tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN October 10, 2011 8:30pm-11:00pm EDT
this issue and the bundlers issue in the relationship between campaign money and campaign finance and washington. >> host: fred schulte is a senior reporter with i watch news, i watch news.org is the web site in case you would like to see their reports or read the e-mails between the white house and lightsquared officials. mr. schulte is a four-time pulitzer prize finalist. he spent much of his career at the baltimore sun in the south florida sun sentinel. he is received the george polk award to investigative reporter and editors award, three gerald loeb awards for business writing. mr. schulte thank you for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thank you, it was my pleasure.
beginning, a solid middle and a strong ending. >> what you think we should do for this year's c-span student competition? >> today cell phones and flip cam's do a great job of catching video. if you don't have access to better video equipment don't let that stop you. if you need a little bit more help go to studentcam.org. >> this process can be confusing at first but it will help you stay organized. i find useful to read the rules very carefully and then make a checklist of what you need to do but don't worry, the process becomes clear once you get started. >> another great thing about the c-span documentary is that you can work on a project or work on a team. for example if you are good writer but not handy with a camera and get a friend to help out. not only.only we both learned something but you will increase
your chances of winning. >> donated an expert at video production are interviewing to make this work. you can use your parents, other students, teachers and c-span as resources for you along the way. this process is both fun and extremely rewarding. with a little bit of effort and anyone can do this. >> now a discussion on the
proposed 7 million-dollar keystone excel pipeline project that would stretch from candidate to the gulf of mexico and whether it is in the u.s. national interest. this is about an hour. >> host: damon moglen this with friends of the year. we have them both here to talk about the proposed keystone allied pipeline project that would run from canada all the way down to the u.s. to the gulf of mexico. cindy showed the organization and the american petroleum institute is supportive of this project. what is the top reason? >> guest: jobs and benefits to the american economy as well as consumers right now. >> host: and damon moglen, a lot of opposition but for a variety of reasons, what is the most difficult thing about this project? is it where it goes to the united states?
is that the drilling taking place? layout the biggest concerns. >> guest: >> guest: there are a whole series of concerns. this project is really an environmental disaster. the situation in canada itself is the creation of tar sands oil is very damaging to the environment. is also a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. in addition what we have is a situation which the company transcanada is proposing building a long pipeline across the united states across united states across very fragile environmental areas and also over the ogallala aquifer which provides water to millions of people so there is a huge array of environmental and public health issues and ball. >> host: cindy schild layout the economic argument for the pie. >> guest: you are looking at a time when the unemployment rate is over 9%. this is the largest shovel-ready project that we have available. you have obama that has been talking about job creation and being ready to sign off on anything that is going to help americans and workers and their families.
there are are ready 80,000 americans that are employed since the development of this resource in canada and we have the ability to increase it. there are 20,000 jobs a keystone the transcanada pipeline is committing and has labor agreements, and it is being supported by the unions at large and they are ready. they are ready for the ability to start work immediately on this project. >> host: we will get into the environmental issues and more detail but for now, damon moglen, what is your reaction to the driver the economic benefits? >> guest: first of all we have to understand this is not about jobs. this is about profits for transcanada. transcanada wants to be a will to move oil from canada to the gulf where it can refine oil and imported into the international market. this is really about producing oil and getting it into the market for profits. in addition, transcanada's
claims about the inflated jobs are refuted not only by government numbers themselves which are about a third of those of transcanada's but in addition there is a new cornell study that is just out that suggesting these numbers are in many ways radically inflated and many ways they are baseless. what we are really seeing is a situation which we are talking about much smaller numbers of temporary jobs and they are not local jobs. i also want to make a final point about this which is in terms of construction there has been a lot of talk about this giving industry a boost. the fact of the matter is that this deal for this pipeline has actually about 50% of it already being constructed outside of the united states. that is not about u.s. jobs. is about transcanada's profits. >> host: let's look at the numbers of the job impact. 250,000 permanent jobs and $100 billion in economic activity in the $5.2 billion in
property taxes in five and $85 million in state and local taxes during construction and damon moglen he said you don't agree with those numbers. >> guest: it's not just me. the government so numbers are small faller for jobs and a new cornell study that it's just been released those numbers are extraordinarily inflated and a methodology for generating them is very questionable and again what we are talking about is a much smaller number of temporary jobs and also not jobs for local people. finally this cornell study which i think is extremely important, suggested that the pipeline in many ways can be a jobs killer. what we have is a situation in which first of all a lot of this steel is being constructed outside of the country. second of all what we have is the likelihood that oil and gas prices in the midwest are going to increase significantly, driving down the numbers of jobs potentially in the midwest and that finally we have all seen that these extraordinary spills create havoc for the
environment, for public health and in turn damaging for jobs so in fact a cornell study is suggesting that effect this pipeline project killed more jobs that would produce ultimately. >> host: cindy, american petroleum institute, where d.c. the most has been created? what part of the country do you see this? >> guest: it has widespread impact and when you look at the oil sands sands general and what it is doing for the u.s. economy fares already 2400 companies and 49 of our states that are impacted and better working toward supporting this resource. in regards to the cornell study and we can debate that for quite a while too as far as some of the cases and claims they are there are and qualifications of that study. the fact that you can say that any project that is going to be created, that is going to be built, that is going to be starting from scratch was not requesting government funding by the way. this is all based on private investment. it is going to be a job
killer -- is ridiculous. there is not a basis for it to take away jobs from americans and if that were the case i would question why you have seen thousands of laborers coming out, thousands of union workers coming out to support this project. there is official agreement with the labor unions about their jobs and what is going to be traded so they are behind this project. they have said even if it is half the amount of jobs they would be behind this project, temporary or not. that is what they need right now. they need some impetus to start the economy. >> host: let's take a look at the map of the transcanada keystone pipeline and as we do we will remind you about the numbers. republicans (202)737-0002 and democrats (202)737-0001 and an independent caller (202)628-0205. we are talking about the extension of the keystone pipeline which would run all the way through the united states.
the state department is the agency overseeing this which is interesting and that is because it is international and it runs through both canada and the united states so they are looking at whether not to approve this pipeline and the decision is expected by the end of the year according to "the new york times." let's get to the calls. st. joseph missouri, david is david is on our republican's line. good morning david. >> caller: that morning and i'm going to keep a civil tongue in my mouth right now. you know the main reason our economics is in such a turmoil and so bad is because the peopls you have got there. they have done everything to destroy our own independent sources that energy for their own gains for not fraudulent so-called green projects that have been proven to be nothing but fraud from day one. he made the same claims about
the alaskan pipeline and none of that garbage ever happen. happened. you know, because you people, we cannot build new refineries. we can modernize their refineries. we cannot drill with new technologies that are more environmentally friendly. we are not even supposed to tap our own coal resources even though we have got cleaned ways of burning that now, which you lie and say it is nonexistent. >> host: david let's get a response from our guest, damon moglen who was with friends of the earth. >> guest: i appreciate what the caller is saying about jobs. obviously they country is quite dire with jobs but what we must do is think there is a conflict between jobs and clean energy because there is an. here in the united states we produce 2.7 million jobs from clean energy. this is not about jobs or not and it is not about energy are not. we can have both of those by making big commitments to clean
energy and changing our pathway that we see as the cause of pipelines like this, the kalamazoo spill and for example the bp spill. that is also got to be factored into cost. >> host: let's look at the reaction the proposal is getting. this is a story from the "l.a. times." kim murphy reported on october 3 from nebraska. there've been public hearings across the area that would be affected. the source of new oil and thousands of jobs a a to drive n emotional fault line in the middle of the conservative heartland. any skepticism would quickly evaporate in the noisy bleachers at the west holt high school gymnasium. the proposed pipeline was ultimately defined by a corporation to exploit america a potentially perilous polluter of the nation's greatest freshwater resource. the answer to america's energy and security, generator the last great family wage jobs and oh
yes the dangers new instigator of global warming. cindy schild why has there have been this intense debate over this? >> guest: it is sort of amazing with the project of this nature. we authority than three years as an environmental review. the state department and dozens of local state environmental agencies, typically a project of this nature is 18 to 24 months. we are now looking to see if it is in the national interest and that is what these recent hearings have been about. i think you are really looking at the debate over the resource itself and getting additional oil from canada as opposed to the project and the pipeline. the pipeline is going to be the first project that will bring oil from canada down to the largest refining center in the gulf. are texas dates for example, they have invested in the infrastructure to be able to refine this cleanly. you are talking about refining
canadian oil in the united states. if you have two concerns about the environment where do you think it is going to be managed better, in the united states, in canada? this resource is being developed, so canada has interests, $50 billion in the past 18 months alone. you have many other countries following suit. oil by all forecast is going to be part of our energy equation for the next several decades. soap what is going to be supplying more than 50% of our energy, where are we looking out for our energy future holistically? >> host: let's ask damon moglen what is your response to the argument? >> guest: i think there's a huge controversy here in the fact is that ranchers and farmers feel the transcanada has heavy-handed tactics with them. they have used eminent domain threats to seize their land. the farmers and ranchers who rely on water feel that their water from the aquifer can be significantly endangered. they feel that their input is
not being taken seriously. they feel that in fact what is begun to be clear from the scandal around the state department handling of this case is that this is a sham process in which the state department has shown clear bias in complicity with transcanada and actually facilitating the permitting of this pipeline rather than regulating this industry and holding them accountable for the claims they are making. >> host: and what about this idea of drilling in the u.s.? >> guest: the fact of the matter is that this is about trying to get this oil into the export market. it is really not about where it is going to be done. is about trying to move oil from canada, from a landlocked situation to the state to a refinery in the gulf where they can then put it into the international market. this is no question about our energy. it is transcanada's profits. >> host: k. is on our independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning, 10 effect for the call.
