are we going to approve a process of transporting it that benefits the united states work force, the united states economy, and frankly, the environment. frankly, the environment. putting oil sands on barges and shipping it to china clearly has a greater negative impact on the climate and greenhouse gas emissions than putting it in a pipeline to the gulf coast. putting it on trains has a lot of negative impacts. trucks, certainly many more. we stud yesterday this in great department in north dakota. from an environmental standpoint it's better. with regard to the price of oil, that is a compelling reason to approve more pipelines. the difference in moving oil by train versus a pipeline is a difference of $10. you have that margin -- you have a little bit of wiggle room at

$100 a barrel and you have none at $40 or $50 a barrel. one of the negotiated deals between the states of north dakota and montana in support of this process 2,301 days ago that at least 100,000 of barrels a day would be reserved for bark and crude. we move 71% by rail. we have seen the challenges with rail. safety is a major one. but 71% that is equipped and frankly required to move food to hungry people, commodities to markets around the world. so that 100,000 barrels per day freed off of our railroads is 10 trains a week. i'm for trains.

all of the above transportation is important, but 71% is an inappropriate i think imbalance. for those reasons 2,301 days is long enough for the president and congress. you know plenty about this issue and i appreciate the opportunity and i encourage a good rule that moves the bill move -- forward and passed this week. >> we are products of our environment where we are from or where we are from. i remember when we were in high 1973 oil embargo and held hostage by people that had something that we not only needed but wanted. it was the life blood of america back then and i don't think we have gotten a long way from that yet. as much time and technology and

opportunity that comes around, we still need to have resources that are energy related. i remember when the big discussion was going on about alaska and there are people who said they are going to ruin everything about alaska. the caribou, by the way. and the pipeline works and once you begin taking something out, perhaps you are into diminishing circumstance. i think this is common sense for jobs. it is common sense for safety. i think it's common sense to say if we don't take our friends up on it, somebody else is going to. we should quit giving so much money that we have to to some people that we don't know how they would use that money. canadians are our dear friends. they are loyal to the united states and this is a great new relationship that we would have

with the canadians. i met with a member of the parliament and he said we are going to stick with you because we know this is the right thing. >> i have no questions. >> the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to put the policy's statement in the record. h.r. 3 conflicts with long standing executive branch procedures regarding the authority of the president and thorough consideration of complex issues that could bear on national interests, including security, safety and other ramifications if presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill. i welcome you gentlemen and ask what would happen if this were to pass and the nebraska court would then rule that it cannot

be used -- will not be able to cross nebraska. >> nothing in this bill supersedes nebraska or any other local jurisdiction. >> that would kill it not? >> at some point, just as the original keystone pipeline is. i think it's an important question and frankly if i was routing the pipeline, it wouldn't go through nebraska. i suggested a much more politically pallotable. they'll find a route through or around nebraska. the presidential permit is not based on any individual state's routing. the presidential permit determines that you can cross the international border and there is no argument of where it would cross the international

border. >> i understand that you are north dakota. because of the fracking and drilling there, you can now see your state from space. that is a new wrinkle that you weren't planning on? >> you raise a very important point and why we need even more pipeline construction, because what you are seeing from space is the natural gas which is the secondary product from the oil and the holdup on public and tribal lands has resulted in the very unfortunate outcome of bringing the gas in the atmosphere and the greenhouse gases with it. another good reason why we need more pipelines, not fewer. >> i'm very much aware nebraska's concern that the al qaeda which fer that -- a qunch

uifer could be destroyed if there were spills from that pipeline. >> i'm familiar with it. and it has become the main area you try to avoid and covers much of nebraska which is why i think a different route might have been better. the chairman knows how many millions of oil and gas and pit lum pipelines are underneath the earth and there are safeguards in place should there be an accident. the original keystone pipeline early on after it was running, there was a problem at the pumping station. and the alarms worked and shut off valves worked. and they fixed it all in very fast fashion. they did a great job coming in. >> did it damage the water

supply? >> it did not. this pipeline in particular is the latest greatest state of the art as the chairman's testimony referenced they have met over 50 specific recommendations by the department of state and department of transportation as a result of the e.i.s. process. could it happen? sure. but the safeguards are there to prevent it from becoming worse. >> i'm a great friend of the canadian parliament as well. and i have been hearing rumors that because the price of oil has fallen so steeply, they may not find it practical to build this pipeline. >> the low price of oil is more reason to build it because of the margin lost in high price will require them to move it as fort worthly and economically and feasibly as possible.

>> i'm not sure how safe they are. i'm not convinced at all about that nor the fact that if it is completed, it will only need 35 employees. but 15 contractors to run it. but the major fact for us that we are being used as a pass-through. they want to get to the houston refineries and on tankers and throughout the rest of the world and not through the united states. >> it passes through the united states to the refineries. all of those employees are u.s. employees. all of the restaurants -- the jobs question -- you can say 15, 30 or 42,000 but our economy is built on all kinds of jobs, permanent, temporary or otherwise. with respect to the export of

the product, that is allowed by law. nor do i have a problem with exporting. we ought to be do more of it. the chairman would like to address that well. >> 2.6 million miles of pipeline in the united states. it is by far the safest mode of transportation in moving the oils and hazardous materials. we should be building more, not less. the statistics show you have a greater chance of getting hurt by lightning than being affected negatively a pipeline. i thought of a bill to outlaw lightning strikes, but that doesn't happen. and then we are going to have all kinds of other problems. it is very safe. this pipeline is going to be the safest pipeline ever built. >> which i we have to weigh to

be the conduit to get oil from canada to the rest of the world. one other thing in the legislation that i would like you to explain to me and that is all claims against that pipeline have been filed in the d.c. circuit court of appeals. and tell me why people find it difficult to get here? >> we felt it should come to the d.c. court. >> matter to get there quickly huh? >> to not get there quickly. >> being in the same town with the supreme court. just run across the street. >> your point of moving oil through the united states to other parts of the world. there is venezuela and russia. we ought to be helping the world by getting oil. >> we are. we are doing great.

>> i would also add to that and we are not here to debate about lifting the export ban on crude oil. but right now our drop in price, the oil drop in price is a clear demonstration of our vulnerability to opec and their ability to oversupply and drop the price comes with the very real understanding that they have the same ability to shrink supply and spike the price. the more security we can have the better. greenhouse gas emissions from rail are 1.8 times that of pipelines. trucks 2.9 times of that of pipeline industry. and spills from truck transportation are three to four times the rate of spills from pipelines. so, again if it's the economy or the environment we are looking out for in safety, pipelines is definitely the way to go. and we want to be price makers,

not price takers. stabilizing price while stabilizing supply and ensure a good trade relationship with our best friends in the world, the canadians and i appreciate your friendship with canadian parliament. and i'm going to miss bill owens. and i'm meeting with the ambassador next week. this is so important to our relationship. >> i hope not. rob merriweather. >> depends on which side. >> mr. pallone. >> i listened to the questions and comments that you posed and the responses by republican colleagues. and the point i'm really making here going back to the process here, the president has said because of the state department's concerns and the

state of nebraska's concerns that we should need more time to study this. the jury's out and after listening to the debate back and forth, i'm convinced that's the case. why are we deeming this approved? this is something that needs more study. i think the very debate that you brought up here ms. slaughter, supports the reason why we shouldn't be moving forward. this is something that the congress shouldn't be acting on without further hearings in a new session without getting rid of the president's ability to say whether this is in the national interests ignoring the extreme supreme court of nebraska. it shouldn't be handle this way. >> we had 15 hearings in the

congress on this very issue. 10th time on the house floor. just the opposite. that's like six years, isn't we have been studying this. i listen to my republican colleagues making arguments that my democratic colleagues make on the floor. i just don't understand. >> i have a masters in public health and you can't survive more than four days without water. anything that has the potential to destroy drinking water in the united states is one of the reasons why we take care of the great lakes because it's 20% of the planet's fresh water. and it seems to me that we welly need to wait until the court acts and find out what we're going to do. but i do gee with the

president's action. and i really want to see -- >> to the process. understanding this is the 2,301 day since the application was made. and the issue of the nation's interest is the president's decision. but this body in december of 2011 passed a bill unanimously that passed the senate unanimously and the president signed that said a decision has to be made within 60 days unless the president deems it is not in the national interests. >> i think he has, don't you? >> i want to read a beautiful piece, and this is a quote increases -- this pipeline increases the diversity of supplies of the united states worldwide, crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other countries and regions, shortens the pathway

tore crude oil supplies and increases supplies from a major opec producer. canada is a reliable ally for the united states and goes like that for a few more lines. this quote, as much as i would like to take credit for it, comes from president obama permit that carries the same oil sands through the country of the united states through parts of north dakota, i sighted it as well. his same arguments are more relevant today than they were then. >> i don't see them the same way given the fact that we are almost energy sufficient here. >> further discussion? the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> i'm delighted that my friend from north dakota is carrying this because i don't think there is anybody with more background

and practical experience but coming from a state thinks that pipelines are sort of a good thing and i appreciate the expertise. couple points i want to make. why is the president involved in this decision at all? >> it's a debate question and the reason that the president is involved is because it is crossing an international board ir. >> otherwise he would not be involved at all. part of this pipeline already been built? >> from oklahoma to the gulf coast to the refineries themselves. >> did the president go down there when they opened that pipeline and hold a press event celebrating it? >> he did, in fact. >> may have slipped their mind at the white house as well. and are there any american-owned pipelines going through this country of canada?

>> i suspect there are. >> isn't there something scalled the alaskan pipeline that we move oil from alaska to the lower 48. so it's ok for america to run a pipeline the entire length of canada with their consent and support but it's wrong for cappeda to be able to run a pipeline through america? >> i think we understate the importance of this pipeline project and these deliberations to our relationship with our friends in canada. >> i have no doubt about it because i have seen it and hypocrisy -- which they have no objection to and then refusing them the same opportunity, that is -- you want to call about the united states projecting a bad image in conducting a double standard in the world, this is

one of them. i look at the states through which the pipeline runs and i happen to look at where the support for the pipeline is, amazing to me how almost every representative and senator in the state where the pipeline actually runs is in favor of it. there is almost no opposition. so i'm delighted other parts of the country are worried about our water and environment. but we are really capable of making those decisions all by ourselves and most of these states do it on a routine basis. that's what you did for 10 years, make these kinds of decisions for the state of north dakota. >> that's right. that's why the presidential permit is confined to the point of crossing the border and the nation's interests. after that, it is up to every local jurisdiction. and not just states, it goes down to the township levels and land owner. all of that jurisdiction is

preserved in this bill. so you are exactly right, we can look out for ourselves. >> my friend has considerable experience and background i know and so does my friend from pennsylvania and i'm friend from new jersey does, but with canada as a country is it an environmentally sophisticated and advanced country. do canadians care about tear environment? >> that is one of the things we don't talk about -- if anything, the new premiere of alberta ran his whole campaign that he got legitimated on on environmental protection. it is his number one platform he was elected and coming in a couple of weeks in washington to get this thing over the line. >> if i were living on the other side of the border i would be mystified and i must say irritated that my country was

regarded, a country like canada as a third world country that doesn't care about its environment. this is one of the most advanced countries in the world. one of the best friends this country has had. we fought together in defense of freedom all over the world. it's the largest longest unguarded border in the world. it's a remarkable friend and neighbor to the united states of america. and it's making -- i would be looking and saying when you needed help moving alaskan crude across the entire length of our country, we recognized that this is a pretty important thing. we worked with you. now when they are trying to do the same thing and in a way as my friend points out, will increase the energy security of the united states, will create jobs in the united states. it's not as if they make the decision. they can't run a pipeline in another direction across their

territory and sell this someplace else, creating no jobs down in texas. >> important point. understanding that many we are a political body and that's real and the president has political considerations. that's real and i'm sympathetic to that and we all understand that. and getting back to process and why this process in lieu of the presidential permit which the president could have signed any time in the last five years let's look at it this way, let's provide the president both the political muscle and if he feels the need political cover to do this jointly. as a nation of the people's representatives and take some of that extra political burden off of him and do it together. i think we don't view things -- sometimes we share away from political realities. it's why we are here. it's ok. we shouldn't apologize it. >> sometimes issues become

symbolic. the substance on this is so clear. half this pipeline is built. we run pipelines across canada. the transportation of oil by train and truck as compared to pipeline is night and day, safer and cheaper and better. we've got billions of dollars worth of pipeline in this country running every which way and one of our issues that the environmental community has made into a symbolic issue. it's my view as much as the arctic wildlife preserve. just breathtakingly stupid. and it is unfair to one of our best friends and neighbors who has never treated us this way. and yet, we're doing it to them. i want to commend my friend for carrying the legislation and moving it along. there's a reason why -- when the

american people ask about this and you are kind enough to stay on substance but 60-odd percent favor, 20% oppose. it's jobs, energy security. fair to our friends. and for my friends who are reveling in the low price of oil which my chairman in part of the world is not always the best news we're delighted you have it. but i will tell you this, and the oil business and i have learned this over a time, what goes up will go down and will go back up again. and if you don't keep drilling and building infrastructure now then i can assure you, you can expect higher oil prices. i had a friend of mine once who's in the business, and we were at a round table and had a group of discussions, what can we do to lower the price.

