i don't think we ought to remake federal law for a pipeline. i support the pipeline. hopefully it will be built. i don't want to mess up things along the way. and if this bill passes with this amendment, it will be doubly worse because imminent domain has been part of our being since railroads were cutting across -- since railroads were cutting across nebraska. and private entities have that right for imminent domain. and there are regulations honored. if the land owner doesn't like it, you go to the courthouse. you can oppose it. you up getting more money from it. but there's a way to do it in this bill and in this amendment would make it much worse for the rest of the country. >> reclaiming my time. the gentleman from california yield? >> yeah, i appreciate that. one of the things i think we have to remember, too, we're setting a precedent here. this is a precedent not only going to apply to oil lines but will set the precedence. this is what we're going to do with the easements with transmission. as my colleague from massachusetts who has been brave about standing

then they put it in pipelines, there is a 250-mile pipeline from fort murray down to edmondton that's been doing this, as the chairman says, for decades. nobody is going to say the canadians aren't concerned about environmental stewardship of the line or they aren't concerned about spillage of the pipeline. i'm less concerned. i think the keystone pipeline spills were at pumping stations, and those issues have been resolved and rectified and remediated and we don't live in a perfect world. so if there is contamination that gets remediated, then you move forward. i'll then yield back. >> mr. chairman -- >> i yield back to the chairman. yield back to you. >> i yield now to the gentlelady of california. >> i just wanted to comment on your comments, mr. chairman. that was the period of time that you mentioned is the maximum allowed for a study. that's not the earliest date, so it kind of undermines what you said. i know you don't support the amendment, but it seems to me that we are, again, on a -- as i mentioned earlier today, i think we're on a really slippery slope. we passed laws, we

and then they put it in pipeline, there is a 250 mile pipeline from ft. murray down to edmonton that is doing this as the chairman says for decades. i think they're concerned about the pipeline stations and those issues have been resolved and rectified and remediated. we don't live if a perfect world. you know, if there is problems, then move forward. i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> i yield back. >> yield to the gentle lady from california. >> i want to comment on your comment, mr. chairman. that was the period of time that you mentioned is the maximum allowed for a study. that is not the earliest date. so it kind of undermines what you said. i know you don't support the amendment. but it seems to me that we are again a -- as i mentioned earlier, i think we're on a slippery slope. we pass laws, we work together, we put thing onz the books for the benefit of the american people and then what do we do? come along today and we leapfrog over what the work that we've done. so it is -- it can be done in the shorter period of time. that is the maximum and i ap

pipeline. in four hours, the confirmation hearing with the ambassador to india. then david grossman. >>> my most important point on who should run and who the republican leader is, we can't tell them. i think it would be better if a month before the election we announce who was running for president because the media's obsessive desire to know who is your leader? is it michael steele or glenn beck? they want us to tell us who our leader is so they can fixate on them and destroy. >> this year's political action conference begins thursday and c-span will cover it. watch it online at the c-span video library at c-span.org. >>> this is c-span3 with poll continues and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend american history tv. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. get our schedules and see past programs on our web sites. join in the conversation on these social media sites. >>> the house commerce committee has voted on the keystone oil pipeline. it would

we have pipelines, by the way. we're not against pipelines. any pipeline ought to be reviewed by the appropriate agencies. the first two witnesses are taken out of their opportunity to review any proposal. there is only about one specific pipeline that's going to be given a treatment that no other pipeline has had. and that's nobody reviews it. if they review it, they have 30 days. they have to come up with the right conclusion. that is a special interest bill, an earmark for this one project. and it's really troubling because we have had -- they're going to be adding to the graee house gases. it affects canada but not the whole world at a time we should be reducing the green house gases. we're going to be committed to that source of energy where we ought to be looking for other ways to use less energy and make us more independent. i think our witnesses on the second panel have more to say about that issue. and i thank the gentleman for yielding part of his time. >> i would like to reclaim my time and say i have an open mind in general about t

and not building the pipeline, the preferred decision was to build the pipeline. and one reason for that was that if it was not built and this oil comes out of canada by rail or by truck, the emissions would be much greater than they are using the pipeline. so it seems reasonable to adopt the terry legislation because basically what it says is, yes, ferc is going to make the decision within a certain period of time. the state of nebraska has the opportunity to look at this route, make their environmental decisions based on that route. the nepa that has already been adopted would stay in place and the pipeline could go on and we could start building the pipeline in areas outside of the state of nebraska while nebraska is going through its process to finalize. so i think this pipeline has been adequately studied. everyone that's looked at it indicates that the protections are there and the only issue is like 60 miles within a 1,700 mile pipeline. so with all the respect we have for the gentleman from michigan, i believe the adoption of his amendment would really def