i did watch the hearings in on the keystone pipeline. i did watch the meeting with the state department and i can't remember if it was thursday or friday but the reference to the name, this tar sands. i grew up in the gulf of mexico. when you dig your toes into the sand and inch, you reach far. it is toxic, it is poisonous, it is cause the tarballs that go up all the time and all the republicans in the tea party, want you listen to what the man says. eminent domain is an issue here. i also -- the supercollider once. my farm was taken by eminent domain. i asked the government to build a superconductor, supercollider but in the meantime, it cut my house off from the road because the land they took was part of
my property. this is an environmental disaster. the epa study or the study that the young lady from the oil petroleum company -- it was done by the oil lobbyists. please take into consideration that we have a bps bill and the line in canada has had several leaks. we have the oil leak in the keystone river. we cannot destroy our community, the farms, our water from 30 oil. >> host: let's get a response from our guests cindy schild with american petroleum. >> guest: thanks for your question in your concern and you know there are lots of issues that are being raised and obviously lots of strong feelings, beliefs and positions on this one. the reason that there has been this dialog, you know there's a hearing that you were able to see was one of nine and there
are many different positions on this. and you know, you talk of eminent domain. 90% of the landowners have already signed agreements. of course there are some that are going to have concerns about it and certainly there is some sympathy to that. in the broader picture when you mentioned the term tar sands versus oilsands, we are producing oil from this. we are not producing tar so there are mechanisms in how you take the mac share of the sand and clay and you get it out and use it did in a pipeline. it is no
history of the midwest from a tar sands pipeline, the ambridge pipeline in the area of kalamazoo marshall michigan and epa after one year still forcing the company to come up with a cleanup plan because what they are dealing with is kind of an oil and a kind of them are mental damage that they are not used to seeing. this poses very serious risks to the environment and public health. >> host: cindy schild there have been pipeline oil spills in alaska years. the one damon mentioned and kalamazoo michigan and outside of chicago, 275,000 gallons in the north dakota 126,000 gallons and 42,000 gallons in the yellowstone river of montana. >> guest: porting -- according to the state department conjunction with the department of transportation, transcanada has agreed to institute or implement 57 special conditions that would go above and beyond. they have been trying to work
also with the local areas and agencies to see what other requirements would he needed. they have special -- i am not the engineer, but there are special conditions on how you may operate to build in certain areas to be sensitive to the environment. so, they're going to have more monitoring, additional response mechanism so 57 additional and the state department environmental impact statement time and time again has said that they believe this would be a state-of-the-art pipeline. >> host: i think in west virginia and steve on our democrat line on our democrat line, good morning. go right ahead. >> caller: this is for the lady. you know, they talk about the pipeline going all the way across the united states. they are going to create jobs and do all this. why don't they build whole new things up in minnesota or michigan and then ship the oil
whereever they want to go instead of going all the way through the country so they can ship it out to china because china buys all of our oil and they will buy their steele. why can't they keep it in the united states where it belongs? that would make all kinds of new jobs. people would have all kinds of jobs, building all these new refineries up there and then they would truck it all. there's a big bunch of truck drivers that have jobs. why don't they think about that instead of trying to build a pipeline that is going to have leaks and going to leak everywhere all the way down through there because after years it deteriorates and it falls apart. host goes john asked on twitter, how much will the pipeline cost versus building a refinery? why not build a refinery? >> guest: there is a lot to this question i think. it is an excellent question and actually one that we have been talking about.
the oil market is the global market, so when you talk about building a pipeline down to the gulf, it is being done because that is where we have the refining capacity, the ability to process this oil. if we also have the infrastructure to be able to have flexibility in our system in the u.s., to get it to the east coast, to get it to the midwest by bringing it to the gulf, in answer to your question from the caller, you know, if there was incentive, the main motivation and drive was to just export this oil it really wouldn't make sense to invest in a pipeline all through the country down to the gulf just to export it. you would go to the west coast of canada. you would go to seattle. you would do something in that nature. it is cost prohibitive, so it just wouldn't make that sort of
and the corporate profits a transcanada. >> let's look at the numbers of existing keystone pipeline already in place. over 2000 miles ford and 35,000 barrels a day, the cost of $25.2 billion to build. the proposal is to extend it down to the united states, 1600 more miles and 500,000 barrels a day and that would cost about $7 billion. let's go to the phones and get grand rapids michigan in the conversation. joe, republican line, good morning. >> caller: good morning. my comment is, wonder how long we will put up with the democrats and environmentalists keeping us working poor, even poorer by not letting us do such things as the pipeline or trilling are building new refineries, because what the country needs are jobs and also the working poor like myself who get $75 a week for gas is a big
chunk out of my paycheck. that is my comment. thank you. >> guest: i very much appreciate the concerns of the caller. i think that is what a lot of folks across the country are worried about. one of the things that has been shown about this pipeline actually is that because of the late is going to move crude oil, there is a very great likelihood it is going to significantly raise gas prices in the midwest and 15 midwestern states from 10 to 20 cents a gallon. so i think that one of the things we have to be very concerned about is that in in the course of transcanada actually looking to manipulate costs in not only the national market for the international market, that in fact fuel prices are going to rise in the midwest and they are really going to be hard for working people to deal with. >> guest: it is not just democrats though assert collar is concerned about. the republican governor of nebraska has concerned. i'm looking here at a story from reuters. the governor urged the u.s.
president on wednesday, in august to block transcanada's planned pipeline from alberta to the gulf coast thing he could hurt a regional water source. >> guest: it is not a democrat versus republican issue and many supporters as you have, i'm sorry, as many opponents as you have you have supporters. you can look at the letters to the state department and where the participation of spin and certainly this has raised or risen above any level we have seen for a project of this nature from a policymakers standpoint that there is equal support. >> host: would he think about changing the direction of the route? reports talk about the concerns for the water supplied. tell us about that. >> host: . >> guest: we have had three rounds of the environmental assessment being conducted by the state department in conjunction with the epa coming conjunction with a local and state agencies and they have found that it is not a preferred
choice. no route is not a preferred choice and you look at the supplied that is being brought in to this country. this can create and in talking about the fact that you know, it is going to be -- have an impact on jobs and gas prices. the state department has found that it will not have an increase on gas prices in this country. the council of foreign relations has said that without having this resource development particularly with the accel pipeline will actually development and it is going to -- by depressing the production in canada it will raise the oil prices. this is bad for consumers. economic logic dictates that if you have an increase in supply comet is going to be good for the marketplace and we are getting it from canada at a time where our imports from
traditional nations that we have been importing from venezuela to mexico, and is declining. canada is already filling that gap. by 2020 we could have more than double what we import from persian gulf countries. that is amazing. there are so many of economic and if it's we can also get into if we have time. but we also aren't thinking about it. it is not just from one particular project. >> host: looking at "the new york "the new york times" is a sort nevins is a program which is safe like nebraska. ..