you need to develop the arctic natural reserves. well we can't do it politically. you need to build keystone. oil is a global commodity and when it glows on the global market, it brings down the price. well, we can't do that. well, you need to do some drilling offshore. well, we can't do that. and this guy looked at me and drills in oklahoma, and he said the next time you go to washington and all these people are local producers, why don't you ask those people in congress how rich they would like us to be because every time they do this, they lower the supply globally and increase the price domestically. none of us are going to make any money out of this suggestion. we are local independent producers. we aren't drilling in alaska. none of this stuff helps us, but if you want to constrict the

supply and make everyone around the table a multi millionaire, go right ahead. we are trying to solve a problem in this country. and this is counterproductive to stop. i was on my high horse but one of my -- one of the few issues that punches my republican buttons. >> i appreciate everybody being here today. and let me say, i love canada too. and -- >> prove it. >> you know what? i think there are people like myself and others who have concerns where those concerns are based on substance. you don't have to agree with it but people have concerns, which brings me to the point i want to make here, this is a process committee. we have a number of new members

52 new members. committees haven't been constituted yet. hearings haven't happened. yes, you had hearings in the past. if you want to move forward with this, at least open the process up and allow some of the 52 members to have an opportunity to be able to bring some suggestions to the floor. maybe there are some issues that we might be able to find some bipartisan consensus on that might address some of the environmental issues or the safety issues or the protection of water that mrs. slaughter brought up. but the idea that we are going to go to the floor with potentially a closed rule and say take it or leave it, knowing that the president is going to veto it, there has to be a better way to start the session off. and finally, look we are at the beginning of a session and not the end of a session. you can't say we have to go home

for the holidays and don't have any time left or must-pass bill tomorrow. the fact of the matter is, we have the opportunity at the beginning of this session to respect the new members who have come in, democrats and republicans and have a more open process. and i hope in a bipartisan way that you will all suggest to the members of the rules committee that you don't bring a closed rule on this to the floor. that we have a process which is much more open and allow all members to have the opportunity to debate this. if it takes a day so be it, takes a week, who cares. we ought to do this the right way and i would hope we would all agree on that, if not on the substance, but on the process in which we bring it to the floor. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman very much. i stated earlier, we live in glass houses up here and the

gentleman is making a good point. in the 110th congress when mrs. slaughter was chairman, the congress in the first year of the majority, the rules package had a consideration of five measures. not a hearing, not about the substance. the original day the rules package, five measures. 111th congress. >> that was consideration of the rules package. >> they were in the original package, not individual hearing. 6-6. we all live in glass houses. i'm not trying to call anybody's bluff. just remember, you are trying to get your work done. >> if this is all you saying, you did it, we are going to do it. that's tine. what i'm trying to suggest maybe at the beginning of this new

year we change the nature of the way we do business. if the answer is, you don't want to do it, fine. but the fact of the matter is there is no reason at all for this to be brought up under a closed rule and we could do it in a day or two days. you have 57 new members and we could debate whether it was the right or wrong thing to do when the democrats did it. what i'm suggesting what we all should do democrats and republicans, try to approach things differently. we might have bills that have enough bipartisan support where you might get the white house to sign a few bills. but if the issue is just sending things to the white house and veto it and close the system up and business as usual, fine. i think it's a missed opportunity. but that's the direction we are going. >> we are doing things differently. we didn't put it into the rules

package. we held a hearing. we put a notice out. we had other members on a bipartisan basis. we have been a couple hours. we're not running things through in a package. we are doing a rule. we're taking the time. we even welcomed mr. pallone today, and he feels very welcomed. and welcomed mr. courtney, welcomed mr. levin. i made sure we were aware of what we were doing. we are trying to have a discussion, and we are going to do things differently and i think it's better. i thank the gentleman. >> with due respect, i would prefer little less welcoming but more opportunity to delabet on the house floor. as i understand it, the rule is going to report out will mean that if i have an idea the way to improve this bill on the

issue of safety or protecting water or any number of things, that i will not have that opportunity to bring it to the house floor and debate it. given the fact that we have all these new members, i don't think it's a radical idea to suggest ta we try it. it is what it is and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. goes back to where we were an hour ago. your team argued we should tell you ahead we are going to have a closed rule so you didn't waste your time to come up here. i think that's a darn bad idea. that's where we were going to come and i don't think we are going to do it. i'm delighted that you are here, frank. you know, it may or may not matter to some people but it matters to me and matters to people and i hope it matters to you. >> job suggested that he not be

welcomed. >> i don't think that at all. >> that's not the point, it was to say there are a lot of members who come up here in late hours when we know it is going to be a closed rule. >> i hope it was worth mr. pallone's name time to come up here. gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank you. i perceive and believe that mr. pallone and mr. shuster, two good friends of mine here in congress and i'm deeply appreciative of them all the time. i hopefully getting to know you bet iron this subject. i would echo the sent mepts of my good friend, mr. cole.

you certainly do know your subject and i, for one am appreciative of our members who make their presentations in a manner that is not abrace i have but makes it in a persuasive manner from the perspective that you hold. i also would like to borrow from my good friend from oklahoma, mr. cole, a notion of something that i believe he and i would be able to work on right away. and i have done some initial work on it. understanding that the price of oil today -- and i'm not a petroleum expert or i don't have

any stock. i used to tell people the only stock i had was in over the counter and that is groceries. i'm not in the market. and i don't understand truly the spot market and how oil is transmitted, but in a general way i do. but it would seem to me that but it would seem to me that prices are low now whatever our american oil reserve is, it should either be, if it is not already maximized, it certainly should be maximized and if the potential exists and if legislation is required to increase the maximum amount of our oil reserve, it would seem that this would be the perfect time to do it because we probably have about a six-month or one-year window before that price is going to go back up. and then, regrettably, not in my lifetime, i won't get to see

the full thrust of alternative energy, all of us that are advocating though, that it's going to be a 20, 25, 30-year process before you'll really see a lot of solar and thermal and wind and other things like that. they're in progress but we are not getting there fast enough for me. let me also put on the table an area that i have a measure of expertise. i don't agree with the notion of requiring the litigation to be held in the circuit court here in d.c. article 3 courts were set up for a reason and among them was to ensure that litigants would be able to access the courts and insofar as as efficiency is concerned, if it's in an area that requires expedition, the

courts are fully in a position to do that, whether it's at the district court level or at the circuit court level when appropriate. i might add, there's no assurance because it's in the d.c. circuit court that it's going to be done rapidly either, it depends on a given day, on a given issue as to whether or not it would even be deserving of going to the supreme court, as it were. i do have a question, and that is, again, following on my friend from oklahoma, when he pointed out i had written on my little notes i wanted to ask how much of the pipeline has already been built then i heard the discussion on that. i do have an american question on that, and that is do any of you know whether the steel that has been utilized in the building of the pipeline is american steel? >> will the gentleman yield?

>> yes. >> it certainly is a lot of that pipeline is built in our former colleague mr. griffin's district in arkansas, american steel, american products. >> and that goes well for your position. now let me get to a stickier subject. i too have friends in canada. i served with terry grasteen a senator, i served with the former defense minister and foreign minister of canada. but we're making this sound like this is a canadian thing. and when the argument is made about it won't cost american taxpayers anything to build this while i agree, that suggests to me knowing my canadian friends, that there

are private investors that are in transcanada. and it's kind of ironic that they're never talked about. the who they are. they're not all canadians. some of them are american. and i'm not grudgeful of folk who had great genetic accidents and abilities as a result thereof but the fact of the matter is, that some people that are involved in transcanada, they are givers to canadian parliamentarians under their particular structure and givers to some of us as well. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> just by way of information and i probably should double check but i'm almost certain transcanada is actually an american company, actually based in the united states. >> uh-huh. and investor, i'm -- >> as my friend know, there's

considerable cross-border investment between canada and the united states. >> sure. and i stay away from pointing out, i've read the articles as to who ovenes, you know, and i'm not uptight about that. i do have abiding concerns, for example, the national security argument i could slip it, if we were in other areas for example, putin just shut down one he was getting ready to run across kazakhstan and no one satisfied me yet as if this is so good for america, why isn't canada running it through their own territory, which would be their option if by chance it does not ever live here fully operative, they'll wind up doing it in canada. but i don't want to belabor the point. there are several other airs, i too am concerned as ms. slaughter pointed out, there will be spills.

there will be concerns. i'm not sure what the nebraska litigation is contemplating and i hesitate because so many people are on the negative side of the endangered species argument, i don't know whether there are any contemplated here or need to be and so i'll be listening. i do want to end with just a moment of humor. we spend our time here with the keystone pipeline and there's a beer brewery in brugges belgium, that is running a beer pipeline two miles outside brugges, but he wanted to keep the family business manufacturing it where it is and i'd a health of a lot

rather be at the end of that pipeline than at the end of this one. that's all. >> the gentleman yields back his time. in an effort to keep this committee hearing going, i know we've been here a listening time, i ask the gentleman from colorado does he seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> where is the financing for the project coming from? >> quite honestly, i don't know where it comes from except i suspect it comes from shareholders and administration, the executives of transcanada, which is i believe a canadian company, not an american company. >> i recently read a report and i vvent seen this disputed that shows that the majority of the tar sands, about 90% of it, require a price of $95 a barrel and the other 10% require a price of about $75 per barrel. given that the price of oil is

lower than that, is there any evidence that this would even move forward as a construction project even if the president or congress were to i approve it? >> first of all, that's not germane to this bill. obviously because it's not our decision to make whether they build it or don't build it. our decision is whether it's in the nation's interest should they build it, or if it's not in the nation's interest, they shouldn't build it. the reality is, investors will make that decision. but there's nothing that precludes this going forward based on the financing of the -- the dwhofmente crude oil. >> there's plenty of theoretical projects out there but i hope we wouldn't waste congress' time with a project that isn't feasible or likely to occur. hopefully there can be some evidence presented on the floor as to whether this is a viable project.

>> they haven't withdrawn the project. >> these low oil prices are not good for the oil industry it's not good for the steel industry either. they've laid off workers. the mark -- market will provide and nobody has withdrawn. >> for the evidence i have seen here, nobody wants to pay for or build this pipeline we're talking about here. i don't know -- i don't know why we're talking about it. maybe it's again, a little deja vu. it had been talked about when it was $110 a barrel. perhaps it was a more relevant discussion. >> there's no taxpayer money going into this. it's private people. >> that's the question is there private people who want to build this pipeline? for this to be a topic of serious debate it would be nice to have some evidence that somebody wants to build a pipeline as opposed to talking about a phantom pipeline.

i yield back to the chair. >> thank you very much. i've never heard a stronger argument for the cart coming before the horse. the chicken or the egg this is the cart before the horse. dr. burgess. >> thank you mr. chairman. you're correct, we've observed a lot of things on this but i do feel it's important to reiterate, part of this pipeline from cushing, oklahoma, to houston texas is built. people have put up with the pipeline being built in their back yards and now it's waiting for the rest of the connection and my personal feeling is they've waited long enough. i'll be happy to talk about this a lot tomorrow and i yield back my time. >> thank you very much. mr. stivers. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate you recognizing me. i appreciate all the members for being here. i think this is a national security and energy security issue for america and to the point the gentleman from colorado made, you know, we

don't know what the price of oil will be tomorrow. what we do know is there's a pending application. this is -- it's a good opportunity for taos start to create a national energy policy which we desperately need in this country and we need secure trading parking lot for thes with whom we agree on international issues. we buy a lot of oil from venezuela and other countries we don't agree with on many things internationally. i don't know why we wouldn't want to buy our oil from a country we've agreed with since the french and indian war. i feel very comfortable with this. i want to thank you all for being here. i think there were great exchanges of ideas. but i think this is a great idea that needs to move forward. i appreciate the gentleman from north dakota for all his efforts on it. >> thank you, mr. stivers, welcome to the committee. mr. cull lins. -- collins. >> i appreciate being here and being recognized. one of the things that was cussed.

the process. how much more process does this need? how many more times do we need to practice on the field when the comeback of jobs, secondary jobs, money invested it is sort of interesting that i believe there was no interest in the pipeline, there would not be an interest in the permit. the idea of is it going to get built or not is not a concern, because we're still here. people keep coming back to this. it is amazing to me, we continue this conversation, let's move it by train the least safest way we're arguing for, i had a professor at georgia tech who, the only argument was there's other ways in the environment, we're scared of -- you're arguing to move it by a nonenvironmentally

friendly way when you can look toward a pipeline? that's the part i struggle with. i want to take this moment to say, the one thing that shows process here is regulatory burden in this country. i know we're going to be talking a lot about that. regulatory process. i'm not one who says there should be no regulatory function of government state, local, or federal, but there has to be reasonable regulatory burden. this is an example of a massive bungling. i want to say also for my class, representative kramer who comes with our class, it's good to see him here. his expertise has been acknowledged from the other side. it's refreshing to hear the concerns on both sides there are valid concerns but there are also valid concerns that both democrats and republicans agree this is a good idea. it's time to bring it to the floor. i yield back. >>s as a young boy i remember studying about a boy scout

ranch, as an eagle scout i read about the outer doors and the people behind that. the gentleman's name is wide phillips who gave fill mont scout ranch to the -- philmont scout ranch to the boy scouts of america. he had a saying that went like this -- take all the time you need and make a quick decision. i think we've taken all the time we feed. now let's make a quick decision. that's what we're trying to do today. i want to thank you for being before the the committee today. mr. pallone, i know you're business, mr. kramer, you enjoyed this way too much -- mr. cramer you enjoyed this way too much. we saw that. this concludes the hearing on h.r. 3, the keystone x.l. pipeline act. the chairman will be in receipt of a motion from the gentlewoman from north

carolina. >> i move the committee grant the keystone x.l. pipeline act a closed rule, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure and the chair and ranking member of the committee on energy and commerce. the rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. the rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill. the rule provides one motion to recommit. section two of the rule provides for consideration of h.r. 30, the save american workers act of 2015. under closed rule. the rule provides one hour of debate equally divided and yoled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read the rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill finally the rule provides one motion to recommit.