it says, the pipeline in this bill is the keystone kpcxl pipeline. and they are exempted from review except for 30 days but if they do not get a permit in 30 days it will be deemed approved. they are not taking in chances now. and in addition they say the two other agencies and all the other agencies that might be involved in reviewing this bill will no longer have the so the application has to be approved in 30 days or it's approved. for this one project, now, we o. now, we wanted to find out what interest the coke industries had. now, why did we want to find that out? well, the coke industries is one of the largest crude oil exporters in canada. the coke industries own the terminal in canada where the pipeline would begin. the coke industries has a refinery near where the pipeline would end. and the chairman said he'd take their word for it. they don't have any interests. even though there's evidence to the contrary. but then he throws out a real herig and no keystone cop could do. he said, wait a minute. there's another guy who agrees with the dem

it gives the pipeline an unprecedented regulatory earmark. it directing the federal energy regulatory commission, even though we do not know what route it will take. it exempts them from requiring permits for the corp or engineers before going the through rivers. i have been asking the simple question, who benefits from this extraordinary congressional intervention in the regulatory process. last year reuters reported that coke industries would be a big benefiters. we know they own an oil terminal in canada where the pipeline would begin. and we know it has a refinery in texas, near where the pipeline is going to end. last myear i contacted coke to ask about their interest in the pipeline, and they responded despite the evidence to the contrary they had no interest in whether the pipeline was built or not. i accepted that answer and then i learned that coke had told the canadian government that the company had a direct and substantial interest, end quote in the pipeline. i want to know why coke would tell the u.s. conference one thing and the

it can go through a pipeline is a lot different than other kinds of pipelines. this is a unique pipeline. that's why i thought it was important for the eshoo amendment to be passed. we want to know, are we endangering communities to a pipeline taking this particular kind of oil. >> will the gentleman yield? >> not yet. when there's a study that's supposed to determine whether that's safe or not. so i think that the eshoo amendment should be adopted and members ought to understand if you're getting misrepresentations on american steel being used or not, you may be getting other misrepresentations as well. my time is expired. >> time is expired. i would like to suggest a time for debate on this amendment that ha expired. seeing no one, we will reconvene at 2:45 with a roll call vote. we have three minutes. >> so as you heard, members heading to the house to swear in a new member replacing david wu who resigned last august. the committee will return at 2:45 for more testimony. this the first of two meetings on keystone xl pipe hein taking place today. the senate fi

route was better environmentally than no pipeline at all? >> in the environmental impact statement, we looked at many alternative routes. and we analyzed those. and we looked at routes that avoided the sandhills. we looked at routes that took short little jogs and made different changes. the environmental impact statement did not identify any of those alternative routes. >> we're leaving this keystone xl hearing from last month to return to the capitol for the second panel in today's keystone hearing. we're expecting remarks today from the representative of transcanada corporation among others. >> -- come back and ask questions. since they're not here, i am going to recognize mr. billboard for three minutes to say whatever he wanted to say about the corps of engineer or whatever the issue was. >> thank you, pletsch. and mr. chairman, i appreciate you giving me the time. it is frustrating that you think you have an agreement and i think some of these questions are important. i will raise them even with the army corps here. i have a little exp

or canadian steel in this entire pipeline. i'm simply asking for a little bit of truth in advertising here. it's been my frustration through this whole debate we hear claims about the pipeline. i just want to be honest with the american people. my amendment just says this, that trans canada has told us they have made every effort to source as much steel from north american mills as they can. i'm simply asking them to certify that claim. through my amateur investigation, i don't believe there's a lick of u.s. or canada steel in this canada pipeline but i would love to be approved i don't think. if the folks can certify at trans canada that 75% of this steel is sourced in the united states or canada, then i think it's full steam ahead. i think there's many other members of this committee that would like to know the same thing as well. finally, let me say do we have companies in the united states that make pipe? i know of four u.s. pipe mills that make 36 inch indictment pipe used on this pipeline. one in baton rouge, louisiana,