i think it takes us to the story that you were quoting from "the new york times" which is actually pointing out remarkably that the state department at the urging how your company which is a major client to what transcanada to conduct the environmental assessment. this is a classic example of putting the fact is in charge of the chicken house and it does help explain why the environmental assessment is so inadequate and why the epa has giving it a feeling agreed. >> we will get to the phones in just a moment but let's get reactions to the story from "the new york times" on saturday. the pipeline review has questions of conflict. the state department and signed an environmental study to a company with ties to the project
sponsor and the story starts saying the state department signed an important study for the proposed project pipeline project to a company with financial ties does this give you concern? >> guest: i'm not intimately familiar with which companies was actually hired to conduct this assessment, but from the standpoint of the thoroughness, again, there were three rounds. you were talking about certain companies if there's tyus you still have the opportunity for ample, and not just there have been three rounds of review, they're have been other hearings conducted in effect they didn't get a failing grade from the environmental protection agency. >> and the company is now part. >> guest: it is a company with
significant oil ties and has listed transcanada as one of the major clients. to how your company that has those ties to conduct this environmental impact is as the drafting is completely unacceptable, and the public realizes this is a conflict of interest and should never have happened. >> host: long beach california. frank, independently. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: yes, i would like to say i'm looking this from a different direction. i worked in an oil refinery for 16 years, and i worked in maintenance and that's just what we did. i lost a couple of good friends when a pipe erosion from a gas eight through a heater and brought it back and burned him alive on the job. i can remember when we filled a whole street from eroded pipelines and these were regular products. now we are talking about running
what is basically a liquid sandpaper through these types all the way from canada to texas, bury them under the ground so seepage will not be seen until what causes a great deal with problems. now these refineries -- and i worked in a number of them. i was in the richfield refinery for 16 years and they don't give a damn about it one way or the other about safety of the people oral about the safety of the product. we would dump the stuff we were supposed to haul away in the atmosphere -- that's the kind of people we are dealing with pity that refinery now belongs to bp and the people i know that still work there say that it's gotten a lot worse since the british petroleum has gotten it. >> host: let's get a response. >> guest: i certainly
apologize and show sympathy for that. it's a complex operation in managing and running a refinery, but to say that the industry does not take safety seriously, it is a top priority. unfortunately, the industry takes every measure to try to learn and improve that and by all respects, but i have seen in my interaction in 11 years in this institute is that there is great strides that are being made, standards are improve all the time to try to increase safety as well as awareness in any way that can be had, and, again, it is something that is taken seriously by the industry. speed the american petroleum institute where she is the defining issues manager. and friends of the earth, the climate and energy project director. let's here from alberta calling us from mexico city. good morning.
>> caller: good morning. first off i would like to say thank you to both guests for coming on the show. second, we need to understand that this pipeline is only as safe as much as we look at it and it's not going to be looked at often. i tell you right now just like the caller in what he said these corporate people don't care. they don't care about protection advanced refinery, whatever they say. they care about the money. that's all they care about. and i'm very concerned that we are going to forget that and be motivated by the to party and all that they do, and then at the bottom line we end up losing. so my question is what happens when all these standards are lost, and in 20, 15 years this thing busts horribly and you know, what happens at that point? what do they say, what can they
do? they can do nothing. thank you. >> guest: and thank the caller for his comments and experience at this. it's absolutely the case there are huge concerns not only about on the pipeline but for the civil many minority communities around the refinery where children have asthma, where there are incidences of cancer all linked to a refinery activity come as the fact of the matter is the choice of trying to refine this a little in the united states poses a significant additional public health burden on people in our country, and i think that that's also an unacceptable aspect of this. not only do we have transcanada during the oil to the united states to get refined air to get created problems but in turn it to be put into the export market simply to make profits for transcanada. host what about the argument that it's in the corporation's best interest to run a tight ship and have a successful pipeline? why wouldn't they do the best they can to ensure their product and that their reputations days
and attacked? >> guest: i think that the second to the last caller makes an important and the effect of the matter is these are important processes and accidents happen and the fact is the people who pay for those accidents are the working people nearby. >> host: what is your response? >> guest: the state department did not find that there would be additional input from the emissions at refineries, nor from construction or operation of the pipeline. so again, if you look at that assessment, the same standards apply when you are refining the this oil versus any other. the same environmental standards for the emissions are going to apply to the same same tool specifications are going to apply. regardless of where your leal is coming from the same standards applied throughout the practice
and the emissions are convertible when you look at it holistically to the other oil that we are already refining at some of the most of the ins refineries in the world. >> host: let's hear from tom, democratic caller in florida. good morning, tom. welcome to the program. >> guest: is it true this is a full face product and three of the fees is already complete? thank you. >> guest: thanks for your question. the construction hasn't begun. again they are ready as soon as the project of the labor agreements are there and the workers are digging for the work as soon as the decision is made and if it's positive for th approval nowhere but there are different components not just bringing the canadian oil there are two areas of production areas in the united states that would be able to lincoln to the pipeline to bring it down to the
gulf as well so you are also talking about u.s. production the would be added to the pipeline. >> guest: if i could make a comment to that that the call were is also picking up one of the remarkable story that has come out is a suit that has been filed at the end of last week in nebraska because transcanada has begun to do the ground clearing across nebraska in a way that suggests that a vigorous assuming this permit is going to be granted and that isn't supposed to be happening and it really speaks to the scandalous aspect of the relationship between the state department and transcanada. this the department has conducted a complicitous process. these remarkable e-mails released under the freedom of information act shows senior state department officials coach transcanada, provide inside information to transcanada and has had a kind of understanding with transcanada about how to pitch this to the public in a way that gives the permit most quickly and the process is
broken. >> guest: we can look at the other side and see. and the disclosure of information and communications throughout the process and the state department has claimed that it has been equal from a standpoint of meetings and a standpoint of information sharing. so the only information that has been released has been on one side and not the other which again is also typical in this type of scenario so the process itself has been extensive. it has been thorough and that is our position. >> host: here is the story the guests are talking about this is from forbes it is conservationist suit to the pipeline the associated press reports that u.s. officials illegally allowed a canadian company to begin preparing for its proposed 7000 mile-long oil pipeline
>> host: oklahoma city scott republican collar. good morning. >> caller: i want to add a bowl and put about constitutional matters here that should be what difference this the calls was created in the constitution to disallow the federal government as state governments for the free flow of commerce between the states and this is a classic example of commerce that is legitimate the government needs to stay out of it as much as possible and it is unconstitutional institution that has been set up by ironically republican president to impede interstate commerce and i called on congress to
abolish this harmful legislation and get rid of that agency if we have this harmful and unconstitutional regulation that we do from the federal government in this country we thought we wouldn't be talking much about canadian oil or energy sources from other countries talking about our own nuclear energy will or shale oil and whatever else our entrepreneurs were able to freely discover and distribute. >> guest: it has something to do with the pipeline in getting the state department approval. i think again if you like me i haven't said enough of a different impact that we have to deal with american people and consumers with this resource whether you're talking energy security and flexibility can debate the exact numbers with a come from the standiford or one side or another and we come from the country's already in play
with people already employed you want to look at it another way would you look a bit from the standpoint that the u.s. spends on canadian goods this is coming from canadian as well as american government. you don't have a sort of trade relationship when you are treating from other countries and when you want to be relying on oil from other foreign countries human to be importing or leal from canada it just makes sense because it is being produced and will be refined and managed better here where we can bring jobs to americans than it will if we are sending them to china. >> host: to systems to much regulation. you agree with that? do you believe these unfair medal in pacts have taken too long? >> guest: if you say the secrecy taken too long it is just one more day of a job isn't being brought to america. that from that standpoint but for too long there is no one who could really judge or assess that because the time they felt
was necessary. you are working on an industry that is so heavily regulated and has so many standards and that will apply regardless of the oil that you're putting into the pipeline. >> guest: he raises an interesting point about the responsibilities of the local and state authorities and part of this is that actually states do have the right to be making decisions about fleeing the pipeline across their own and territory which is exactly what the government nebraska and many of the state senators are now calling for a special session in the state's to pass a law that would actually stop this pipeline from going across nebraska. democrat, republican alike are saying they are really concerned about the environmental damage and public health damage the pipeline could cause in the state. >> host: as we get details from the associated press on with the extension would entail,
the 36-inch pipeline. will be buried 4 feet below dry ground, 25 feet below the major rivers and 5 feet below the waterways. >> host: space independent line in minneapolis. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm going to side with transcanada because i have worked on the pipeline on a company that lead pipe. i know the employ 300 people across and the 300 miles that really and they are the most professional with transcanada has great care the land that we have worked and lead the fight in and we turn back to its original state and that it is just a safe process and [inaudible] promoting the pipeline and i
would be happy to go back to work on the pipeline when it gets started up. that's all i've got. they are a great company and i expect them to make money off the pipeline. that's all. >> guest: thank you. that's also another good point. when you talk about a company making a profit it shouldn't be a dirty word. look at what is happening in the investments made and when you make money on the company you then have to invest to ensure you can have safe operations. you have to do maintenance. this is where the money goes and you also can't forget about what goes back to investors. so, the industry itself is doing its part. we have the ability to employee a lot more people, but we need effective policies to be able to do that. if you look at forecasts we would be able to provide 100% of our liquid fuel needs and north america.