>> is there discussion or amendment to the motion? the gentleman from colorado. >> mr. chairman, i move that the committee make in order amendment nurment one by mr. kourtney to increase the number of full-time employees exempted from the employer penalty and increase the exemption from 30 to 49 employeesened to the provide for a more rounded and pro-business way of accomplishing, i think some of the goals of the deficit-busting version we otherwise would face. >> further discussion? the vote will now be on the amendment from the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. further amendment? seeing none, the vote will now be on the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the gentlewoman asks for a roll

call vote. the clerk will -- >> ms. foxx. ms. foxx aye. mr. cole. mr. cole aye. mr. woodall. mr. woodall aye. mr. burgess. mr. burgess aye. mr. stivers. mr. stivers aye. mr. collins. mr. collins aye. ms. slaughter. ms. slaughter no. mr. mcgovern. many mcgovern no. many hastings. mr. hastings, no. mr. polis. mr. polis, no. mr. chairman. >> indubitably, aye. >> mr. chairman, aye. >> that would make it e-i-o. >> clerk will reminority total. >> seven yays, four nays. the motion is agreed to. and the gentleman from lewis texas, dr. burgess will be handling this for the republicans. and mr. polis for the democrats.

i want to thank not only the staff the new staff welcome them but also all the people including our great stenographers who have taken a lot of time out of their day to be with us today this finishes the work for us for the day and i want to thank everybody for being here, this closes the hearing. >> that wrapped up today's house rules committee meeting as members met to discuss floor rules on a bill to authorize construction of keystone x.l. pipeline which the chamber plans to debate on friday. tomorrow, work on measure to modify the health care law's employer mandate. follow the house live on c-span when members return on thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern for morning hour speeches and noon for legislative work. earlier today secretary of state john kerry spoke about the terror attack in paris and expressed support for the french people. here's some of what he had to say.

>> both of us were talking about the horrific attacks in paris on the offices of charlie hebdo in paris. i want to say that chear american stands with you today, not just in anger or in outrage but -- for this vicious act of violence but we stand with you in solidarity and in commitment both to the cause of confronting extremism and in the cause which the extremists fear so much and which unites our two country, freedom. no country knows better than france that freedom has a price. because france gave birth to democracy itself.

france spark sod many revolutions of the human spirit , free expression, and that is what extremists fear most. they may have weapons but we in france and the united states wield something far more powerful, not just a pen, but it represents an instrument of freedom, not fear. free expression and a free press are corps value -- core values, universal values. principles that can be attack bud never eradicated. because people around the world will never give in to the intimidation and terror of those seeking to destroy those values. i agree with the french who called the slain journalists martyrs for liberty. today's murders are part of a

larger confrontation, not between civilizations, no. but between civilization itself and those who are opposed to civilized world. the murderers dared proclaim charlie hebdo dead but make no mistake, they are wrong. today, tomorrow new york paris, in france, across the world, the freedom of expression that this magazine, no matter what your feelings were about it, the freedom of expression it represented is not able to be killed by this kind of act of terror. on the contrary, it will never be eradicated by any act of terror. what they don't understand, what these people who do these things don't understand, is they will only strengthen the commitment to that freedom and our commitment to a civilized world.

>> thart -- that was part of secretary of state john crir's remarks from earlier today following the terror attack in paris. you can hear his entire statement tonight at 8:10 p.m. eastern here on c-span or any time online at c-span.org. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2 saturday night at 10:00, "after words" with cass sunsks tein. and on sunday, we talk with recently published professors from johns hopkins on hip-hop and the government's efforts to cure malaria in world war ii. and on c-span3 anderson university professor uses lincoln's life to understand the views of white americans on

race and slavery both before and during the civil war. sunday afternoon at 4:30, a discussion on birth control advocate margaret sanger, her legacy and the impact race and social class had on the birth control movement. find our entire schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching, call us at 202-626-3400 email us, or send us a tweet at@cspan #comments. >> next a discussion on state priorities and the national governors' association state of the state address taking place in washington. from "washington journal," this is 40 minutes. or gary herbert, the governor of utah, also the vice chair of national governors' association. good morning. guest: good morning.

host: you met with the president yesterday. what was on the agenda guest: get to say it's a new year, new beginning, new opportunities for us to work together and certainly governs in the states want to be a partner in shaping policy for the -- on the national stationge. the governs in the states are good resources for not only the president but congress as we deal with some of these challenges issues. host: you and governor hicken hickenlooper met with the president. what was the top of the agenda list? guest: transportation and re reauthorization. there has been a slowing down not getting accomplished the transportation reauthorization. federal government involvement with our interstate highways has been there since the 1950s with the president eisenice eisenhower. more responsibilities going to the states. and that probably there is an appropriate balance. we think we need to stand up and

fund their appropriate share for state highway and federal highway system. host: how much do states depend upon the federal government for highways and the like. give us an example from utah's position. guest: somewhere about $250 million a year that comes into our highway system. we spend about a billion dollars a year. so, it's about 25% of our overall expenditures on highways. >> that's the smaller portion than we have had in times past. it's larger than some years. but we are not really on our highway system in the nation doing the maintenance work that needed to be done. we are not expanding capacity and as a country that's still growing quite rapidly up to 320 million people infrastructure needs and transportation are a key issue. not just quality life but economic development host: have you talked with g.o.p. leaders guest: we have leadership races over and congress is back in

place, we will be coming back in february and many governors will probably have the majority of the 50 governors and our territorial governs, too, you are talking about issues that are of common need for the states and talk to leadership in both the senate and the house and republican and democrats alike. host: you talked about the concerns of reauthorizing the bill. we have a new congress. we have been talking to folks this morning about common ground. is transportation one of those common ground issues that you think the white house and the congress can find? guest: yes. it's not a matter of we need it. it's really at what level do we fund it? of course the big debate is and where does the funding come from? right now, we have a gap. that's being spent and authorized. it's not comen sur rate with how much money has been appropriated. the question is: should there be a gasoline tax increase, for example? or is there another place to raise the revenue? in states we really askew

structural balance. sometimes in washington, in fact, too often in washington they deal with one-time money. >> that's this year. what about next year? there has to be an ability to develop a revenue stream. the green tax has been mostly used in the past. most states have a bal ants between general fund monies and gasoline user tax omming off kind of the bal anted approach to build their own highways. host: the governor talking about the issues concerning the states. it's the vites chair of the governor did' association. met with president obama. give us samples from your state if you want. here is how you can do so: aside from transportation, governor, what are some of the

major issues that states face? guest: there are a lot of issues out there. every state has its own sneakingness. >> that's the beauty of the system. we call it the united states of merge. as we all know the famous statement by juned brandise they are laboratories of democracy. we have unique policy and cultures. we learn from each other. >> that's one. bused of the national governs' association is that we look at best practices in other states. we learn from successes, from the failures and we modify and improve and learn together. the problem in washington for most of us is states and governs is the one-size-fits-all approach which doesn't necessarily fit. so we think we are a resource for washington to look at the states. let us help you as we decide and debate policy out here whether it's healthcare reform transportation, national defense, our national guard or armory reserves, those things in our back yards, a lot of areas

where i think congress and the president can learn from the states. host: what about educationing? common core. guest: i think the idea of having standards, i don't know of any governor that does not want to have high standards. and frankly, governs have been disappointed, you know about the fact that we have dropped in the world rankings when it comes to educational achievement, 25, 26, we are certainly not at the top of the pack. so, the motivation from governs that develop really the standards that became the common core was motivating because that desire to elevate and have high standards. the same time you've got to contrast that with states. it's their responsibility. it's not washington's responsibility. it's the state responsibility for education within the borders of their state. they don't want to give up sovereign control of that. so standards should be developed by the states independent of washington d.c. the curriculum should be developed by the states

independent of washington, d.c. to address their own unique demographics. that's some of the pushback you see with i think, the commonly core rebeb yol or concern that we see in many of the states today. host: how does utah deal with common core? guest: we have gone through to make sure legally we are in control of our education system. we have had our attorney general to a complete legal analysis to ensure us and utah that we are in charge of the education system, that the standards are our standards we can for the my them -- modify and improve them. we will have a report here in the next few weeks to give to our state elected school board as a recommendation for what the standards should be and modified somewhat differently from what the common core is and also we are reviewing and making sure our elected local school board understand their responsibility is how do you teach to the standards? what is the curriculum? and making sure that it's local control from top to bottom in the state of utah. we are also looking to make sure

we are controlling our resources, what we acquire for text books our testing is developed here in utah by ourselves. >> we are not part of the national nationalized testing program and we are also concerned about data collection to make sure that what data is being collected from our students what is appropriate to collect, also, and what can you do with that data? again, i think we are trying to alleviate any concerns people have that somehow, we have ceeded that responsibility to washington, d.c. host: would you describe yourself as a supporter of common core? guest: i am a supporter of standards, high standards and the common core standards had to do with reading, language arts and math, and those standards nationally have to be raised. i agree with that. but i also agree that the states should be in charge and we should control that. and it's really a local control issue. host: challenges facing the nation's governs. the number on your screen. alice is from missouri on our independent line. you are on with governor gary

herbert of utah vice chair of the national governs' association. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment about the roads and stuff. if we would get a lot of the big trucks off of the roads and bring back more of the railroads, we would be a lot better. i was raised in the '50s and we had better roads than they do now. schools, i think the parents should be in charge of their childrents education. i had a grandson come out of 6th grade. he couldn't read write or nothing. he's been home schooled the last five years and he has accomplished a lot more with his dad, and i am his grandmother and with us teaching him at home. i just feel that this country has gotten to the point where the government wants to take over our lives. i don't think it's right. we should be able to control our own lives at home.

guest: i think the parents should be in charge of education. i agree. the best precussor to success in education is when parents are involved. it sdubt matter whether it's homeschooling, private schools, public schools. there are a variety of it choices out there. parents ought to make the choice of what's in their best interest with their dyers of how they bring up their children. we have 1u6ks homeschoolers and people go to charter schools who have been a big part of our public education and the ability for people to choose schools within the public education system. the parental involvement is important to the success of the students. i agree with that. clearly as we have developed particularly from the '50s, you mentioned the roads were better in the 50s. maybe as we kind of sprouted under dwight d. eisenhower which has been a blessing to our nation to be able to get from point a to point b and have

roads that connect with each other and make it travel a little more conducive for business as well as just individual and personal travel. you know, that infrastructure needs to be maintained. with the growth of the population, it needs, in fact, to be expanded. railroads are a little more rigid. you don't have flexibility. it is a combination of both. our railroad did in utah are working well. they continue to service us particularly commercial and industrial needs. they certainly are a part of our transportation system but not the entire part. host: clover, south carolina danny, republican line. hi. caller: good morning, governor. guest: good morning. caller: i wanted to say something about education. it seems to me that you have got states and local school boards who are in charge of education. it's those people who should be adults can't figure out what to feed little johnny for lunch or

they can't figure out how to teach little johnny to read and write they need to be invited to go home and let someone else have that position. the idea that some byeurocrat needs to tell states how to educate children, it's just ridiculous. i have a comment about the roads and the gas tax. it's not unusual here to drive up on a construction site and you've got one guy working and six guys watching. if you want to raise the gas tax so we can have one guy working and 10 guys watching? host: thanks, caller. guest: there are those stories where we have six guys leaning on one shovel. in utah which is where i can speak to we have a very efficient department of

transportation. we are building more roads for less money and our coast has gone down. we privatize virtually everything we do. we gather the money from the gasoline tax and general funneled to build roads but contract out and have it bid out by private sector contractors which again gives competition to the issue it has worked well on utah. we ought not to be dictated to by washington, d.c. because they are too far removed from our own back yards. the control ought to be with the parents and how the parents control by electing their local school board periods, people who represent them. if they don't like how they are performing elect somebody else and get it done right. the school board should controller is superintendent and prajss of the schools. if they don't do it right,

replace and get somebody in who will run the schools appropriately. >> puts the public the parents in control as they elect who is to be on the school board host: host: good morning. caller: i have a quick question for you. i completely agree really that 15 independent states, 50 different set of problems that cover a wide and diverse spectrum. my question to you is though after listening to you is i wonder. i kind of wonder what you think the expression states rights because to me in this era states rights means that each individual state expresses it's itself in the way you have described. they have different groups. when i have conversations about people that work, i use that expression. they refer back to the '50s and '60 did when that expression was used predominantly to hold down

voting rights. i wonder what your thought was on that. i hang up and listen. thank you governor. guest: thank you. federalism, which is really the concept in our constitution was the idea that we have these states out there, again laboratories of democracy. we got together, you know with constitution and created the federal government. we felt like at the time we needed a stronger centralized government george washington was one who very much wanted to have a centralized government and ability to have national defense and regulate commerce and have the states work together in a cohesive fashion. it was designed to be a partnership. you know the federal states were designed to be sovereign in nature but work collectively with centralized government. an interesting statistic to show you how we have gotten out of kilter. if you took the collective budgets of all 50 states, added them all up, it's about