of the pipelines, those pipelines, and we're talking now specifically about the part of the pipeline that goes from canada into the united states, those -- that is not the -- my people tell me that for the next decade or so, with the anticipated increase in production of canadian oil, that that will not be the bottleneck. where we have the bottleneck now is in this cushing to houston. there is another bottleneck from chicago. and there is also pipelines that go from your state to chicago. and that pipeline goes from chicago to cushing. so those things are being built. so those are taken care of as we speak. >> i see i have over my time, mr. chairman. i will defer for a second round if that's the wishes of the chair. >> all right. why don't we go ahead with the second round. senator murkowski, do you have questions? >> i do. thank you. and thank you for your patience, mr. secretary. several weeks ago we had a presentation, eia present kind of the global picture. and i had an opportunity to ask mr. gruenespec where alaska natural gas fit into the bigger picture as we talk about domesti

than to not build the pipeline. if you were looking at these two options, it would be better to build it than not to build it. and so other pipeline projects requiring a presidential permit usually take 18-24 months to review and approve. keystone is now in its 40th month. so when these additional delays appear to be mounting early in 2011, the u.s. house passed bipartisan legislation with 47 democrats voting yes that simply instructed president obama to make a final decision one way or the other on the presidential permit by november 1, 2011. at the time the white house stated the legislation was unnecessary because the state department would be making a decision by the end of 2011. but as president obama's campaign began to warm up for president, the president's political advisers realized that the environmental groups would be quite upset if president said yes to this pipeline. on the other hand, the labor unions were going to be quite upset -- at least five or six of them -- if president said no to the pipeline.

they're going to build a pipeline going west or going south and it's better, in my view, if that pipeline goes anywhere, it goes south to the united states, because it will be a much more dependable source of energy for the united states. so i would urge my colleagues not to drive away members like me by moving too fast on this. because if you do, you'll just simply create a wealth of litigation, the lawyers will have a fine time, make lots of money, and the business of the country will be, in fact, delayed by carelessness in this committee. having said that, first question here to mr. pool. did state department refer the application to your department or to the blm? yes or no? >> say again, sir? >> did the state department refer the application to your department or to the blm? which? >> the application that we received was from the applicant for the segment of public of land coming across montana. the right of way application. >> ms. gaffney-smith, did they refer the application to the corps? >> no. like the department of interior, the application came from the applicant. >> okay. did b

pipeline. a pipeline that can deliver two million barrels a day to the united states of america as we have done in the past. we've had one shipment of oil go overseas, heavy oil. all of the rest has gone to the united states of america, it's gone to our refiners. it's time for us as congress to act responsibly. all due respect to my friend from massachusetts, against nuclear power, against oil. in fact, i questioned the wind power because one time he was against that. i am saying, wait a minute, what are we doing to run our country for power? how do we get our economy going again? it's the key to our economy, energy. good, cheap energy. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: yes, i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. markey: when the democrats controlled the congress in 2009, we passed a bill out here on the house floor that

the pipeline in this bill is the keystone pipeline, and a question about it. they are exempted from review except for 30 days. adobe been approved. they're not taking any chances now. in addition, the other agencies that might be involved when no longer have the power to review the bill. we have witnesses that ordinarily would review any legislation -- any application for something that would go over public lands, over waterways. they can't review it. when we found out that was the case, he said for the first time this morning, leon not going to do that. the application has to preapproved for 30 days or it is approved. they can ask for review for 30 days. for this one project. we wanted to find out what interest the coke industries had. coleco industries is one of the largest crude-oil exporters in canada. -- coke industries has a refinery near where the pipeline would end. the chairman said to take their word for it that they don't have any interest. he throws a real hearingrring. wait a minute, there is a guy that agrees with the democrats some of the time a

we have pipelines, by the way, i'm not against pipelines, by any pipelines ought to be reviewed by the appropriate agencies and the two witnesses we had on the first panel who are going to be taken out of the opportunity to review any proposal, and, of course, this spill isn't about pipelines. it's only about one specific pipeline that's going to be given treatment, and no other pipeline has had. and that's, nobody reduce it. they have 30 days and they've got to come up with the right conclusion. that is a special interest bill, earmarked for this one project, and it's really troubling because we have had, we will be adding to the greenhouse gases which not just affects canada but the whole world, at a time when we out to be reducing greenhouse gases. we will be committed to that source of energy, where we out to be looking for other ways to use less energy and make us more independent. i think our witnesses on the second panel have more to say about that issue. i thank the gentleman for yielding part of his time. >> i would like to reclaim my time, and say you know, i have an open min