that's incredible but we need the policies to do that and we need approval so we have the policy of the jobs to bring the gas to consumers. >> host: damon moglen? >> guest: i appreciate your comments as well. i hope everyone working on the pipeline can be as serious and as committed as you are. i think the fact of the matter is what we see unfortunately is that there have been very significant problems with the pipelines so far. as mentioned for example the keystone pipeline had 14 spills. we now look at this bill outside of kalamazoo in michigan. this is the worst spill in the western history. it is creating an environmental crisis in the area coming in one year out we still don't have an idea how to clean it up and the epa is saying to the dynamics of this bill are different than what they are used to and locals are saying the same things of the issue is this poses a significant environmental and public health risk and that's why people are so scared of.
rezko we have a question on twittered and goes on the handle of the gop asks how many american people would be affected if the oil spill cards or drinking water? >> guest: about protecting the in balance of the environmental bill. >> guest: something we do have to look at holistically. looking at the report again, the assessment there is the findings are that there wouldn't be significant impact now. there's concerns of all the thousands of miles of pipeline running through this region and you are going to have the extra conditions in place and have the reason these will be instituted and created will be to provide for quick response. no one wants an incident to happen if it is as you have the
ability to respond more efficiently and you are talking about pipelines being the most efficient mode of transportation. so as opposed to having additional trucks on the road, etc.. >> guest: i think that these documents that have been released under the freedom of information act of a lot of endorsing information and one of them for example is transcanada sent the state department which specifically says that although they say no accident will have indeed been say that actually if the wells were told they would simply provide people with alternative water and i think people in nebraska for what the midwest know that you cannot make up for what would be the damage to the aquifer that provides millions of people with water. >> host: phyllis from tucson arizona, democratic scholar. good morning. >> caller: i have a few issues with this concerned maybe we are going in the wrong direction.
we have destroyed enough of our country, and i don't know, i just think it's like a corporate greed and people that are paid off and lobbyists are just kind of running over us as usual and they are going to get their way and i think this is regardless of how much we site they are going to get what they want. i'm just afraid it's going to be a bad thing. the point he made about kalamazoo one year out not cleaning it up scarcely. and west virginia the last time the mountaintop removal, that's all i need to see. our country does not look the same as it did 20 years ago. it's all about money and corporate greed. >> host: if i can ask you a question what do you think about the need to create jobs? does that way into your take on this project? >> caller: i don't believe they are going to create that
many jobs. it is the republican argument for the last year and there is no jobs. i don't believe it. they've never done anything except their own benefit. >> host: let's leave it there and get a response from our guest. >> guest: i'm not sure exactly where the question was. thank you for the concern. you are expressing a lot today we are hearing throughout this process, and ultimately it's got to be a decision that right now they are looking to see if it is in the nation's interest. one of the aspects will be the environmental considerations, but other things have to be about our energy future, about supplies. another thing i certainly hear about all the time i'm sure everyone else does whether you are at home with your family were out in a discussion with gas prices and this has the
ability to end supply to the market and it is only going to be did good to consumers in the supply flexibility of what we are going to be able to have an hour infrastructure system, so we do have to look at a balance and we will need all forms of energy for the foreseeable future, and we cannot preclude one that is providing a 50% of our energy needs. >> host: let's go to bill, republican in las vegas nv. good morning. >> caller: i'm glad this debate or discussion is happening, and i think most of the people showed up to discuss it but what i see it as the beebee is going to be born simply because there is too much money involved. the real the de turenne discussion i think will come over what penalties there will be once the environmental impact occurs. so in curious what the guy from friends of the earth seems to
have prepared to propose to congress or what ever to make sure that the oil companies pay their share when those the germans over so media can answer that. thanks. >> guest: well, bill, thank you for the question to read i'm not sure it has been born. the fact of the matter is that the tarzan's polis controversy all over the world as you may have heard from a sample last week the european commission actually after a year of studying has decided to give tarzan's a ferry - kind of greeting which in all likelihood means that it's not going to be exported into the european market. so i think what we see is actual opposition to the dirty and dangerous oil around the world and its growing in the united states as you see tda so i guess i'm not convinced that this is an industry that is going to have a future. i think it's not.
i don't think the pipeline is going to be built. i think the scandal that is now surrounding state department and transcanada is going to have an impact and we are going to have to start the process again and the president is going to have to intervene. as for the liability issue if he has a hugely important issue. on the british petroleum spill we do not have anything like the meaningful liability in the country for these kind of disasters. what we've really see is working people throughout the gulf of their livelihoods destroyed, have had their homes destroyed and have really seen their future kind of evaporate under a coat of oil and i think that you are asking a hugely important question who is really going to pay? >> host: what is your rebuttal to how it is made and who suffers or deals with the after effect if there is? >> guest: we do have legal ability this country in lawsuits
and money is being paid from the peace bill but certainly that is not going to compensate for the incident itself and the damage that was done. every effort was made to do the best unprecedented and certainly something again that the industry has gathered together to improve standards to make it better to operate more safely in the gulf, but as far as compensation that is addressed within our legal system, and each of those lawsuits are being worked out with the company themselves. >> host: transcanada says the keystone pipeline project is 9% of the total u.s. oil consumption equal to the u.s. imports from saudi arabia. let's go to a question from robert on the twittered. if they are 4 feet underground how do they detect leaks? he wants to know how the monitoring is done. how do companies that run
pipeline make sure the pipelines are intact? tell us about that. >> guest: i wish i had my colleagues here who could give you a really good answer to this but really what you are looking at is the type of seals, the type of monitors and the amount of monitors that are used. there's different stops along the way from the station, so there are the systems themselves called the leak detection mechanism. beyond that, we would be happy to follow up if he wants more specifics on the engineering design and control measures. >> host: do want to weigh in on the engineering? >> guest: the caller asks an extremely important question. when we saw what happened with this bill in kalamazoo, the michigan split first the oil company basically said we may have lost a few thousand gallons. in fact over 800 thousands were killed and one of the reasons it has been so hard to get a grip
on a is exactly this problem that once you drill down and put the pipes down its very hard to know what's being spilled into where this bill which is going so this is one of the critical environmental issues and why it will of questions have been raised for example but the fact that transcanada plans on increasing the pressure in the pipeline after this is built which has been a huge bone of environmental contention and that is one of the aspects in the scandal because apparently this department knew about that. >> host: and on the independently. good morning. >> caller: good morning and please don't cut me off because this is very important. i got up for this this is important. i take note of all of your shows and i took notes june 11th, 2010 on the larry king show that at all averse stone and they were really fired up about the situation and i wish that they had been on for the whole hour.