$1.7 trillion. it's about $4 trillion. we all know in the constitution. the responsibility did and powers of the state were many and varied. we have this upsidedown. do you see i agree? people probably misused in the past sovereign and rights. >> doesn't mean the principal is not not correct. >> means the states are the laboratories. we have the ability to try things out it is not conducive to good government and does not represent the taxpayers well. they make so many mistakes here so large, they are not nimble to make any kind of an adjustment

__ i think one of the things we have to do in this country is hold teachers to the fire and make sure they are doing their job. guest: well, let me just respond to that. they are not the enemy, they are our partners. we should be working together to solve the problems and address the needs of the american public. we have state responsibilities within our borders, and we have a general responsibility to the federal government. it is really a matter of us working together. it is like any kind of a team effort. we have different roles as the governors of the states. but we all are on the same team, including the federal government.

so we need to find ways to work together and really play our roles well. that would respond to the needs of the taxpayer are. i have been equally as critical during a republican administration __ as the region and take on more responsibility. on education, again, having standards is really an important thing. some of that has to do with salaries, and some of that has to do with appreciation for the hard work that teachers do in the classroom. we have too many parents that get upset at the teachers who are trying to do the best they can in the classroom, but have a problem because the children are not disciplined. as a substitute teacher, you have probably seen at. that is apparent problem, not a teacher problem. that is a lack of discipline and proper rearing by parents.

it really is, again, a combination of us working together. we have to show up at parent_teacher conferences and and say, how is johnny doing? if they are not getting their homework done, we have to make sure that that happens. together, we can actually approve the education in this country. host: when it comes to funding, a recent story so that you are open to raising gas taxes. is that true? guest: it is. we look to the long_term aspects of transportation in utah, and found that by 2040 __ we are about the second massacring state in america right now. good economics and good quality of life. as well as a higher birth rate. we have to anticipate for the future. i'm saying that we cannot just talk about the next two years or the next election, it really has to be generational things as we looked on the road.

we came up $11 billion short for our transportation in utah. and we have not adjusted the gas tax and 17 years. just to recapture inflation means we should raise it by $.10 per gallon. but we're having a discussion on whether it to be an excise tax or a permanent tax __ to raise it up to $.34. surely have a sales tax, should we have a combination? maybe we can have more tax, or a fee and registration. or higher sales tax on automobile goods. how do we address electrical cars and nontraditional fields? we don't tax them, yet they beat up the roads as much as anything else. so that is the thing i will expect to have some sort of adjustment __ the fuel tax and how we maintain the roads and build capacity. host: how is your legislature responding to your idea?

gguest: you know, they understand. raising taxes is the worst thing you can do as a politician. that's why it hasn't been done in 17 years. but we have to do something. our capacity is not what it needs to be, and then we end up hurting our economy overall, which means we could hurt our maintenance. no one wants to drive down a lot of roads that have a lot of potholes in them. it is the cities, counties, the states working together. obviously, as we talked about, the federal government has a role to play. but we are going to address that. and we're going to think long_term, not short_term. host: should the government raise their taxes? guest: i think they should consider that. somebody has to come up with a revenue stream somewhere. there are certain things that are the responsibility of the government. i think that is limited __

national defense and interstate commerce and interstate travel is a part of the responsibility that the federal government has to play. get out of areas we ought to not be in. too much in health and human services, in some areas. host: governor gary herbert, the republican of utah. also the vice chair of the national governors association. steve in brownsburg, michigan. your next. the republican line. good morning. caller: yes, that is brownsburg, indiana. but good morning. i have a comment on the highway use in the taxes to help fund our infrastructure. i support some kind of a revenue enhancement, but i hope

that instead of just pushing for a flat increase in the gas tax, we start to address __ address the funding __ uuser fees and so forth because the gas tax is now become somewhat of a direction. the richer people can buy the newer cars which are more fuel_efficient, where as the lower income people are still struggling with the vehicles that get lower gas mileage and pay more to use the rose then more affluent people. and the electric fields __ now, basically __ guest: that is correct. and there really is not any sort of a several bullet here. and that is why, in our state, we're going to look at different issues before we decide what is the most appropriate way to fund our highway needs.

again, it is a long_term strategy, but we need to get on the right path and make sure we have the ability to fund and maintain the roads in the state of utah. we are a large state, we have a lot of roads out there. some of the rural parts of the states, it hurts themdisproportionately because they have more distance to travel. let me mention one other thing because i think it is important here, too, when they talk about the role of the federal government. part of what we need is a change in rules and regulations. i have met with many of the contractors that build roads in the midwest, and they're saying, if we can get rid of many of the strings and regulations that come in the processing to build a federal road, we could cut the cost by 20%. so, get rid of the strings and some of the nonsensical regulations aand we can actually build more roads for

less money. that is a win_win. we help the federal government balance the budget by reducing costs and getting rid of some of the red tape. and their costs and having the services they need. host: chuck from indiana. caller: yes, sir, i do have a few questions. in terms of state rights _ when they come in and override the rules they have made and the state says, no, you can't do this. i believe that there is too much of this going on. these people built a pond to their yard. they got the state's permission. the epa comes down and says it will cost about $150,000 to

drain it __ you have to take it out and put it in a pile somewhere. as far as i'm concerned, it is a waste of our money and time and that. host: caller, thanks. guest: it sometimes seems a little draconian. they congress than guest and the ability to set rules and regulations. sometimes the rules and regulations they put in place make it all difficult. certainly, there are anecdotal stories out there that it has been a little egregious and

some of the epa rules and regulations __ some of the properties have been poisoned and taken away with out to just compensation. so i know, we are trying to work with the epa on many issues. we have air quality issues in the state of utah. the epa has that authority because environmental impacts know no border. if you contaminate the water and the water aquifers, it can crossover borders. so there is a need to have a more broader spectrum when it comes to environmental impacts. but i would say this, and i mentioned it to the president yesterday, it is a concern for the environmental impact studies that we have to do ad nauseum. to take three, four, five years to do an environmental impact study is a waste of time.

we can do them shorter than that, be more efficient. protect the environment as we all want to be __ good stewards. the amount of time where taking for the studies are just ridiculous. host: governor, how is your state dealing with the affordable care act?7 guest: well, that is an example where we would've had a better product where, if somebody in the government in washington would've said, why aren't we talking to the governor's? we were never consulted. never talk to. i think as a big mistake. host: to have a federal exchange or a state exchange? guest: well, i negotiated our own unique exchange. ours has no mandate to it. so we have one that has defined

contributions, as opposed to the benefits. we have contributions from employers, than the consumer can go to the internet and choose from about 125 different programs. it has worked very well for our small businesses. the individual mandate and subsidy, we left to the federal government. but we handle small business. by the way, we are also working to try and come up with something to an alternative to medicaid expansion. host: and there is resistance from the legislature, right? guest: some, but not all. the concern the legislature has is to find something we can all afford. there's some concern __ will the federal government always uphold their part of the bargain?

can we afford it on the road in 10 years? so that is just being fiscally prudent. we have also added a little twist __ if you want to have healthcare, we are prepared to provide you with healthcare. but we ask you, if you are able_bodied, to let us help you also get a job. if you are able_bodied and can work, we're going to give you skills, education, training to get a job. if you have a job, we will help you get a better job. host: here is cindy from north carolina. the republican line. caller: hi. my question __ mi on? host: you are on. caller: okay, my question is __ one, very important to me and everyone else, that we stand with israel. we stand with our allies.

host: okay. guest: well, i had a chance here a year ago to spend some time in israel. i met with the president at the time and the prime minister __ and they both said to me __ governor, we live in a very dangerous neighborhood. which was the understatement of the day. they very much appreciate the united states support __ and i think we will continue to give them support. they are stabilizing influence in the middle east, so i think tthey deserve our report. i know we have a lot of connections in utah with israel, and we support them. host: karen, up next on the independent line. caller: good morning. how did you? pplease, i would like to give you a quote. john f. kennedy's favorite __ robert frost.

and that was he was against a homogenized society because he wanted the cream tries. we do not have cream rising in this nation today. our schools of education are cookie_cutter factories. programming. programming. there's no individualism. there is no cream rising. our nation was built on every second to this country wwho use their __ their __ develop their own skills, pursue their own passions, and made our country what it is today. they put our country on the map __ on the world map __ as one of the most technologically advanced in the world. where are the today? everybody is being programmed. one other issue i wanted to raise with you, please, is i represented westinghouse nuclear mmunicipal and

industrial waste hazardous divisions beginning in 1982. i would like you to name one superfund project in the entire nation that has ever been resolved. guest: well, let me just talk about american exceptionalism, because i believe that the cream has risen in the past, and it certainly can in the future. in utah, we started charter schools, which have unique characteristics and unique disciplines. so there is individualized efforts iin these unique schools, whether they be in the arts, or engineering, or other kinds of disciplines like math and science. they are not just cookie_cutter schools. and parents have the ability to

choose to put their children in schools that have a little different emphasis. so i think it is not a cookie_cutter system, at least in utah. we're trying to give friday and opportunities. we have 41 school districts in utah, and each local school board can develop their own unique curriculum. meeting certain standards to have a high school diploma. so, there is some standardization, but the ability to have excellence. we have seen technology around this country __ iphones now that can do everything a smart computer could do 10 or 20 years ago. things you can't even comprehend as we access information in this great age. we have better health, we are living longer. people come to america for those kinds of healthcare issues. if you have cancer, heart problem, you don't go to other countries. you come to america to have those kinds of treatments. so i think we still have

exceptionalism that is taking place in utah and america. things are getting away, we have to stop them. and the last thing was, what? host: i should have taken notes. let's move on to our next call. maryland. democrats line. caller: yes, good morning. i'm glad you are taking michael. i called because i was listening __ i listen to c_span every morning. i'm 85 years old and this is my cup of coffee in the morning. i listen to a lot of things, and i don't understand the changes they have made. me, growing up in the south, we went to school. we had to be respected in school, respected teacher. if you didn't respect that teacher, she can send you home or situate in the corner until you learned to respect her. you cannot teach a child if that child cannot respect to. we have a problem in school __

now the parents will go to school if the teacher tries to correct the child. they have taken that out of schools. they have taken prayer out of schools. what do they have to learn? teachers are afraid to correct children today. guest: there is no question, i agree with you that we seem to have a little more lackadaisical approach to the discipline of our children. again, i wouldn't want to say to anybody how to raise your children, but clearly having discipline, values, principles, respect for elders __ there is a reason to go to school. we need to elevate education, and excellence in education, and say it is not just a matter of getting through high school __ which was maybe okay for my

generation __ but for the rising generation, it has to be post high school. we set a goal and utah to have 66% of our adult population are 2020 to have some sort of post high school. either a certificate, associate's degree, or a full degree. we're doing that because education is a good thing to have. number one, the practical aspects of it. if we're going to compete in the marketplace __ you have to have skills line up with the demands of the marketplace. that means something beyond high school and more. so emphasis to all of our young people is that education is an opportunity to you to have choices in your life __ to be able to support yourself and your family. well, that starts at home. our parents need to step up and say, let's teach our children good principles, importance of education, and give them the opportunity to be better. host: the republican governor of utah joining us.

he is the vice chair of the national governors association. governor, i wanted to get your thoughts on the sentencing they came down yesterday for the former virginia governor. guest: well, that is a tragedy whichever way you look at it. i thought that he was a very fine man. in politics, sometimes you can get sucked into thinking that something is inconsequential. bob was a very talented person. at least all of the things i saw __ she was stellar in his performance. so, my heart breaks because of the situation with him and his wife, maureen. i wish them well. i'm sure that they are very humbled about the situation. but i think that, knowing them, they are good people at heart and made some bad judgmental errors. host: do think you'll discuss the disclosure of gifts and some the things he received?

guest: yes, these kind of events make you pause __ what kind of gifts you can take. i know in utah, we have an ethical aspect of what we can do. we can't take sports tickets, you can't take more than a $50 gift. you can't accept more than $10 for a meal. so there are some parameters out there to give us on the straight and narrow path. but again, it is a difficult issue. and every state needs to find a way. but we need to raise the bar, expect more. and we do expect more from our elected officials. and that is appropriate. so we should have a higher standard for elected officials. we need to make sure to raise that part, which is what the taxpayers want. they want to trust our officials to do the right things, and that somehow beholden to special interests out there __ and do something

that would be otherwise inappropriate. host: and before he let you go, a little bit about the new office. had to have a chance to talk to her before today? guest: i have. in fact, i went to a little reception she had here on monday evening. i have known her for a long time. when i was a county commissioner, before i became governor, i was the city commissioner. she used to call me up and say, hey, your debut created needs a little help. i got to know her in that capacity. she is a wonderful personality. just has great potential, and she's going to be a great addition to the congress. she is going to represent as well. so we're just excited about this new opportunity for her. host: you will become the chair when? guest: next summer.

that is when the change is going to take place. look to the states, look to the governor [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> tomorrow on "washington journal," connecticut congressman gym himes discusses the democratic agenda for the 114th congress and some of the top issues facing the republican-led house. and after that, former congressional budget office director douglas hohtz-eakin discussion discusses a report. plus your emails, phone calls and tweets. "washington journal's" live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> earlier today, president obama condemned the terror attack in paris and said the u.s. stands in solidarity with france. the president gave those comments in the oval office with vice president biden and secretary of state john kerry.