i happen to be a friend of the pipeline. i want to see this pipeline built.t to see it start moving oil down to the refineries in the gulf states. i would observe to my colleagues this is something to pick up the line. the pipeline will be built going west or it's going to be built going south. i want to see it built going south because of it is built going south, it goes through the united states and use is u.s. steel and u.s. labor. it also will see to it that the refining is done in the united states and not in china because the united states will get the business but more importantly it will also do so in a careful and responsible fashion which we will not see done if it is done in china. and the ordeal as going to come and it is going to be produced in one way or another and we might as will see to it that the benefits are derived by the united states. having said this, we are simply codify in the process, extraditing the matter coming and avoiding the wealth of litigation that will occur and which i can assure you will be handled very well by the enviro

because they're all coming in by pipeline and it's all going out by pipeline. now again, the benefits, i would just also encourage people to look at the bloomberg article from today, february 6th. america's gaining energy independence. which is what we all talk about in this committee all the time. wouldn't it great to get to energy independence? and part of this whole article it talks up mentions stepped up oil output and restrained consumption will less endemands for imports cutting the nation's trade deficit and buttressing the dollar. isn't that a good thing? i would say that's a good thing. and that's from currently chief energy economist at deutsche bank ag in washington. another point that is raised in this article is that, you know, the keystone pipeline is going to help us bring our crude oil products from the fields in north dakota instead of trucking it, we can exploit the fields in north carolina using the keystone xl pipeline. north dakota, the center of the so-called tight oil transformation is now the fourth largest oil producing state behind tex

care of as we speak, there are numerous pipeline plans for enlarging that pipeline and one pipeline is being reversed so that refined products from houston and louisiana can be then imported to the midwest. another pipeline from chicago to cushing also in the -- is being built, as far as i know. so much of the pipelines in the united stateshat would bring oil from wyoming, north dakota, and to get the oil to the refineries that have the capacity, back up, are being done in the private sector. and so we think that this is on a path that is creating jobs, that is going to be helping. in the end, the gasoline prices, we are very concerned about, and the administration has taken, in addition to -- i mean, this pipeline activity occurs because once you see big price differentials the industry steps in and says, hey, we can fix that. in addition to that, we are doing a lot, for example, the -- twice we've changed the mileage standards of automobiles. this directly affects the american public. by 2025, the estimate is, the fleet average would be saving on average americans over the lifetim

this is a different pipeline. we want to know are we endangers communities through a pipeline using this particular kind of oil. >> will the gentlemen yield? >> not yet. there's a study that is supposed to determine whether that is safe or not. i think the amendment should be adopted and members out to understand, if you are getting misreputations on u.s. steel being used or not, you may be getting other misreputations. >> time hasexpired. time on the debate for this issue has expired, we will convene at 2:45 with a roll call vote. you have three minutes. >>>y and commerce later voted along party lines to advance the bill to keystoneatio gives the federal regulatory commission 30 days to approve the pipeline, taking the decision out of the hands of the white house. >>> in a few moments the confirmation hearing for the new u.s. ambassador to india and in alternative more than a hour, david grossman on israel future, and the two-state solution. >>> when i first start today book, i thought, this must be an american s

versus, two, building the pipeline, they indicated that the preferred option is to build the pipeline as proposed. n now, a person on the outside not paying any attention to this -- everyone expected the state department is going to make its final decision sometime in the fall of 2011. and then all of a sudden announce they said that they would seek a new route through the state of nebraska and undergo another round of studies that would not be complete until the first quarter of 2013. and that was the stated reason for president obama not making a decision was that -- because of this new route through nebraska. now, when some of the political leaders in nebraska realized their concerns were being used by the president to stop this project, they had a special session of the legislature was called. and a new law was passed to give the nebraska department of environmental quality the ability to cite and evaluate a new route for the pipeline within nebraska's borders in half the time frame that the state department envisioned. so, taking that development into account, the keystone provis