i couldn't wait to see the oliver stone document south of the border. i forgot to write down what it was going to be in the movie theater or on tv but i haven't heard mentioning of it since and i would like to know why president obama couldn't sidestep congress in this situation and start working with hugo chavez. i had heard that the u.s. was offered help from other countries in obtaining oil and were turned down. now who is the decider in this blunder and what good is the president if he can't preside over congress in an emergency situation like stopping this pipeline? isn't that where the title president comes from? converse takes too damn long in deciding on these decisions and it's time for the president to take action, sidestepping and get his word in there and if not i think that it's time for a president like -- i got a new one in here now mr. dr. brzezinski who was the
author. i saw him just by accident on tv, i was surfing and he is a man who could be a combination of john xxiii, fdr and eisenhower, president eisenhower who warned us against the military-industrial complex. >> host: can you leave it there because we are out of time but your question to damon moglen. the president to take action? >> guest: i think he raised a very important point here. the president has to take action now. in the scandal it's been clear the state department of the highest level including secretary clinton herself while she was supposed to be overseeing a fair and objection process said that she is of the mind to go ahead and then it came out of it basically one of the lead lobbyists for transcanada is none other than one of her former campaign managers. there has been terrible by use of the state department complicity transcanada the state department has in fact coached
transcanada, and the president now needs to step in and take this process and the decision away from the state department and we need to be doing this in a different way. >> host: what is your take on that? >> guest: it is not up to congress. this is up to the state department and potential ultimately the president and it is time for action. it is trying to bring the jobs that can be had and the ability to take a step toward improving our economic situation, and we really hope we see this and use of the support that was out there that you're american workers of how badly they are looking for this and not just a workers for the pipeline, the expanded communities themselves they are begging for this to happen and we need the president to say yes to the pipeline. >> host: the state department held its last hearing on the proposed project, numerous hearings across the country. finally to wrap up where do things stand now? the expect to have a decision on this by the end of the year but
what are you watching for the next couple of months? >> guest: first of all where we are right now the environmental statement impact has all been completed. there has been a comment period the agencies have to weigh in and the scandal has to be addressed that shows the state to put it has been by yes in doing this document and that we have to have a national interest to determination to decide whether or not this is truly in the national interest given the public health and environmental danger. we have a long way to go before we have a decision here the president has to not become directly involved. >> host: what are you watching for? >> guest: waited for a positive outcome at the end of the year. we believe that the environmental assessment has been a thorough assessment of and appreciate all of the concerns and i think the state department has done a good job in attempting to balance the concerns and then they have had nine hearings throughout the process and it's been three years on the environment they have 90 days to take a look at the national interest.
this project is in the nation's interest whether you talk about jobs, energy security or surprise flexibility and see that by the support that you have from american workers out there waiting to have the jobs created for them immediately if there is a sign off of approval. >> host: the american petroleum institute and damon moglen with friends of the earth, thank you so much to both of you. >> our coverage on the oil pipeline coverage continues with the state department final hearing looking at transcanada's 7 billion-dollar plan. you will hear remarks from those who are for and against the proposal. the state department is expected to make their final decision by the end of the year. this is four hours and ten minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, good morning. it is just after 10:00 so let's go ahead and get started.
my name is jim steele from the bureau of oceans environment and science at the u.s. department of state. my colleague, maryruth coleman as from the department bureau of economic and business affairs. we are here today to listen to your comments regarding the national interest termination for the proposed keystone pipeline. the state department has committed to a transparent impartial and rigorous process to determine whether the proposed keystone kl pipeline project is in the national interest. as part of the national interest determination process, the department is following a process that is defined by law and executive order. that includes input from eight federal agencies, experts in a relevant subjects and the public. this broad evaluation of the application extends beyond
environmental impact. it takes into account economic energy security, foreign policy and other relevant issues. last week the state department held eight public meetings in the states through which the pipeline would run, plus this one today in washington, d.c.. in order to hear as many views as possible. thousands of americans participated, and those that didn't have the opportunity to speak can submit written comments that will become a part of the official record until october 9 at midnight. we have also met with people representing diverging views including ngos, civil society organizations, other interest groups, native americans and other interested parties. on behalf of the department of state we would like to thank you for joining us this public meeting. we recognize this is an important issue and we value your input.
as i said, the purpose of this meeting is to provide a venue for members of the public to express their views with issuing a presidential permit before the proposed keystone kl pipeline is in the national interest. to focus time and intention on your comments, we will be listening to you today rather than answering questions. we appreciate the interest of everybody in this room to take the time to share your perspective on this issue. we take your comments seriously, and we will consider them carefully. given the interest in this issue, it may not be possible for everyone in attendance to speak. if you do not have the opportunity, you can provide your written comments on the back of the sheet of paper that you got when you came in, and you can leave those comments with us here at the back of the room. there is a table right over there to collect your comments, or you can submit your written
comments by mail, by fax, e-mail or online. i reiterate, we need to have those comments by midnight on october 9th. we understand there are strong views and feelings about this issue. this meeting provides an opportunity for you to express your views but we ask you to to respect the rules we have established so we can hear from as many as he was possible. we ask that you are fair and respectful to everyone who's taking the time to come to this public meeting to present his or her views. before we begin we both like to describe the department of state's role of the presidential permitting process and further to lay out the ground rules on this particular meeting. >> good morning. in september, 2008, transcanada keystone pipeline filed an application for a presidential permit for the proposed keystone
xl pipeline. executive order 1337, signed on april 30th, 2004, delegates to the department of state the authority to issue a presidential permit for facilities such as the proposed keystone xl pipeline that crossed the u.s. border. in considering a permit, the department of state determines whether the border crossing is in the u.s. national interest. taking into account environmental and safety concerns as well as energy security, foreign policy and social and economic matters. in addition to the executive order, the department of state determined because of the proposed pipeline's importance that it should evaluate the
pipeline's environmental and safety impact consistent with the national environmental policy act or nepa to the congress provide an environmental impact statement consistent with nepa to evaluate the proposed pipelines potential environmental and safety impact. in preparing the environmental and picked statement over the past two and a half years, we have conducted some 40 some public meetings along the pipeline route and in washington, d.c. to gather public comments and to develop the scope and the draft of the impact statement. on august 26th, we released the final environmental the impact statement which addresses the more than 250,000 comments from
the public comment period. the final environmental impact study is just one factor to be considered in the review process. it does not represent the final decision for our final decision on the permit application. now, as we move into the national interest determination, the department of state is compiling additional information to determine if the proposed keystone xl pipeline is in the u.s. national interest and decide whether or not to grant the permit. this meeting is part of that effort. >> in order to maximize public participation and to be fair to all meeting participants, we ask that you abide by these rules of order. we hope to have the opportunity to listen to everyone who wishes to speak, the but that may not have been paid to make it a little bit more likely, we are
going to have to allow or give you a maximum amount of time of three minutes so please limit your time to three minutes at the conclusion you will see a sign that says thank you. at that point in time pleased to wrap up your comments so that we can hear from as many speakers as possible. and again, certainly if you don't have time to finish your comments, or if you cannot give your comments during the meeting, please do leave written comments at the table or the sheet of information that you gough when you came in provides addresses by mail, online or e-mail or her facts for you to submit your comments. we will consider all such comments whether we hear them orally or get them in written form. speakers will make their comments on a first-come, first-served basis by assigned
number having personally signed in at the door. after a speaker ends the next number and name will be called and it's possible that we will go ahead and call up to four speakers at a time just to kind of make it a little bit quicker. we can't really anticipate exactly how long each person is going to speaks of it is not possible to say yes, you will be up in one hour so you need to be here and pay attention to where we are in on the order. when your number is called, we ask that you come to the microphone, state your name and affiliation and spell your last name for the court reporter and offered your comments. again, as you speak you will be timed for your three minute intervals. a car will be displayed when you have one minute remaining and then again when your time is up. we do ask that you finish your comments in the allotted time. as i noted, all comments made here today will be transcribed,
will be recorded and transcribed by a court reporter and they will become a part of our process of determining this. written comments, again, accepted until midnight on october 9th. it's a part of state officials are here to listen to your comments so that they can be considered so this is not a question and answer or information session. we understand there are strong views on this issue and we ask in fairness to everyone concerned those that choose to speak be allowed to do so without interruption. we request further no displays or signs be posted in the room. please keep your remarks to three minutes and please come and be respectful of other speakers. i would ask also that you turn your cellphone off or put them into the silent setting. our plan is to conclude this meeting at 2 p.m.. i wish to stress once again that the department of state hasn't
made a decision on this matter. this meeting is a part of the process that will contribute to that. we think you for your interest and for coming to this meeting. one more reminder of the fire marshal has noted that it would be appreciated if people read grandstanding in the back go ahead and find a seat and sit down and see to this possible. most people are doing that so thank you. again, thank you for your interest and for coming to this meeting. we would like to start the proceedings with the first two speakers. i will go ahead and call for for speakers. please, number one, sarah kaj and, number two is mora, number four is jennifer. please. >> ready? >> good morning. my name is sarah,
h-o-d-g-e-d-o-n director of the conservation club, the nation's largest environmental grassroots organization. the sierra club and ever one pond 4 million members and supporters do not believe the keystone xl tar sands pipeline is an initial interest. working in an incredibly diverse and a broad coalition of groups across the could united states in canada we have reviewed the final in frear metal assessment conducted by the state department. we've looked into transcanada's record and listen to thousands of community members, farmers and ranchers from across the midwest and texas all to come to the same conclusion time and time again that the tar sands pipeline is a bad deal for america. the purpose of the pipeline is to deliver profits for foreign oil company transcanada.