here's a look. >> i reached out to the president of france and hope to have the opportunity to talk to him today. but i thought it was appropriate for me to express my deepest sympathies to the people of paris and the people of france for the terrible terrorist attack that took place earlier today. i think that all of us recognize that france is one of our oldest allies, our strongest allies. they have been with us at every moment, from 9/11 on, in dealing with some of the terrorist organizations around the world that threaten us. for us to see the kind of cowardly evil attacks that took place today i think reinforces

once again why it's so important for us to stand in solidarity with them just as they stand in solidarity with us. the fact that this was an attack on journalists, an attack on our free press also underscores the degree to which these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press. but the one thing that i'm very confident about is that the values that we share with the french people, a belief, a universal belief in freedom of expression is something that can't be silenced because of the senseless violence of the few. our counterterrorism cooperation with france is excellent. we will provide them with every bit of assistance that we can

going forward. i think it's going to be important for us to make sure that we recognize these kinds of attacks can happen anywhere in the world. and one of the things i'll be discussing with secretary kerry today is to make sure that we remain vigilant, not just with respect to americans living in paris, but americans living in europe and the middle east and other parts of the world, making sure that we stay vigilant in trying to protect them. and to hunt down and bring the perpetrators of this specific act of-to-justice and to roll out the networks that helped to advance these kinds of plots. in the end though, the most important thing i want to say is that our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who have been lost in france and with the people of paris and the people of france.

what that beautiful city represents, the culture and the civilization that is so central to our imagination, that's going to endure. and those who carry out senseless attacks against innocent civilians won't be forgotten. we'll stand with the people of france through this very very difficult time. thank you very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> this sunday on q&a, author talks about the ground breaking 1915 film "the birth of a nation." its depiction of former slaves after the civil war and the efforts by african-american civil rights advocate and newspaper publisher william and row trotter to prevent the movie's release. >> part two of the movie which

was after the war reconstruction is really the heart of the protest in the sense that this is where the blacks are just appalled by the portrayal of freed slaves. and this is a scene showing what happens when you give former slafse -- slaves the right to vote, the right to be elected, the right to government -- govern. it's a scene in south carolina legislature where their first and primary order of business is to pass a bill allowing for interracial marriage, because in griffith's hands black men are solely interested in pursuing and having white women. ♪

>> author dick lehr on the controversial story behind "the birth of a nation." sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q anderson a. -- q anderson a. >> next, energy secretary ernest moniz looks at energy technology and security. he spoke earlier today at the wilson center for about 50 minutes. [applause] >> good afternoon. >> there you are ok. >> i'm jane harman, the president and c.e.o. of the wilson center. and the event continues with what i have termed as the rock star from the energy department. i'd like to welcome -- i think we have several ambassadors here, plus a number of our cabinet members. i think the ambassador's from -- am bam -- ambassadors from

italy and lithuania are here. we're thrilled to have secretary moniz here today. he also joined us last october for an event on collaborative research targeting the amazon and he co-authored a chapter for one of our books energy and security, about which i believe you've already heard. and that book frames this event. we're glad he's becoming such a wilson center regular. he's back to address the global energy picture for 2015. it's not an easy future to forecast. who could have predicted that oil prices would slide as much as they did in 2014? but the geopolitical implications of that are huge. for russia, for iran and for consumers pumping gas here in the united states. and for those extracting fuels here in the united states. s.u.v.'s are back. used hummers are on the market again. i never thought i'd see the day.

and don't know that anyone saw it coming. but it's where we are. so, where are we going? some pundits want to boil the energy outlook down to one number -- the market price for a barrel of oil. but one number can't begin to capture the complexity behind global energy economies or international energy security, something very, very relevant to some of the problems in the middle east and unfortunately those bubbling up in paris and other capitals today. you have just heard a nuanced view of this problem from our panelists and you'll hear a very nuanced view, i believe from secretary moniz. because this is what the wilson center does best. getting beyond the usual snapshots and caricatures. too often my former employer, congress, tries to legislate without the whole ground truth. without a sense of difficulties and challenges. i served there for 17 years as

a member and five years, decades before as a senior staffer. so it's the wilson center's job to promote a sharper understanding, which is the best basis for actionable ideas. as the new congress wrangeles over keystone x.l., over iran sanctions, over cuba, this town needs creative, nonpartisan wisdom the kind ernie has offered during a long and distinguished career. a rock star, of course but also a star nuclear physicist, a committed public servant, and a center regular, there's no one better equipped to address this topic. please join me in welcoming secretary ernest moniz to speak to us. [applause] you're welcome to speak from there or here. >> i'll speak from here. >> ok. >> that makes sense. thanks, jane, for the introduction. i interpret nuanced remarks to be referenced to the fact that

this is a public heating. and i will be very nuanced -- meeting. and i will be very nuanced in that sense. no, we'll try to spell out, not forecast, but spell out some of the issues of course that we are dealing with and looking forward to the 2015 agenda. as jane mentioned my colleague who is sitting there and i contributed to this very fine book, a second edition, and on energy and security and jan and dave, the people who pulled that together, they were always very calm and not pushy at all in terms of to to our meeting deadlines. -- in terms of our meeting deadlines. i'll talk on four things briefly because i think we have about 15 minutes, then we'll open it up to qandersona.

but the chapter we -- q&a. but the chapter we wrote in this book was called energy and security or something like that. it was laid out in a way that i would make some brief comments on. its central construct was to lay out what we called energy security challenges, then to talk about policy responses to those challenges and then finally what are representative technology paggetsways to address those policy approaches -- pathways to address those policy approaches to challenges. so for example if one looks at the first challenge in terms of concentration of natural resources and all the implications thereby, then, for example, some of those policy responses to that, fairly obvious, increased domestic oil , check. reduced demand for oil, check. provide alternatives to oil, i don't have to keep saying check

every time. vehicle -- alternative vehicles, drive trains. we are seeing e.v.'s, for example, coming in faster than hybrids did in the comparable time period, etc. on gas, of course, again domestic gas exports working towards at least a global market. and a third area put in in terms of concentration of natural resources were critical elements. rare earths, etc. you've seen just recently, very recently, how quotas have been lifted on that, because frankly the attempt to control that market has in some sense backfired both in terms of development of alternatives and in d.o.e.'s case the establishment of an innovation hub specifically around the issue of addressing critical elements. so the technologies attached to those are pretty obvious.

what i want to say is i think, a, we're trying to think about these issues. i think, b, and i'll address the other challenges briefly as well, b, i think we are making tremendous progress actually across the board. and, c, as a broader issue, and this is again now part of getting to the issues of 2015, as we continue a very, very strong focus on technology development, and specifically on the cost reduction of the technologies that we need to meet our environmental, our climate and our energy security challenges. so my first point is that i think you all know we have obviously very robust technology programs at the department. what i want to emphasize is i believe they are central to having the policy developments that we are looking for, because when the costs come

down of those technologies, jane's former colleagues can have a much easier job in terms of addressing the policy issues be they on the climate or on the technology -- on the energy security -- energy security side. i just mention without going into detail now that the other three overarching security challenges that we used in this chapter were climate change, as a security issue, in addition to being an environmental issue. third, the potential challenges around nuclear power development, nuclear fuel cycle development and nonproliferation. and finally issues around energy infrastructure and supply chains. i will not go into the remainder unless there are questions, the nuclear power and nonproliferation issues. but i will address climate.

i will say more about our energy security agenda for 2015 and then on the energy infrastructure side, i'll tell you where we stand on what's called the energy review and where we are heading in terms of recommendations for energy infrastructure, resilience and other challenges that we face. so let me first turn in my limited remarks to climate and give you an update and look forward to 2015 in terms of addressing and implementing the president's climate action plan , the plan that was issued in june of 2015 -- 2013, that plan has three pillars. the one is mitigation. the second is adaptation. and the third is the international dimension that we

need particularly on the road to paris. mitigation goes back to a theme i've already touched upon, a big part of that at least is in fact the technology agenda. one of our programs, arpa-e, was created in 2009 and we think it's been very successful . we will be strongly moving forward again with arpa-e and today i'm pleased to say that we will be announcing the third -- 2009, 2012, now 2015, there's a pattern, this will be our third so-called open solicitation. put out $15 million for new -- for novel technology ideas across the entire spectrum as long as the technology is, quote, clean, that is, advances

a low emissions agenda. these open solicitations you might ask why they aren't done all the time. for one thing, because they generate a lot of applications. the first round in 2009 had well over 3,000 initial submissions for what ended up to be 35 awards. so you can understand these are a challenge. however, we believe they are crucial in really opening up the apper tour to all the good ideas that may come in. if you look at 2009 open solicitation for example there were some very innovative work on wind turbines using jet engine-inspired designs. but just a few days ago one of the initial awards -- perhaps the largest of the initial

awards happens to be at m.i.t. where i was at the time. to a novel technology called liquid metal batteries. and the announcement a few days ago was the commercialization of these batteries as utility-scale storage devices. and so that's an example of a brand new technology that came out in this kind of open solicitation. in 2012 similarly an example was sensing and computing hardware that could be in a backpack-sized device that you could walk in and rapidly generate indoor physical and thermal, etc., maps of a built structure. so, again, a really interesting idea that probably would not have been brought out in the more targeted solicitations that we do. so we think this is exciting in terms of generating new

technology ideas going forward. but let me also say that this will be a big year for our loan program. i hope some of you have noticed the change in tone of the -- of what's been written on the program. for a while it was solyndra solyndra solyndra. well, it turns out there's $30 billion in play in the loan program. the overall default rate has been 2%. solyndra represents almost 2/3 of the default rate in that one project. but it has paid off in major ways. utility scale photo volume takes, c.s.p., we could go on and on. we have just recently completed our full sweep of call for

proposals for an additional $40 billion of loan guarantee. that's $4 billion roughly in renewables and efficiency. these are set by state. $8 billion for fossil technologies that lower emissions. roughly $12 billion for advanced nuclear technologies and roughly $16 billion for new vehicle technologies which probably will see more auto suppliers as opposed to integrated manufacturers coming forward. so we already have proposals in for many of those. renewables and fossil. we see strong portfolios -- want to make it very clear that we plan to continue to be very forward leaning, very aggressive in terms of now the deployment side through our loan guarantee program. a different kind of mitigation push comes from setting

standards, efficiency standards, for example and i want to say that once again, with two hours to spare before new year's, we met our goal of actually 10 efficiency standards in 2014, double the amount in half the time relative to the previous two years. we're going to keep running through the tape in this administration with this, because the acumulative impacts of these through 2030 are projected to be three gigatons of co-2 reduction and nearly a half a trillion dollars of energy -- of consumer energy savings by the accumulation of these many efficiency standards. so that's another area where you can expect to see very, very strong focus in this coming year. on adaptation, i'll come back

to that in a little bit when i discuss the energy review. let me talk about international cooperation. again, we can come back to this more on the questions. but obviously the joint announcement by presidents obama and xiu in beijing we think really changed a lot of the discussion in terms of international collaboration. this year we will be working hard with the chinese in terms of moving forward on the joint commitments for the department of energy. it again goes back to technology and we agreed to expand in scope, for example, adding a strong energy water nexus for he -- focus and to expend in scale our direct technology cooperation with the chinese. including a commitment to move forward jointly and we will invite other international partners to really push the

edge in terms of understanding carbon dioxide sequestration with a new and much expanded approach to instrumentation to understanding all the issues one needs to know about deep co-2 sequestration to allow, for example, the appropriate regulatory basis to be laid. that's just an example of -- that's a very important area of international collaboration. the other one i'll mention, and it's quite fresh. yesterday we had so-called high energy dialogue with mexico. and that in turn followed a trilateral in december with mexico and canada in terms of energy. it's been a very, very, very positive discussion. one of the things going forward, i see my colleague out there from e.i.a., adam is

leading one of the aagreed to thrusts in the trilateral context, actually, which is data and energy infrastructure mapping integration. right now we don't have very good data that goes across the three countries. and sometimes we do have the data, it doesn't agree. so getting data integration i think we think is a very important foundational step. that's an example of a focus. but we will also have a very strong focus on infrastructure development, integrated infrastructure development, and with mexico, for example that will probably have -- not probably it will have a particularly strong focus on electricity integration. there's more than i think most of us might have realized already in terms of electricity going back and forth across the border, with a seasonal footprint. but it's still rather much or

rather lower than is the case with canada, for example, where we import so much hydro. but that's an example of going forward and mexico will be hosting in march the energy and complimet partnership of the america -- climate partnership of the americas. we think this is very important. both for again, our relationships with mexico, the united states, but also looking at what is very clearly in latin america a lot of progressive movement on the climate front. on the way to paris. and of course i should have said at the beginning that the mexican energy reform is really extremely ambitious and it is -- a lot of the focus on the discussion publicly tends to be in the hydrocarbonen seblingter

but i want to emphasize that reform is equally ambitious in the electricity sector in mexico and to the extent to which those market structures and regulatory structures become much more in sync with those in the united states for example, collaboration and energy integration will just be so much easier. so that's a few of the areas on the road to paris that we will be looking at in terms of climate. in terms of energy security, and i think i probably don't have too much time left, in terms of energy security let me say that a major focus for this year will be continuing a discussion, set of activities, developed onto the g-7 context umbrella. it's a g-7 activity in partnership with the european commission.