own xl pipeline?nd a heightened standard of the additional 57 conditions. >> could you speak to some of those 57 additional conditions? >> a lot relate to special detection techniques. to make sure if there's an incident, that it is known sooner. most of them focus on big detection type is used. >> are there additional levels of inspection required on this particular pipeline not on others? >> within the idea of ensuring adequate leak protection, it is increased inspection requirements. it would have other pipelines. them not when it comes to -- i keep hearing this issue of tarzans, which i think is really at the crux of the opposition, that this is an attempt to stop production of this. this is my commentary, i will not ask council this -- but to stop or hinder the development of oil from tar sand in canada. i think some people are pretty passionate about that. but when it comes to the pipeline itself, are there differences in how the tar sands oil would flow from a canadian- based field forces anywh

a pipeline is often away weak transport these things. i am not against pipelines. but any pipeline ought to be reviewed by the appropriate agencies. and the two witnesses that are going to be taken out of their opportunity to review any proposal, this bill is only about one specific pipeline that is going to be given the treatment and that no other pipeline has had. if they review it, they have 30 days and they have to come up with the right conclusion. that is a special interest bill for this one project and it is really troubling. we will be adding to the greenhouse gases, it not just affect canada, but the whole world. we will be committed to that source of energy where we ought to be looking for other ways to use less energy and make us more independent. i think the witnesses on the second panel will have more to say about that issue. >> i would like to reclaim my time and say that i have an open mind in general about the whole issue of keystone. i am very concerned about this. removing the federal review of oil agencies except for mandating the issues, to me,

i happen to be a friend of the pipeline. i want to see this pipeline built. i want to see it start moving oil down to the refineries in the gulf states. i would observe to my colleagues, and this is something which should be kept in mind, that pipeline is going to be built going west or it's going to be built going south. i want to see it going south because if it built going south, it goes through the united states. and it uses u.s. steel and u.s. labor. it also will see to it that the refining is done in the united states and not in china because the united states will get the business but more importantly it will also do so in a careful and responsible fashion, which we will not see done if it is done in china. and we need the oil. the oil is going to come and it is going to be produced in one way or another and we might as well toe z to it that the benefit are derived by the united states. having said this, we are simply codifying the process, expediting the matter and avoiding a prodigious wealth of litigation which will occur and which i can assure you

new pipelines are being built. pipelines are being reversed so oil from wyoming -- another pipeline from chicago to cushing back to before the major refineries are. those oils are going forward. it's my understanding the state department is asked to look at other alternatives and environmental impacts on the part of the pipelines that cross the border. >> it seems to me it is fair to say that the keystone xl pipeline would facilitate oil production in the united states. and then my question to you is should the keystone xl pipeline be part of an all out, all of the above strategy that develops every available source of american energy which is what the president has actually called for? >> there are pipelines being built and upgraded, as i said, from those -- from wyoming and north dakota. i was trying to point out where some of the bottlenecks are and how the pipeline -- we're all for this. this is why the oil production in the united states is at an all-time high compared to the last eight years. we think -- we a

and you said well, we're trying to build all these pipelines. and you talked -- if i could finish -- you talk about all these pipelines that we're trying to build around the united states. so my question to you -- and you'll acknowledge that there is thousands of pipelines under the entire country. so why are we unwilling to build a pipeline that will bring crude in from canada and will help us move our crude in the country? why is that? >> well, first, we're not unwilling. the president's position and the state department's position, not the d.o.e.'s, but we're not in the decision-making loop. we're asked to give technical advice on certain things. but is that they wanted an evaluation of the environmental impact. the pipelines that are being built in the country are investments of the private sector. and i see a lot of healthy movement in the pipeline construction within the united states. in large part because of the ability to get oil from shale-like rock. this is a big boon in your state. and you got to get that oil to the refineries. and t

latest hostage taking and can we kill the keystone pipeline for good. if we just put a picture of me when i was like nine years old and to tell the truth. i think i am in total get of that rather than have thought and. he was kind of yesterday. i'm very proud of the world with his place. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so silly you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harpur welcome to the big picture. welcome back to the big picture i'm tom arbonne coming up in this half hour republicans are keen to still pass the keystone x.l. pipeline project hundred americans show their opposition to the project it will have voices be heard also since adam and eve everyone has tried to understand the nature of love but this new research suggests about what really brings us together and telecom giants love to pinch every penny american consumers how does europe avoid these thievery and can the american system change. in