evin canadians have rejected the pipeline project citing the massive environmental and public health risk that it poses. but transcanada is asking u.s. ranchers, farmers and landowners to shoulder the burden so they can pump their dirty tar sands through the heartland. it is simply not in our national interest to ask american land owners and business owners to forfeit their property to a foreign company while bearing the risk of toxic oil spilled onto precious farmland and into the drinking water source for millions of americans. the opposition to the keystone is strong and continues to grow and for good reason. transcanada's pipeline would create more toxic fumes and pollution from the refining process of this heavy and highly corrosive oil and the risks of a pipeline burst or spill into the drinking water sources and on to farmlands are not a matter of if
but when. the americans who live along the proposed pipeline route understand what transcanada's pipeline would do to their communities and not surprisingly the are vehemently opposed. we've heard nebraskan centers to become senators criticized the pipeline and the governor of nebraska asked the president to reject the permit of light. sierra club members have sent hundreds of thousands of comments to the state department urging you to reject this permit for this dirty dangerous and unnecessary pipeline. dollar for dollar investments in renewable energy jobs create more jobs and investments than fossil fuel infrastructure. those are the types of investment that we should be making and promoting. we have the technology today to start reducing our dependence on oil, deepening our dependence on the dirty nist source of oil on the planet is simply not in the national interest.
>> thanks for the state department for hosting this hearing. my name is mora at the energy coalition. we are a 200,000 young voters as our members and people across this country who are vehemently in opposition to expansion of the speed of pipeline and are asking president obama to intervene and immediately revoke or denying the presidential permit. we represent 50 organizations of whom work with young people on climate and energy issues in the one in particular the indigenous environmental network whose people everyday are facing that harvick impact oil drilling of the pipeline in their communities and they are sick and dying because. we appreciate that you say that the state department hasn't made a decision yet on this issue but in fact we don't believe you.
e-mails detail a relationship between transcanada and the state department that in fact suggest they might be collaborating on the lobby efforts and we think the department of justice needs to intervene immediately. [applause] transcanada has already broken fall in the process. they are a lobbyist paul eliot is not currently registered to represent international corporation but in fact that is what he is doing and once again the department of justice to intervene and immediately investigate that. transcanada and the state department are lobbying to the american public right now by claiming that this is a matter of energy independence when in fact we know that it is an export pipeline. a key customer of the pipeline has already detailed inexpert strategy to its investors.
this is of a major stakeholders that will benefit profit perspective include royal dutch shell and the saudi arabian government. so this is in fact another project to pump the profit of the middle east and we should pretend it's nothing else and will not help the american economy. fuel prices will spike in 15 states according to the cornell university global labor institute because of the sideline. beyond that, this is a moral issue for the state department to consider. right now you are faced with a choice to stand up and work with the american people to protect our heartland from pollution to ensure the health care cost along the pipeline route don't spike to ensure that our future isn't compromised or will you allow the cronyism that is apparently rampant in the state department to continue by siding
with big oil and transcanada and allowing the wires of transcanada to be perpetuated once again we are asking president obama to intervene immediately and deny the pipeline. [applause] my name is ethan moss with the energy action coalition and every day i wake up and work for a vision in this country of 100% clean energy economy to create jobs for my generation. when my generation is facing the largest unemployment since the great depression. make this country a leader in clean energy technology that we can export across the world and create jobs here at home. i stood in line 14 hours to testify today in a month ago i participated -- i sacrificed my civil liberties to participate in a peaceful sit-in in front of
the white house and was arrested for those actions. i did this because my future is at stake. the future of my generation rests on the decision for state department. this pipeline will be cut across indigenous lands and my home state of kansas and i can't stand it. this is not within the national interest of the united states one is because the threat of global climate change. the leading climate scientist has said if we have tar sands oil and burnet it will be game over for the global climate. when they've military itself talks on global climate change being the single greatest threat to the national security even above that terrorism we simply can't allow this to happen and have this threat. second because of the health impact. last year alone in the current pipeline 14 leaks have already happened. because the health impacts of my
friends in the communities and as she said are getting sick and dying i can't watch it happen any longer. because we are being misinformed about the job, the cornell labor institute did a recent study saying that the promise will only come to a figure of about 3,000. because the current estimates do not calculate factors such as the increase in gas prices we know we will see the risk of the oil spill and the detrimental health effect on our local community. and in fact, the lead local jobs that we will see will be between 500 to 700. local communities will be bearing all of the environmental risk, all of the health risk and getting none of the job. but we have now is a foreign company using foreign material to pump foreign oil through america's heartland when we can do better for the home grown vision of american energy, a good union paying jobs in this
deal mills across the united states and creating the millions of jobs for my generation that we need. we can do it and make the united states a global leader and in our addiction to oil. it starts here today with your decision by firmly coming out against and rejecting the keystone xl pipeline. moscow [applause] the shrek >> good morning. thank you. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. my name is jennifer hoffsterman the neyer of pleasanton california and i along with fellow mayors john of wisconsin and frank county of des moines iowa have started gathering names and signing on in support of saying no to this dirty pipeline. why do they care? because we are on the ground and
we are directly responsible for our constituents and citizens and america. my day often starts with counseling family whose son was killed in afghanistan because of our reliance on foreign oil. my day then goes on to working with safety, fire, police, ensuring that the health and safety of my community ought while addressing intention reform in a way without beating people up it starts with making sure the trash gets picked up and potholes' get filled and the end of the day on the purchase from ogle six i have people with their finger at me and say what are you doing about this problem were you doing about this to protect our national resources. what are you going to do as the director in the area of quality management district to clean up our air in the state of california in this country would
what are you going to do is the co-chair of the water council for the united states conference of mayors to preserve our drinking water and the water that we use to grow our food? that's my job and i will tell you that as of late last night we have 50 mayors who signed on to a letter which we will be sending after we gathered a few hundred more which are not going to be difficult over the coming couple of weeks to ask the president of the united states to deny this permit. we have a lot of people in this room who need work. [applause] we need to create jobs in this country and the way to create jobs is bypassing the american jobs act. we need to pour money into the infrastructure improvements in this country so we can put people to work good pay and long term jobs. that is my message. thank you. [applause]
i would like to call deborah white bloom, number six, thomas meijer, number seven, betty campbell and number eight, ruth caplan, please. >> and you can also use the other party and if you wish, whichever one is closer to you, please. >> good morning. my name is deborah whitebloom from the prime rich reservation, the great lakota nation. and here today to tell president obama come the great white father and the government of the united states of america that we do not want this pipeline in our 1868 fort laramie treaty territory, the treaty that was ratified by the united states congress by ending the document of law. we have under the united nations the right of the indigenous people which requires prior
informed consent before any mining or desecration of land in the water can occur in our territory. we did not give prior consent for transcanada to bring this pipeline through our beloved mother earth in our area in the country. this pipeline will cross our border pipeline on the prime ridge reservation, rosebud reservation. these are the only people one mother earth we have no island we can send for more people if more people are killed off by this oil contaminating our only drinking water source it would across hundreds of surface water river. we believe that it is against mother earth and it is against our sacred water and we cannot have this in our territory. we are ghosh human beings and we