and i'll just focus on one piece of it, very important piece. the issues that were clearly in front of the table with ukraine situation looking at european and particularly european energy security. but the first point to make is when we say it's european energy security, we really mean it's the collective energy security of allies and friends. and so even if we have -- if some of us may be tempted to have a complacent view of energy security in the united states, because of our production the fact is we have a serious interest in the broader energy security issue with our allies and friends. it has huge geopolitical implications for us. so that's a discussion that we are very very deep into. part of it was, first of all presenting an updated view of

energy security. it's not just about diversity of oil supply. or natural gas supply. it involves many issues, including market structures and we could go on and on, substitution possibilities etc. but what we tackled so far were the difficult issues of things like helping ukraine face the winter etc. but this year -- and that will continue. but this year frankly, a harder issue. we are due to report on to the g-7 leader summit, and that is a real intermediate to long-term plan for integrated collective energy security. and that gets into some very fundamental policy issues in different countries. but that will be a big agenda item for this year.

finally, let me just say a few words on the energy review. probably first i have to say a few words about the energy review. some of you are familiar and some of you are not. this is an administrationwide effort that is looking to weave together all of the equities and threads of an energy policy across the government. this first year we have taken, the first of the quadrenial, that's one plus one plus one plus one. and the first one we are focusing on energy infrastructure. transmission storage and distribution of energy. that's already -- it's a pretty big bite, to be honest. but clearly somewhat restricted. the department of energy, through the energy policy and

systems analysis office, which i referred earlier to melanie, which she heads, is really the executive secretariat for this government-wide effort. it's a major analytical effort. let me just say a few of the things -- we are looking to february as the time for getting out this first installment. it will have a lot of information about the situation of energy infrastructure in our country. and also in the north american context. but it will also move on to make recommendations about what are some of the issues we have to address. i'm not going to go into this in great detail but let me tell but four areas that will be very much a part of the agenda. in the q.e.r. and for implementing in the rest of 2015 and beyond.

one is first of all, you might say narrowly, but our petroleum reserve really needs modernization. certainly in a variety of physical elements. and partly because of the changed production profile in the united states. the different geography of producing oil and gas has led to a number of distribution issues that we partially uncovered by doing a test sale from the petroleum reserve earlier this year. we will be laying out the program that is needed to address the petroleum reserve and the distribution al capabilities of the petroleum -- distributional capabilities of the petroleum reserve. another big area will be the smart grid. by which i just mean in general the electricity delivery system , and particularly its integration with information technology etc. obviously many reasons to drive

that. for example, large scale remote renewables integration into our system. but then again on other side of the t&d system, distributed generation capabilities and how we manage all of these in a reliable, resilient, robust system is clearly a major focus. we'll have recommendations there. another is related to the adaptation question that i skipped over on the climate action plan. again, resilience, recovery, safety of energy infrastructure . a lot of that will involve states working -- government, states and private sector. and we will be again moving that forward. it also includes addressing the infrastructure problems that were pointed out in the administration's methane strategy. methane emissions as a climate

challenge, but of course also methane emissions on the distribution side as a safety challenge. because we have seen, unfortunately, some of the problems there with literally hundred-year-old pipe in some of our cities and major challenges. so we will be making some recommendations there. and finally, and i'll end, is in doing this energy review, what has come into much sharper focus for us at least is the question of not just the energy infrastructure per se, the pipes and wires that move electricity or fuels, but also what we might term the shared infrastructures. the infrastructures that move many, many commodities including energy. the poster child of course, of that in the press now for quite a while has been railroads and

the enormous increase in moving oil by rail. but again i'm sure many in this room are quite aware of the enormous congestion in moving a whole variety of commodities. right now we have issues of coal in the upper midwest. because of railroad congestion. so that's one big example. and also a case where we have data issues, inadequate data frankly, for understanding these flows and what they mean for policymakers. but i have to admit, i've learned a lot about other shared infrastructures. one -- i'll just mention one other one inland waterways. in terrible, terrible shape. enormously important in moving lots of commodities, so we will be also recommending a variety of approaches to address these

shared infrastructures which are important for energy but are important for how our whole economy works coming together. so that gives you hopefully a flavor. these are some of the big ticket items that we will have in the energy and climate realm for 2015. thank you. [applause] >> happy new year. thank you very much, mr. secretary. that was an outstanding presentation. even though it's 12:00 noon, i think we should, if it's all right with you, spend five or 10 minutes maximum conscious >> 15. >> 10 minutes i'm told by our supreme leader so 10 minutes it is for a few questions. let me get the ball rolling by saying the words low oil prices and asking secretary moniz --

>> relative to what -- sn >> relative to what? but asking for any thoughts you may have. larry summers had an op ed on monday and there's been a discussion in congress about possible steps to have the carbon switch maybe revenue neutral. is there any thinking that you'd like to share with us in the low oil price environment which by the way was the subject of considerable discussion in the panel that preceded your own remarks? >> this is where the nuance comes in. [laughter] federal from a -- first of all, clearly we are trying to put together a comprehensive picture of what current oil prices mean. i do want to of course emphasize that it starts on the plus side, for sure with consumer impact.

impact on our energy intensive industries, our manufacturing industries. so there were some comments jane made about the size of vehicles. but i will start by saying the number of vehicles sold has certainly gone up. there's no question that obviously this provides a major , major consumer direct benefit . also we will seek, we don't know yet, but one of the obviously great issues in the global economic situation is, for example, the rather shall we say sluggish european economy. if this could help get that really going that will then come back and help in many, many many dimensions.

now, clearly there are also geopolitical questions that are difficult and i can't stand here and say or sit here and say where we're going. but we obviously have a whole bunch of countries that depend on especially oil revenue dramatically. some friends, some others. and i just don't think we have fully -- and fully understand today what those implications are. we are thinking about them. we are looking at options. etc. finally, of course we come to the united states' hishe carbon industry specifically -- hydrocarbonen industry specifically. again adam is welcome to pipe in. but adam of the e.i.a.'s i

believe, still current, as of a couple of days ago expectation is that we will still see increases in our oil production in 2015. the increase has been tempered. but i believe the way this number is still looking at getting up into about a 9.3 million barrel a day whereas before it was 9.5 or 9.7, something like that. clearly if these prices persist for a long time then the reductions in capex that we are seeing are clearly go going to start coming in down the -- clearly going to start coming in down the road. right now i think we're looking carefully, we're being prepared with analyses for alternative pathways forward. right now consumers are having the benefit. >> excellent. ok a question over there and the mike will be made available. please identify yourself.

>> i'm a public policy scholar here at the wilson center. can you talk about what the role is for biofuels to remain in the future energy mix? >> well, i think the -- first of all, we certainly continue to invest in biofuels. in fact, just in i guess it was october i was pleased to be in kansas for what is now the largest commercial functioning biorefinery in the country. our loan program helped put that into place. so if i go back to the -- what i mentioned about our entry in this book first of all, actually i think it's important that -- sorry. let me go back a step. as we celebrate our incredible

increase in oil production with shale, i think we also do have to keep in mind that we still import 7 1/2 million barrels of oil a day. so we continue to have a very strong focus on reducing oil dependence. reducing oil dependence has multiple threads. one is efficient vehicles. so things like the cafe standards for light duty vehicles things like our supertruck program for 60% 65% efficiency increase for class eight trucks, etc., is very important. we continue to push alternative

fuels. most especially next generation biofuels are critical. costs are not there yet. but they are coming down fast. again, i think often by the way as an aside we don't pay enough attention often. we tend to be some years behind in terms of where these cost curves are for many technologies. third, we continue to d.o.e. and obviously companies continue to advance electrification of vehicles. so all three of those are very important thrusts. but i think the high level of message i want to emphasize is we are committed to reducing our oil dependence even as we produce more oil, the big effect there has been in reduced imports of oil and the associated improvements in our balanced payments.

>> all right. let's have a few questions at this point and we'll have -- >> my answers have to be short. >> a comprehensive answer. there's one over here and please identify yourselves. one i see over here. and one in the back. >> my name is jim blanchard former u.s. ambassador to canada. governor of michigan and a member of congress. i've dealt with these energy issues for about 40 years. and i never thought i'd see a day with incredible abundance, growing good technologies, growing renewables, awash in oil and gas here, none of which i realize we should take for granted. but what i can't figure out is why our president doesn't associate himself with such a good news story. what can you do, mr. secretary, because we're delighted you're here to make sure that the public gets the big picture and doesn't just focus on one or

two issues which always seem to be negative? this is a fabulous time and the options -- options that you have, that we have as a country, and north america has, the options are fabulous. how do we get the big picture out to the american people and to our own congress? >> ok. the next question. good, hard-hitting question there. >> my question is kind of similar to the previous one. what about fuel cells and hydrogen energy. i know the tokyo olympics were going to be powered by hydrogen energy and fuel cells. kind of go into that, i'd very much appreciate it. >> and finally. >> yes, i'm richard kennedy, a retired c.i.a. economic analyst. and i read that some people at m.i.t. are looking back at some of the every ideas for exploiting nuclear -- early ideas for ex ploiting nuclear energy and finding that some of them look very promising in terms of cost and safety.

i wonder if you could comment on that. >> and now really finally. >> i just wanted to express gratitude for not only words but deeds of secretary in building energy security. on the eve of our 25th anniversary of independence we built a terminal. our only hope is that the u.s. increases l&g exports so we have american supplies as well. thank you. >> there's a lot. over to you. >> ok. a few brief wordses in inverse order. in terms of the -- our lithuanian colleagues and the -- first of all on l&g exports, i just want to repeat where we are. to date every application that

has been prepared for a public determination, specifically meaning that it has completed an environmental impact statement, to date every one has been approved. we currently have -- this is to nonfree trade agreement countries. we've approved 5.7 billion cubic feet per day. which is, you know, roughly 60% of gutters export today. so that's not a small amount. but obviously there's there could be more in -- more in the queue. if you look at the economists' predictions, of course that was prior to recent events, but generally speaking i would say from the low side of say five to the high side of 15 billion cubic feet per day is the kind of range where economists think the market lend up supporting. the issue right now of getting

l.n.g. to lithuania or anywhere else at the moment, is building the facilities. so the first facility is due to come on at the end of this year or early 2015 -- 2016. and two others have now put at least i think spades into the ground. but the reality is, you know, it's going to be year until substantial infrastructure is ready to do that. on nuclear energy i think for example, you were probably referring to the moulton salt reactor as an example of a back to the future possibility. there's no question that there are a number of innovative approaches, many of which had some work done in the 1980's, for example, which have some very interesting characteristics. and we are supporting research

in those areas. but to be practical, we all know that the gestation time of a new nuclear technology is very long. going through the building up through pilot stages and demonstration phases, it's a lot of money involved, it's hard to get from here to there frankly. and there's the regulatory challenge. so right now in terms of a new technology, our main focus right now in terms of the deployment end is on small mod lar reactors, so -- modular reactors, so much smaller reactors built around light water technology. because -- precisely because it isn't as big a step as going to some of the other technologies. so our view is right now we're trying to work to get some of those deployed in the early 20's. 2022 kind of time frame.

and while we continue to support at least the research on these alternative approaches certainly on paper, for sure, can have some advantages relative to light water reactors. fuel cells and hydrogen, well, again, lots of progress. the reduction in costs is the same theme in fuel cells has been pretty dramatic. we saw -- i think it's fair to say it was the first commercially offered for sale fuel cell vehicle the toyota vehicle announced in california in december. since it's public, i mean, we can say that i think the list price they put on that was $ 57,500. as a reminder, when president bush in his state of the union speech i think in 2000

announced the freedom car -- 2002 announced the freedom car, a vice president of one of the major auto companies said, you want a fuel cell vehicle? i'll sell you a fuel cell vehicle. it will cost you $1 million. well $1 million to $57 to thank you is pretty good -- $57,000 is pretty good progress in just over a decade. right now i think the fuel cell dosses -- costs have been encouraging. but of course the infrastructure, the fueling infrastructure is just an enormous challenge frankly, to get there. and i think that events like this are a wonderful opportunity to get out the big picture and inform the public. i have to say i think the president is very much in tune with -- i mean, obviously with the kind of picture that i laid out. i mean the climate action plan for one thing was a major

pusher of this. and he has done and continues to do lots and lots of public events on this agenda. in fact, today today he's at an auto manufacturing plant. a beneficiary of one of our loan programs. again, i keep putting that plug in. and has been quite a few events around manufacturing including energy and space etc. i wish we had a solution as to how to get a much bigger, broader, broader audience listening to this story. but i would say and i will stop, that there was an interesting little article in the "new yorker" just at the end of the year. and it said, you know 2014 was a good year for government.

everybody says everything is dysfunctional, etc., etc., etc., well, a number of things were pointed out. oh by the way, including our loan program. but also where we've come in terms of the deficit, frankly the reality of what's happened with the health care rollout, a whole bunch of issues. and it was an interesting statement. i'm not -- i'm just repeating what it said. you know, there seems to be a phenomenon and the example used was individuals who were incorrectly accused in the press with regard to the olympic bombing in the united states and the anthrax scare. and once those first stories are out it's hard to get the good story over. so i don't know. there may be a bit of that. but all i can say is we're

working it. and other ideas other venues would be most welcome. because you are right. this is a great news story for our countries and i think ultimately for the global economy. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. and the cameras in the back remind us that the story is not only here in this auditorium at the wilson center, but it's a national story and we're very glad to be part of helping you make that story happen. so thank you for an excellent and outstanding presentation. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> friends colleagues, countrymen, especially to people of ohio's eighth congressional district. thank you for sending me here

and let's today welcome all of the new members and all of their families to what we all know to be a truly historic day. [applause] >> today's an important day for our country. many senators this afternoon and a new republican majority accepted its new responsibility. we recognize the enormity of the task before us. we know a lot of hard work awaits. we know many important opportunities await as well. >> follow the g.o.p.-led congress and see the new members. the best access is on c-span television. c-span radio and cspan.org. new congress best access. on c-span. >> several reports tonight that two of the terror suspects in

today's shooting in paris have been captured. this from "the daily beast." the two suspects in the massacre at a french magazine in paris were take noon custody on wednesday night in a raid in the french city. while a third was killed. nbc news reports that brothers said and cherif kouachi are being held by police and 18-year-old hamyd mourad is dead. that's also you are you and we will hear from french president hollande president obama and ban ki-moon. here are some of our featured programs this weekend. saturday night at 10 p.m. on "afterwards," on the pitfalls of

group decision-making. and part of the college series. we spoke with professors on the influence of hip-hop on politics and the u.s. government's efforts to cure malaria during world war ii. on c-span3 anderson university professor brian durk on lincoln, race, and slavery. and on margaret sanger and the find our complete schedule at c-span.org and tell us what you think about the programs you're watching. like us on facebook.