when you say we're willing to build pipeline. i don't understand. >> well, senator, i don't know the particulars. i mean usually when you have trucks, trucks are short term interim solution to a region you expect the same oil production. they're very expensive. >> i agree. which is why we need the pipelines. >> again, if we're talking about the trucks in north dakota and wyoming, the private sector -- i don't know the particulars about this. but i think once you see a lot of truck traffic, that's almost the last resort. you know, it goes pipeline and then rail and the last is truck. >> mr. secretary, i'm looking for help here. frankly, your experts have been helpful. and they've been right on the money. literally. they have. they reported this thing straight up. i appreciate it. maybe we conclude with as you in our state, when we talk about all of the above energy development, we don't just talk about it. we do it. if you go to our state, you'll see wind. you'll see biofuels. you'll see ethanol. you'll see biodiesel. you'll see s

latest hostage taking and can we kill the keystone pipeline for good. any match. to. ever. turtles are is going to be. simple. do we only want to see this on forever. russia's foreign minister has said the risk of repeating a lib installed scenarios as foreign intervention in syria also tolson the ones that the west as a side regime that could be used to join to justify military on. top in the euro crisis as the eurozone achieves says assurances assume a way to the greek finance committee does and how they had to implement in a station program to respond via hold one hundred. dollars to save the country from to hold responses in these raising of agency downgrades and even stay. on as russia's new true predicts the west m i decide on a strike against the country with. these photos because asians that the islamic state was behind in monday's stronger state senator says the. losses in boston called it's. time to go back to washington for the big picture. brighton if you need some from phones to question these. stunts on t.v. don't come. back to the big pic

an innovative pipeline system will be installed to insure the survival of one of the pipelines following an earthquake at this location. our facility is located at a place where it is in direct conflict with the sanitary district sewer lines. to eliminate this conflict, we have asked them to relocate these you relied on to ofpuc land and -- on to sfpuc land. the diagram shows the existing sewer line and pipeline system. to get you oriented, this is mission boulevard. highway 680 is down and the lower left-hand corner of the page. the two white lines that you see here are the extent of the puc's 80-foot right of way. we also have the dashed green line that represents the sanitary district sewer line. this yellow line represents the trace of the hayward fault. we expect to see 5 feet of movement. at this location, we will install the innovative pipeline system to withstand an earthquake and continue to deliver water following an earthquake. to eliminate the conflict between the existing sewer line and the new pipeline we intend to install, which is represented by the dotted line and white

pipeline.cial space pipeline in the eastern neighborhoods, if completed, will just be a slight uptick, a very small portion, about 1% of the commercial developmentçó, pipelines citywi. this is because of much proposed projects elsewhere in the city. this is another slice of the commercial pipeline byç land u. theçko addition of the commerc the general hospital expansion and significantly smaller growth in retail and office pace spaces. the loss in p.d.r. space explains much of the relatively low commercial additions to commercial square footage. 1/3 of the pipeline is under construction or have received entitlement. the remaining 2/3 are still under review. the square footage is not new net square feet. there is new commercial place in showplace square but you will see there is, i guess, a loss in the other, east soma and the mission. now on to p.d.r. while there was net adecision in the five years reported. the pipeline is showing a net loss of about 325,000 square feet, later to be converte

pipeline. tonight we have members from across the country, from the north, the south, the east, and the west, who will talk about the importance of energy security, the importance of creating jobs. so manufacture of the debates we heard on the chamber floor have all been revolving around the notion of creating jobs an what we are going to do to get this economy turned around. an economy that already has over 14 million americans unemployed and 46 million americans living in poverty. a chance to get people to work. a chance to create jobs. i'll frame this debate with some information we just received. people across this country want the keystone pipeline to be built. if you look at the numbers we have here, supporters of the keystone pipeline,ing see the support. it's not just republicans, it's not scrust the majority of democrats. every sector that we have talked about in this poll support of the keystone pipeline overwhelmingly. 64%. when you take into account the opinions of republicans an de

pipeline. he has said no to jobs and no to north american energy. and i would like to show a survey that was taken a couple of weeks ago. the american people support instruction of the keystone pipeline. you can see right here, the number of americans from across the political spectrum, republicans and democrats. the people -- a variety of income levels, a variety of age levels, all people, the majority of whom support the keystone x.l. pipeline, because they know in this economy, we can't say no to jobs. we should be saying yes to jobs. they know if we say no, we are saying yes to sending jobs to china. . mr. speaker, i don't think the american public wants china to win our energy race, they want to make sure we're doing everything we can to produce energy in our own back yard. there's only so much congress can do to create jobs. real job creation comes from the private sector, from small businesses and private employers. unfortunately, our government has a regulatory climate that makes it inc