get the silent standing we are a part of the environment. there is no line separating human beings from the environment. i stand here today to ask the great white father to say no to this pipeline for him to defend our people come and defend our water and plants, say no to the pipeline that is killing the people when the oil comes from the nation in canada this is genocide for first nation people. the american people shouldn't have to choose between jobs and wrecking the environment for ever for the coming generation. so why ask you all to remember the word [inaudible] it means all my relation we are all related on mother earth we need to stand together now because mother earth is crying. the prophecy tells us when we stand up and fight for her she will buy and we will die with her so i ask everyone to
>> we urge president obama to deny transcanada. as young people from all around the united states, we expect our leaders to stand up for a livable future. united states needs to start showing some real climate leadership by recognizing the facts of the keystone pipeline. the oil is far dirtier than other types of oil, and the risks involved of transporting it across the country are outweighed only by the global consequences of burning it. please say no and say no to the pipeline. thank you. [applause] >> good morning, thank you for this opportunity. i realize i'm a minority here, but i support the keystone exxon
pipeline. [applause] i am from the indian reservation in north central montana where i was born 76 years ago. my husband and i have been ranching there since 1964. i still am an active cattle rancher and raise quarter horses. i do my own arrogating and put up my own hay to care for my cattle. i was in education for 35 years. the first 20 years, i taught on and off the reservation, the last 15 of those 35 years, i was elementary school principal in the hay lodge pole schools on the reservation. today, in addition to ranching,
i'm on the cooperative board where i served for 13 years, the majority of that time as the secretary treasurer of that board. my husband, bud, was innative american, a proud native american. he enlisted in the army when he was barely 17 years old. of course, he was not my husband then. he did his basic training in the philippines, and he was there when world war ii started. after months of jungle fighting, he was captured on the peninsula on april 9th, 1942, and he spent the next three and a half years in captivity in japanese prison camps. they were starved, beaten, worked slave labor. they didn't know if anyone knew where they were if they were alive yet, but bud never lost faith in america or his love for america.
this keystone pipeline is a good project for america. this is the america that bud fought for, believed in it, and loved. this will provide billions of dollars in tax revenues to the states and counties along the pipeline corridor to help fund education that is so important to our youth, society, and our future. the large electricity loads to fund the pipeline served by rural electric cooperative helps stabilize rates for all, and that's particularly important for our reservation where the poverty rate is so high. i spent most of my adult life on indian reservations in montana, and i know native americans were the original environmentalists. they republicked the earth. they -- they respected the earth, only
took what they needed, and wasted nothing. this keystone pipeline will be safe. there are many more safety features built into this one than the ones that are now in existence in operating. >> can you finish up, please. you hit your three minutes. >> yes. >> thank you. >> i support this because i have children, grandchildren, more than two dozen great grandchildren. i could not support anything i thought would damage the environment or jeopardize their future. i'm a rancher and farmers and ranchers are the ultimate conservationists. our life depends on the way we look after the land. i'm strong and independent woman, i value strength and independence. >> okay, thank you very much. for the record, you're betty campbell. >> thanks. [cheers and applause] [applause]
>> i'm giving my place to mike clink to speak about the keystone inspection process. >> hello. thanks for allowing me to speak. i'm the former inspector, i'm a civil engineer that worked -- >> state your name please. >> mike klink, k-l-i-n-k. >> do you have an afghanistan? an affiliation? >> with myself, how about that. >> okay. >> i wanted to talk about the project that keystone did on the first one in north and south dakota. i witnessed several glares construction errors, poor concrete construction, reenforcing rod that was outside of the structure, wrote all of this up, sent it to the main
contractor, who was the construction that went to transcanada. it was frozen up, concrete, several times that transcanada viewed the work, said it's okay, it's not middle of nowhere, don't worry about it. they covered it up and went on. my integrity says we can't do that. we can't allow things to be built that are not according to the proper plans and specifications. the led and pump station that had the largest leak was -- is actually on an island in narks surrounded by wetlands. we watched the destruction of wetlands while they did construction. no regard for them. reported them as environmental problems. transcanada did nothing. they didn't care. then we get the piping. the piping had all come from china. what about the jobs that were lost in the united states?
our steel mills. we need those jobs here. the, you go to weld-under-par the pipe, and it -- weld under the pipe, and it splits and breaks. they give us reports saying the pipe is good. the problem is none of us could read chinese. please, if nothing else, before you decide on this, adopt quality standards, and i know you may not have them right now, you think youth don't, but the nuclear regulatory commission does have them. give them a chance to build something that's right, regulated, welling procedures, and maybe, just maybe, there won't be 14 leaks in the first year. one of the worst disasters of a pipeline in history. thank you very much. [applause] >> i'd like to call, please, number nine, anita parlow,
number ten, number 11, and number 12, please. >> good morning, and thank you very much. i'm anita parlow with alparlow and associates at sustaintheglobe.com. thank you very much for allowing me to present briefly my thoughts regarding the administration's decision to approve or decline the permit that allows for transcanada to build the 1700 mile tar sand pipeline and the keystone xl that traverses the american heart land from canada before reaching port arthur on the texas gulf coast. i understand the concerns right now are whether this would be in the national interest, and i appreciate that you view
national interests in a variety of complex ways. given that the proposed pipeline would cross amongst other countries, might i note other native american theology asks that every significant decision regarding land or the utilization of natural resources be made with the consideration of potential impacts for seven generations yet to come. the core issue is whether it's in the interest of the united states to approve the permit to allow transcanada to transport 830 barrels a day of canadian tar sands. my own perspective on whether the united states grants the permit to transcanada is based on two concerns. first, the decision be made within the context of energy security moving forward, and second, that if a favorable decision is made, the administration along with transcanada and other business interests would fully incooperate this into the permits to assure an appropriate range of protection and disaster
response capabilities that would support the environment, water, human and community risks. my own experience on these matters draws from a come combination of my advanced degree in law and social speedometer and my recent work in a variety of locations in the americas, in africa, central asia, and most recently on a bp related project on the u.s. gulf coast where community recovery, particularly in the seafood industry, was at stake. the bp still and the ongoing aftermath offers a look into what can happen if this is not done. the 1700 mile pipeline could be a fault line into the 2012 election, but whatever the lead up or outcome, the transcanada should be treated on its own terms rather than the political football. my remarks focus on regulatory and other limitations that the administration should require before issuing a permit should a permit be issued. not to say that some of these
issues were not zeused in your eis, but what we learned after the bp spill was that there were quite a lot left undone, unnoticed, unattended or insignificant capabilities. a gentleman waiting in line made a clear that 20% unemployment amongst workers counts for something in terms of the determination of whether or not the permit would be issued, however, a question raised by several persons here is another question and aspect of energy security of whether the tar sands oil is used for domestic consumption, a pass through for experts. >> can you go ahead and complete your remarks please. >> i'd like to say in the new book, they noted the u.s. is becoming a country that transnational corporations hover over rather than identify with. the other,s that i think are quite significant would be leaks and spill issues, imminent doe
nan, and up to date disaster response capabilities bringing in local communities that could be affected or impacted by a disastrous spill or pipeline break down that might o kir. in conclusion, whatever, before the administration should decide to grant a permit, the government must go beyond the call. it must consider all view points and above all, develop a regulatory monitoring and disaster capability including local communities to assure to the extent possible that a bp style disaster is not waiting in the wings. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> thanks to steve jobs, i have a timer i can use. [laughter] thank you, steve. i traveled here from terry, montana, a proud citizen, no stake in the pipeline. my wife and i traveled here 22 miles,2200 miles.