follow us on twitter. french president francois hollande announce that thursday would be a day of mourning following the attack on the p aper "charlie hebdo." >> the idea how about france, thethey idea of -- the idea of freedom, i would like to express our gratitude to the families and the victims and those who have been injured and their loved ones and all those who are suffering today. from this cowardly assassination, this cowardly attack. today, to the victims, they are our heroes. i declare tomorrow a day of national mourning. at noon tomorrow, there will be a moment of silence and i invite

the population of france, flights will be lowered for three days. today it is the republic of france which has been attacked. their public expresses freedom of speech, culture creation. democracy, that is what they were attacking. the ideal of justice and peace that france defense across the world stage and this message of peace, tolerance that we also defend through our soldiers to fight against terrorism and fundamentalism. france has received messages and expressions of support and brotherhood from all over the world. we must measure the importance of this. we must rise to the challenge that has been thrown down to us. first of all by bringing to justice the authors of this

infamous act and have them arrested and brought to justice and punished very severely. everything will be done to arrest them. the investigation is progressing under the auspices of the justice system. we must protect all public spaces. the government has put in place the national security alert system at its highest level, the attack alert and this is what we do when there is a threat. we must remain what we are. aware of the fact that our best weapon is our unity. the union of all our citizens in the face of this challenge nothing can divide us, must divide us in the face of this challenge. tomorrow, i will be holding a meeting with the speakers of the two houses of -- and they

representatives of all the political parties to show our determination. france is a great country and one that is capable of reaching the highest possible level, the highest level of excellence which has always enabled france to overcome the tests of history. freedom will always overcome barbarity. france has always overcome its enemies when it has rallied around its values. i invite you to rally around our values in every way. it should be our response. rally around together and we have all the resources to believe in our destiny. nothing will divert us from our determination. let's seek together. long-lived france and long live the republic. >> and reaction from president obama the terrorist attacks on

the french newspaper "charlie hebdo." he made the remarks while meeting with members of his cabinet. >> i reached out to president hollande of france and hope to have the opportunity to talk to him to do but i thought it was appropriate for me to express my deepest sympathies to the people of paris and the people of france for this terrible terrorist attack that took place earlier today. i think that all of us recognize that france is one of our oldest allies, our strongest allies they have been with us at every moment from 9/11 on in dealing with some of the terrorist organizations around the world that threaten us. to see the kind of cowardly

evil attacks that took place today i think reinforces once again why it is important for us to stand in solidarity and they stand in solidarity with us. the fact that this was an attack on journalists attack on our free press, also underscores the degree in which these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press. the one thing is the values that we share with the french people, a belief, a universal belief of expression is something that cannot be silenced because of the senseless violence of this group. our counterterrorism in cooperation with france's excellent.

we will provide them with every bit of assistance that we can going forward. i think it will be important for us to make sure that we recognize these kinds of attacks that can happen anywhere in the world. and one of the things i will be discussing with secretary kerry is that we remain vigilant not just in respect to americans living in paris but americans living in europe and the middle east into the parts of the world and making sure we stay vigilant and trying to protect us and to hunt down and bring down the perpetrators and to roll up the networks that help to advance these kinds of plots. in the end, though the most important thing i want to say is that our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who have been lost and with the

people of paris, the people of france what that beautiful city represents, the culture and the civilization that is so central to our imaginations. and those who carry out these attacks on civilians -- we will stand with the people of france through this difficult time. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> now secretary of state john kerry. expressing support for the french people. secretary kerry made the remarks following a meeting with the polish foreign minister.

>> i am pleased to welcome the poor -- the polish foreign minister here to washington today. he has come here specially to meet with us and talk about the important relationship between poland and the united states, a very important nato member. we are working on many issues in a very close, bilateral way. before i do talk, however, about our relationship, both of us we were just talking about the horrific attack in paris today. the murderous attack on the

headquarters of "charlie hebdo" in paris. i would like to say directly to the people of paris and france that each and american -- every american stands with you today not just in horror or in anger or outrage, for this vicious act of violence. the we stand with you in solidarity and in commitment both to the cause of confronting extremism and in the cause which the extremists fear so much and which is -- has always united our countries. freedom. no country knows better than france that freedom has a price because france gave birth to democracy itself. france sparked so many revolutions of the human spirit born of freedom and of freedom of expression and that is what the extremists fear the most.

they may wield weapons but we and france and the u.s. share a commitment to something that is more powerful. not just a pen but a pen that represents an estimate of freedom, not fear. free expression and a free press are core values, they are written of -- they are universal. principles that can be attacked would never eradicated because rave and decent people around the world will never give in to the intimidation and the terror of those seeking to destroy those values. i agree with the french imam who today called the slain journalists martyrs for liberty. today's murders are part of a larger confrontation, not between civilizations, no. but between civilization itself and those who are opposed to a

civilized world. murderers dared proclaim, "charlie hebdo is dead." the freedom of expression that a represented is not able to be killed or this kind of act of terror. on the contrary, it will never be eradicated by any act of terror. what they do not understand, what these people who do these things do not understand is they will only strengthen the commitment to that freedom and our commitment to a civilized world. i would like to say a quick word if i may directly to the people of france -- [speaking in

french]

we wish our friends in france well and we stand in strong solidarity with them. i know our friends in poland understand these acts of terror and this challenge as well as any people, not just in europe but on the planet, and so i'm pleased to be standing here with the foreign minister today. poland is a strong stalwart advocate for and supporter of freedom and of democracy, and they've stood on the front lines for a long time in that effort. they understand the price for freedom and they understand the cost. we are delighted to have their support and to work with them in

their commitment to ukraine, to freedom and sovereignty of that nation, to the rule of law that has stood up so well in all of our global affairs that was defined by world war ii in which poland paid such a price for freedom. and we value enormously the very robust economic relationship that we share, the investment in defense modernization, a commitment to nato and we restate once again our commitment to article 5 and to our nato obligations and to the important relationship between poland and the united states with respect to the rule of law. and finally, we appreciate poland's strong commitment to the ttip, trans-atlantic trade investment partnership, which is a key component to our future in terms of jobs and our economies.

so poland is a very important pal lie and an important -- important ally and an important guest today. i think symbolically as we have poland standing by after the events that took place in france should not be missed. thank you, mr. foreign minister. we appreciat e you being here. thank you. >> thank you. first of all, let me express my condolences to france and to its people. we are deeply touched by terrorist act in paris a few hours ago. we stand together with france today. but we will talk -- we arranged our meeting a couple weeks ago and we established that we would talk about our fight against terrorists and terrorism. last year it was really fruitful with our relations between poland and the united states.

and i'm convinced that it will continue for the next months and years we will be talking about. warsaw and washington is cooperating together and for us very important. we will be talking about decisions made in new port about implementation decisions about \[inaudible] which will help through 2016 and about this issue, about support for international support in all regions all over the world like ukraine, middle east afghanistan, all the places there's a problem with terrorists and terrorism. for sure we can say today that washington can count on warsaw and i'm confident that warsaw can count on washington.

thank you very much. >> thank you very much. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> secretary ban ki-moon spoke about the attack in paris that killed 12 people saying the shootings were "despicable" and "a herein described." he made remarks at headquarters in new york city. >> good morning. thank you very much, secretary general, for coming today. again, thank you very much secretary general, to be coming to the unca room today. thank you for being here even though it's a very sad day for journalists after the massacre in paris. also pleased for this reason you are here to talk about that.

thank you very much. >> thank you. good morning, everyone. it's a great pleasure to see you and happy new year to you all, your families and your companies. in fact, i had planned to exchange greetings to you at the beginning of the new year. but as you all understand, today is a very terrible terrorist attack happened, so i'd like to say a few words first before i begin to say something. i want to express my outrage at the despicable attack today against the french magazine, charlie hebdo. it was a horrendous, unjustifiable and cold-blooded crime. it was also a direct assault on the cornerstone of democracy on

freedom of expression. i extend my deepest condolences to the families and my best wishes to all those injured. we stand with the government and people of france. i trusted that the french authorities will do all in their power to bring the perpetrators to justice quickly. this horrific attack is meant to divide. we must not fall into that trap. this is a moment for solidarity. around the world we must stand strong for freedom of expression and tolerance and stand against the forces of division and hate. ladies and gentlemen -- \[speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] >> ladies and gentlemen, i will speak to you tomorrow afternoon after i brief the member states of the general assembly on the way forward for this year 2015. and i will have an opportunity for engaging questions and answers tomorrow afternoon.

as the year begins, i do want to make a plea for you to keep focusing on all those in need around the world so that those are not forgotten. whether they are migrants or stranded on ships in the mediterranean or young girls kidnapped by boko haram, extremists in nigeria, families struggling through in syria and the wider region, they are people who deserve the world's attention and support. thank you for all you have done to bring their stories to light. i'll be counting on you to do

even more to give voice to the voiceless. again, it's a great pleasure to see you. for the second mandate and conversations on your very important responsibility. and i would like to pay my tribute and thanks to \[inaudible] and for what she has been doing for unca these past years. and to all of you, members of unca, thank you for your strong and productive relationship and strong support for the united nations. and i count on your engagement all the time. this is going to be very important year for humanity. we have to meet the target of development goals and shape the 2015 development agenda and adopt universal, meaningful climate change agreement in december in paris. again, with all these

priorities, i look forward to seeing you again and working very closely with you and i'll be very happy to make myself available. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> the house worked on keystone pipeline legislation. that is next. then senate debate on the pipeline. then energy secretary moniz weighs in. him jim himes discusses the democratic agenda and some issues facing the republican-led house. and then on a recent report on the cost of the obama administration regulations in 2014. and your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. live each morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> here are some of our featured programs this weekend. on c-span2, on the pitfalls of group decision making and what to do to avoid them. and part of the college series. we talk with published professors at johns hopkins on the influence of hip-hop. and on c-span3, on lectures in history, abraham lincoln's life and understanding their views of white americans on slavery before and during the civil war. and a discussion of margaret sanger, her legacy, and the impact that race, social class had on the birth-control movement.

call us about the programs are watching. send us a tweet or follow us on facebook. >> the house rules committee worked on legislation to push the keystone pipeline forward. the house will take up the bill friday. the white house has threatened to veto legislation. the committee approved the rules for debate for the bill on the house for by a party line vote 7-4.

>> thank you very much. i welcome our second panel that is here. and i know you have been waiting for quite a while and thank you for coming. we have mr. shivers and we are delighted you are here. thank you very much for taking time to be with us today. we are going to move to the h.r. 30 save america's workers act of 2015. excuse me, we are moving to the keystone pipeline, which is building america's workers, some number of thousands of jobs and the consumers who would benefit. h.r. 3, keystone x.l. pipeline. i would note that we have two gentlemen that are with us who care very much about this bill and one who has concerns about it from energy and commerce

committee, mr. pallone. mr. chairman, i'm going to defer to you first. and have you open. any without objection, anything you have in writing will be entered into the record. mr. shuster is recognized. >> thank you for having me to discuss the rule in consideration of h.r. 3 to approve the keystone pipeline act. it is based on the cassidy pipeline bill that we passed in the last session. the keystone pipeline is the most extensively studied and vetted pipeline in the history of the country and we know the arguments that have been made by both sides. pipelines are essential part of our energy transportation infrastructure. they are the energy lifelines that power our daily activities. they supply 2/3 of the energy used in the united states. keystone will be a critical addition to this extensive network.