and to not build the pipeline -- than to not build a pipeline. other projects requiring a presidential permit usually take up to 24 months to review and approve. keystone is now in its 40th month. when the additional delays appeared to be mounting early in 2011, the house passed a bipartisan legislation with 47 democrats voting yes that instructed president obama to make a final decision one way or the other on the presidential permit by november 1, 2011. the white house staff to the legislation was not necessary because the state department would make a decision by the end of 2011. as president obama's campaign began to warm up, his political advisers realized the environmental groups would be upset if the president said yes to the pipeline. the labor unions were going to be quite upset if the president said no to the pipeline. instead of making a decision, the president said he would wait until after the election to make the decision. from our perspective, this was nothing but a political decision. we have had 40 months of detailed study and an

the bill latest to the advance the alberta to texas pipeline. republicans trying to punish the president politically. there's a story about this at the hill.com, all of this ahead of the 2012 election. critical of the president for failing to green light the project that republicans say will create jobs and boost energy security. a number of amendments being put forth by democrats on the committee. ed markey, his amendment failed 14-37 that republicans claim would with curb account reliance on oil from unstable nations. also a proposal put forth by john dingell from michigan. his amendment using the same process that was used by previous administrations, again all of this part of the ongoing debate over the keystone xl pipeline. the senate is not scheduled to take up the measure. let's hear from congressman john dingell on his proposal. >> you will note, my dear friends and colleagues, that this amendment is going to utilize the procedures set forth by president george wfrl bush on april 30, 2004 with regard to the permitting of the pipeline. th

alternative fuels that you can drop into the pipeline without having to redo all the pipelines. what are our most significant opportunities in drop-in fuels? go ahead. >> yeah. in the energy independence and security act of 2007, you know, congress enacted and the president signed a very ambitious mandate for increased use of biofuels. i think that's pretty challenging. right from the start it looked pretty challenging for us. the cellulosic biofulls in particular which is supposed to grow to 15 billion gallons by 2022, you know, we've always been fairly skeptical that you could actually get there, and the passage of time has not ameliorated that skepticism. but one of the things we do think of as -- there was a vision perhaps in some people's minds that a lot of that would be cellulosic ethanol. and we believe that a lot of that what is done which we think will be less than the full amount would be a drop-in, what we call biomass to liquids. a diesel-type fuel that unlike ethanol would go into the normal stream of commerce, if you will, as, you know, interchangeable with regula

we're talking about another pipeline, aren't we? we're talking about another pipeline. just like the one that's already been built. and how about hundreds or maybe i should say thousands of pipelines that we already have. but somehow we can't build this pipeline? it doesn't make any sense. somebody needs to explain this to us. so we have legislation with 45 senators. 45 senators. 45 sponsors that are saying, hey, it's time to move forward. it's time to build the project. and, as a matter of fact, we're doing everything we can. we are doing everything we can to address any and all problems or concerns the administration has raised. and that's why i'm going to turn it over now to my good colleague from nebraska, because when the administration says, hey, there's an issue, when state or e.p.a. says hey, there's an issue, we have stepped up in our legislation and we've solved it. we said, hey, okay, great, let's address it but let's move forward for the good of our economy and the good of our country. i would defer now to the good senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank y

look at the major bottlenecks to the pipelines, those pipelines, the part of the pipeline that goes from canada into the united states, that is -- my people tell me that to for the next decade or so, with the increase in production of canadian oil, that will not be the bottleneck. where we have the bottleneck is to houston, from chicago. those things are being built. those are taken care of. >> i am over my time, mr. chairman. i will defer for a second round. >> why don't we go ahead with the second round? >> thank you. thank you for your patience, secretary. several weeks ago, we had a presentation the global picture. i had an opportunity to ask his opinion on where alaska natural gas to fit into the bigger picture as we talk about domestic natural gas. the center has on many occasions asked questions -- the center has asked many questions about the export of domestic product here. you have the authority to sign off on whether or not export is in the national interest. the question is whether or not alaska was viewed separately from the rest of the lower 48 market. different type o