increasing our nation's supply of oil, reducing the cost of oil. the state department concluded its final statement a year ago but there has been no action by the administration on the pipeline. there have only been excuses and the last is pending litigation in the state of nebraska. h.r. 3 takes that into account. given the numerous benefits it will provide our nation. it will be a boon to the economic development and one that doesn't require a single federal dollar. the very nature of the infrastructure improvement creates jobs and keystone is no exception. the project will produce over 42,000 and $2 billion in employee earnings. some say these are temporary

jobs, keep in mind all construction jobs are temporary and we have a list of unions that are very supportive of this. the teamsters have endorsed it. international brotherhood of electrical workers, the operating engineers and united association of the plumbing and pipe fitting industry in united states and canada. has significant union backing. i hope my colleagues take that into consideration. all infrastructure jobs are temporary. this pipeline is no exception, but will add to the economy of $3.1 billion in construction contracts, materials and support services. further, it will help keep the price of oil low which puts money back into the pockets of americans and they can buy new cars or improvements. this will help the economy. further, this provides more

opportunities to expand the current north american energy renaissance and this project will be safe. 95 special mitigation measures and 57 recommended by the department of transportation to prevent spills and make this the safest pipe lynn ever built. i look forward to moving h.r. 3 through the congress. with that, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you for being here. this is not your first time to be here on this issue and we are glad you are here. mr. pallone, you are recognized. >> good to see some new members of the committee. although this is a new congress, the keystone bill approval is not new. less than two months ago under an emergency rule and the republican majority will send to the house floor without any committee process and probably without any opportunity for

members to offer amendments. that's my fear. my main -- i want to make two points here, mr. chairman and members, and that is, as a process argument and a substantive argument. this bill should be considered under regular order by the committees of jurisdiction. we should hold hearings and markups and when the bill is brought to the floor, it should be considered for a -- a vote under the new rules. we have over 60 new members who deserve a right to provide input and all members have a right to consider new information on legislation to approve the pipeline. right now, the nebraska -- and i use it as an example. the nebraska supreme court has yet to rule on the route of the pipeline. how do we deal with a bill on the floor without going through committee and hearings where we don't know what the route is going to be, because the court in nebraska hasn't made that

decision yet. i know the chairman mentioned oil prices at one point. and you know, this should not be perceived as a bill -- again i'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but there are some saying this is so important because of oil prices. and somehow it's going to reduce oil prices. we all know oil prices fell to their lowest prices just this last week. get away from the process. my concern and the concern of many of us is if you go ahead with this bill which deems approval of the pipeline basically says we don't have to go through the environmental process, then, i want to weigh the fact that it doesn't appear to be any real positive benefits in terms of this bill in terms of oil production and oil prices, versus the fact that we have this very dirty tar sands supply of oil, that is going to

have a major impact on the environment and greenhouse gases. to give you some statistics here. canada projects that its greenhouse gas emission will grow by 25% and emission will be the single largest contributor accounting to 44% increase. all studies estimate shifting from conventional oil to tar sands fuel substantially increases greenhouse gas emissions. we are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions. the president has put forward various proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the problem is still growing. we are trying to make it less of a problem, but still a huge problem. so we shouldn't be, in my

opinion, and i know for many democrats, we shouldn't be increasing these tar sands productions of oil, which has a negative impact on the environment, at the same time when we don't have a problem with oil supplies and oil prices at an all-time low. the bill grants basically -- deems the pipeline approval without any need to go through the federal regulatory process environmental process, environmental protections, if you will, that apply to every other construction project in the country. the president has said, i still need some time to decide whether this is in the national interests. and we have a court out there that still hasn't decided on the route of the pipeline. so why are we pushing this

automatic approval of this thing with all these concerns out there. i think it makes no sense if you weigh these things back and forth, mr. chairman. so, basically, my opinion is, we don't need tar sands because of the carbon pollution that comes from it. we have our own sources of oil. and using less oil because cars are more efficient. the pipeline isn't going to enhance our energy security or fight climate change. for these reasons, i oppose the bill and request the committee to allow amendments. >> mr. pallone, i appreciate you being here and taking time to be a witness today, but also it's good to see you. i hope you have a good new year. mr. cramer. you have been with us on the resources committee and now a member of the energy and commerce committee.

>> i am. i'm the prime sponsor of the bill. >> we are delighted that you are here. and the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the issues raised in opposition to the bill and have sympathies towards them. i think it's important for the committee to understand prior to coming to congress, i spent 10 years on the north dakota public utilities commission. when we sighted the original keystone pipeline. 217 miles, 600 land owners and yet, we sighted it after the president's permits were signed. we routed it after. that's common ta the permit would be signed by the president prior to the routing taking place because routing takes place not just in a hearing in advance but as you are building

a pipeline because you come across things that you didn't know that were there or the scientists. so the routing of a pipeline doesn't happen prior to the presidential approval. i want to make that point. i appreciate the gentleman's point about price. and the issue of price at the pump. that said, first of all, we have to understand these arguments are built on a false premise that somehow the oil sands aren't going to be developed apart from the united states. whether it is developed is not our call. our call is are we going to approve a process of transporting it that benefits the united states work force the united states economy, and frankly, the environment.

frankly, the environment. putting oil sands on barges and shipping it to china clearly has a greater negative impact on the climate and greenhouse gas emissions than putting it in a pipeline to the gulf coast. putting it on trains has a lot of negative impacts. trucks, certainly many more. we stud yesterday this in great department in north dakota. from an environmental standpoint, it's better. with regard to the price of oil, that is a compelling reason to approve more pipelines. the difference in moving oil by train versus a pipeline is a difference of $10. you have that margin -- you have a little bit of wiggle room at $100 a barrel and you have none at $40 or $50 a barrel. one of the negotiated deals between the states of north dakota and montana in support of this process, 2,301 days ago that at least 100,000 of barrels a day would be reserved for bark and crude.

we move 71% by rail. we have seen the challenges with rail. safety is a major one. but 71% that is equipped and frankly required to move food to hungry people, commodities to markets around the world. so that 100,000 barrels per day freed off of our railroads is 10 trains a week. i'm for trains. all of the above transportation is important, but 71% is an inappropriate i think imbalance. for those reasons, 2,301 days is long enough for the president and congress. you know plenty about this issue and i appreciate the opportunity and i encourage a good rule that moves the bill move -- forward and passed this week.

>> we are products of our environment where we are from or where we are from. i remember when we were in high 1973 oil embargo and held hostage by people that had something that we not only needed but wanted. it was the life blood of america back then and i don't think we have gotten a long way from that yet. as much time and technology and opportunity that comes around, we still need to have resources that are energy related. i remember when the big discussion was going on about alaska and there are people who said they are going to ruin everything about alaska. the caribou, by the way. and the pipeline works and once you begin taking something out

perhaps you are into diminishing circumstance. i think this is common sense for jobs. it is common sense for safety. i think it's common sense to say if we don't take our friends up on it, somebody else is going to. we should quit giving so much money that we have to some people that we don't know how they would use that money. canadians are our dear friends. they are loyal to the united states and this is a great new relationship that we would have with the canadians. i met with a member of the parliament and he said we are going to stick with you because we know this is the right thing. >> i have no questions. >> the gentlewoman from new york

is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to put the policy's statement in the record. h.r. 3 conflicts with long standing executive branch procedures regarding the authority of the president and thorough consideration of complex issues that could bear on national interests, including security, safety and other ramifications if presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill. i welcome you gentlemen and ask what would happen if this were to pass and the nebraska court would then rule that it cannot be used -- will not be able to cross nebraska. >> nothing in this bill supersedes nebraska or any other local jurisdiction. >> that would kill it not? >> at some point, just as the original keystone pipeline is. i think it's an important question and frankly, if i was routing the pipeline, it

wouldn't go through nebraska. i suggested a much more politically pallotable. they'll find a route through or around nebraska. the presidential permit is not based on any individual state's routing. the presidential permit determines that you can cross the international border and there is no argument of where it would cross the international border. >> i understand that you are north dakota. because of the fracking and drilling there, you can now see your state from space. that is a new wrinkle that you weren't planning on? >> you raise a very important

point and why we need even more pipeline construction, because what you are seeing from space is the natural gas which is the secondary product from the oil and the holdup on public and tribal lands has resulted in the very unfortunate outcome of bringing the gas in the atmosphere and the greenhouse gases with it. another good reason why we need more pipelines, not fewer. >> i'm very much aware nebraska's concern that the aquifer could be destroyed if there were spills from that pipeline. >> i'm familiar with it. and it has become the main area you try to avoid and covers much of nebraska which is why i think a different route might have been better. the chairman knows how many

millions of oil and gas and petroleum pipelines are underneath the earth and there are safeguards in place should there be an accident. the original keystone pipeline early on after it was running, there was a problem at the pumping station. and the alarms worked and shutoff valves worked. and they fixed it all in very fast fashion. they did a great job coming in. >> did it damage the water supply? >> it did not. this pipeline in particular is the latest greatest state of the art as the chairman's testimony referenced, they have met over 50 specific recommendations by the department of state and department of transportation as a result of the e.i.s. process.

could it happen? sure. but the safeguards are there to prevent it from becoming worse. >> i'm a great friend of the canadian parliament as well. and i have been hearing rumors that because the price of oil has fallen so steeply, they may not find it practical to build this pipeline. >> the low price of oil is more reason to build it because of the margin lost in high price will require them to move it as economically and feasibly as possible. >> i'm not sure how safe they are. i'm not convinced at all about

that, nor the fact that if it is completed, it will only need 35 employees. but 15 contractors to run it. but the major fact for us that we are being used as a pass-through. they want to get to the houston refineries and on tankers and throughout the rest of the world and not through the united states. >> it passes through the united states to the refineries. all of those employees are u.s. employees. all of the restaurants -- the jobs question -- you can say 15, 30 or 42,000 but our economy is built on all kinds of jobs permanent, temporary or otherwise. with respect to the export of the product, that is allowed by law. nor do i have a problem with exporting. we ought to be do more of it. the chairman would like to address that well. >> 2.6 million miles of pipeline in the united states.

it is by far the safest mode of transportation in moving the oils and hazardous materials. we should be building more, not less. the statistics show you have a greater chance of getting hurt by lightning than being affected negatively a pipeline. i thought of a bill to outlaw lightning strikes, but that doesn't happen. and then we are going to have all kinds of other problems. it is very safe. this pipeline is going to be the safest pipeline ever built. >> which i we have to weigh to be the conduit to get oil from canada to the rest of the world. one other thing in the legislation that i would like you to explain to me and that is all claims against that pipeline have been filed in the d.c. circuit court of appeals. and tell me why people find it difficult to get here?

>> we felt it should come to the d.c. court. >> matter to get there quickly huh? >> to not get there quickly. >> being in the same town with the supreme court. just run across the street. >> your point of moving oil through the united states to other parts of the world. there is venezuela and russia. we ought to be helping the world by getting oil. >> we are. we are doing great. >> i would also add to that and we are not here to debate about lifting the export ban on crude oil. but right now our drop in price, the oil drop in price is a clear demonstration of our vulnerability to opec and their ability to oversupply and drop the price comes with the very

real understanding that they have the same ability to shrink supply and spike the price. the more security we can have the better. greenhouse gas emissions from rail are 1.8 times that of pipelines. trucks, 2.9 times of that of pipeline industry. and spills from truck transportation are three to four times the rate of spills from pipelines. so, again if it's the economy or the environment we are looking out for in safety, pipelines is definitely the way to go. and we want to be price makers not price takers. stabilizing price while stabilizing supply and ensure a good trade relationship with our best friends in the world, the canadians and i appreciate your friendship with canadian parliament.

and i'm going to miss bill owens. and i'm meeting with the ambassador next week. this is so important to our relationship. >> i hope not. rob merriweather. >> depends on which side. >> mr. pallone. >> i listened to the questions and comments that you posed and the responses by republican colleagues. and the point i'm really making here going back to the process here, the president has said because of the state department's concerns and the state of nebraska's concerns that we should need more time to study this. the jury's out and after listening to the debate back and forth, i'm convinced that's the case.

why are we deeming this approved? this is something that needs more study. i think the very debate that you brought up here, ms. slaughter, supports the reason why we shouldn't be moving forward. this is something that the congress shouldn't be acting on without further hearings in a new session without getting rid of the president's ability to say whether this is in the national interests, ignoring the extreme supreme court of nebraska. it shouldn't be handle this way. >> we had 15 hearings in the congress on this very issue. 10th time on the house floor. just the opposite. that's like six years, isn't we have been studying this. i listen to my republican colleagues making arguments that my democratic colleagues make on the floor.

i just don't understand. >> i have a masters in public health and you can't survive more than four days without water. anything that has the potential to destroy drinking water in the united states is one of the reasons why we take care of the great lakes because it's 20% of the planet's fresh water. and it seems to me that we really need to wait until the court acts and find out what we're going to do. but i do gee with the president's action. >> to the process. understanding this is the 2,301 day since the application was made. and the issue of the nation's

interest is the president's decision. but this body in december of 2011 passed a bill unanimously that passed the senate unanimously and the president signed that said a decision has to be made within 60 days unless the president deems it is not in the national interests. >> i think he has, don't you? >> i want to read a beautiful piece, and this is a quote increases -- this pipeline increases the diversity of supplies of the united states worldwide, crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other countries and regions, shortens the pathway tore crude oil supplies and increases supplies from a major opec producer. canada is a reliable ally for the united states and goes like that for a few more lines. this quote, as much as i would like to take credit for it

comes from president obama permit that carries the same oil sands through the country of the united states through parts of north dakota, i sighted it as well. his same arguments are more relevant today than they were then. >> i don't see them the same way given the fact that we are almost energy sufficient here. >> further discussion? the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> i'm delighted that my friend from north dakota is carrying this because i don't think there is anybody with more background and practical experience but coming from a state thinks that pipelines are sort of a good thing and i appreciate the expertise. couple points i want to make. why is the president involved in this decision at all?

>> it's a debate question and the reason that the president is involved is because it is crossing an international border. >> otherwise he would not be involved at all. part of this pipeline already been built? >> from oklahoma to the gulf coast to the refineries themselves. >> did the president go down there when they opened that pipeline and hold a press event celebrating it? >> he did, in fact. >> may have slipped their mind at the white house as well. and are there any american-owned pipelines going through this country of canada? >> i suspect there are. >> isn't there something called the alaskan pipeline that we move oil from alaska to the lower 48. so it's ok for america to run a pipeline the entire length of canada with their consent and support but it's wrong for cappeda to be able to run a pipeline through