22 miles to get from here to the airport. i am a petroleum industry analyst, proud to be in the industry for 52 years. worked for unical for 22 years. i was there at the santa barbara oil spill, and i cleaned up my share of birds. i was not proud of it. i saw what it caused us to have at that point became the iranian oil cut off, and no energy policy. this keystone xl pipeline will help us get at least back to the americas because we have lost in three wars and many conflicts, 150,000 of american lives fighting for foreign oil to get it here because the exxon-mobile and other companies i worked for can want afford to follow all the regulations and anything that's been passed along to
follow the rules that we need to have in order to have the clean environment that the american indian, native american just spoke about. transcanada is accused of manipulating oil price, and i am here to tale you that no one ole company can do that. we have the gold man sachs and the morgan stanleys and hedge funds and wall street banks which these people are protesting doing it quite well, thank you, and they are making money. we will, in fact, save money on the pipeline because guess who makes the money now transferring the oil from south dakota to eastern montana and three oil fields. the burlington, the northern, and the santa fe. you know who owns that? warren buffet. will he make so much money he'll give up his 20% to president
obama? i think he will. you know what? i love it. it's industry. it's capitalism. it's good. he's making money, and it's good for him, but this pipeline will make money for us. the last thing i wanted to say is if my time's not up, i asked the question at a meeting, how many people here came in on a fossil fuel vehicle. out of 500, zero people that actually came in anything owner a fossil fuel vehicle. my time is up. i appreciate it. let's get it to president obama and approve the pipeline now. [audience reacts] >> can we move along, please?
i'd like to call mr. steven brukner please. excuse me, can you sit down, please? also, those in the back that are standing, there's seats in the front, and the fire marshall would appreciate people remaining seated. >> good morning. i'm steven brukner, b-r-u-c-k-n-e-r. i speak in ob #* -- opposition of the pop -- pipeline because the canadian oil industry's proposal is against the economic interests of americans, specifically the farmers and consumers. the oil economists, professor from the university of call gary states building the pipeline would increase the fuel costs of u.s. farmers by $2.6 billion in 2013. it would increase the food costs
throughout the u.s. because farmers' fuel costs are passed through the consumers. it increases the gas and diesel prices by 10 cents a gallon. therefore, the building of this pipeline increases the price to $5 billion a year. how would this happen? at the current time, the tar sands oil is shipped to refineries in illinois and oklahoma. these refiners pay $15 less than the global price because the tar sands oil is in over supply. this reduced price benefits midwest farmers and consumers. if the keystone pipeline is built, the oil will be shipped to refinders in the gulf coast, and from there, the resulting gasoline and diesel is exported to europe and south america where it fetches the $15 per barrel higher global price. since the canadian oil companies receive the higher price by
exporting, they reduce the supply into the u.s. market until the u.s. price increases to match the global price, thus the pipeline, if built, will decrease supply to the u.s. market and increase the oil bill by $5 billion a year. in addition, the canadian oil companies claim the proposed keystone pipeline reduces dependence on imported oil from up friendly countries and there's disruptions. this is bogus because the u.s. has a 700 million -- >> let the gentleman speak. thank you. his time is not up yet. please, go ahead. >> the u.s. already has a 700 million barrel petroleum reserve designed to have the same protection. this gives more than adequate insurance. the pipeline is against the economic interest of u.s. farmers and consumers and should not be approved.
consider the uproar over the failure of the department of energy's lung guarantee that cost u.s. taxpayers $500 million. this department of state decision would cost u.s. taxpayers $5 billion a year. that is 10 cylinders per year every yearment thank you. >> [inaudible] >> hi, robert man, m-a-n-n. thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the keystone xl pipeline. as president of the sierra club, the oldest grass roots organization, i'm here on behalf of 1.4 million supporters saying 24 is not in our nation's interest. it's dangerous, dirty, and unnecessary. i was in montana this summer just after the yellow stone river oil spill. i toured the site of the spill,
and what i saw was a catastrophe. oil, pasture, and crop land, 25 miles of river fouled by 42,000 gallons of toxic crude oil. i took away three lessons the department should heed on the decision of the pipeline. first, spills happen no matter how many precautions are taken. second, it's much more devastating in extreme weather events like droughts and wild fires, and changing climate brings extreme weather. third, out of sight is not out of the system or unconnected to our health. i saw patture where the top of the grass looked fine, but on the stems below was oil that was left there from the flooding conditions, oil that will poisen the land, poisen the water, poisen the livestock for a very long time. last week, there were hundreds of americans travel to hearings to say no to the pipeline. these people were not paid, not bussed around by transcanada.
these were people -- [cheers and applause] >> please, go ahead. >> these were people who took off work, took the time to understand the complicated project who expose the truth between transcanada's claims and the undismal record of the company. the american people are expecting a fair hearing by the department of state and shocked to see our testimony taken by employees of a company with a firm that specializes in permitting an compliance and clients include transcanada and bp. i'm glad to know my comments are heard today by the state department officials. this firm has managed much of the environmental impact review, public outreach, and public comment process. state department failed to deliver on its responsibility to draft a scientifically rebust and fair environmental review. the state department grossly mismanaged the public input process by turning it over to a
firm aligned with the oil company proposing this pipeline. americans are asked to shoulder the risks from the keystone xl pipeline to grant them access to an international shipping port of the there is no guarantee that this pipeline's oil will be used in the united states, and, in fact, one of the main companies contracted to purchase the oil indicated they will export it. it's not in our national interest to threaten the air, water, and land of million americans to supply foreign markets with dirty oil and benefits the companies serving them. sierra club calls on the department of state to look at the proposal and this time do it without the lobbyists in the room. this time, look at the impacts, the science, the record, and listen to the will of the american people. the national interests will be clear. say no to the pipeline. [cheers and applause] >> thank you.
>> ladies and gentlemen, while we appreciate that you appreciate the comments made by the various speakers, long rounds of applause takes time away from listening to the comments. please, hold that down. next, i'd like to call ms. daniell similars, 14, 15, and 16, please. >> i'm danielle. i was born in 1988, at the same time they gave testimony on climate change. i was too young to remember the exxon-valdez spill, and too young in 1997 to understand when they didn't sign the protocol. i've seen the effects of drought to some of the most droughtive hurricanes in history, lived
through the hottest temperatures on the planet. clearly, the united states needs to lead on planet action. i'm asking americans and our communities to pay the price by living near health risks like coal fired power plants or oil pipelines. this pipeline is not just environmental issue, but justice and civil rights issue as well. it can destroy aquifers and introduce toxins to the food supply. already, this extraction requires removing ancient forests causing cancer and pollution and lung disease. i have ancestors who coexisted with nature will see their communities destroyed by the pipeline. they will see direct effects. the proposal for the pipeline shows that the state department is willing to put the well being of communities at risk for the
profit of the oil industry. the american people sense deep in their bones that with a slight change of priorities, the federal government can make every effort to start decreasing the income gap between the have's and the have not's and start leading on climate action. this begins when our country ceases to invest in an unjust energy system that benefits millionaires. this begins when the u.s. stops investing in -- this shows the world we have the determination and vision to end our addiction to oil while reducing our contribution to climate change. since the keystone pipeline leaked 12 times 234 a year, a pipeline 1 not a serious effort to solve the problem. in 2006, one senator stated saying that america's addicted to oil without following a real plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and
skipping out on the 12-step program. we have to identify the challenge and meet it. that senator is now our president. state department, today, if you feel the sense of urgency, you know the moral choice you have to make. either you support the oil industry, or you will stand up for the american people, environmental and sighful rights justice. we're empowering you, the state department, to deny the pipeline for the keystone xl. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. i'm eric pica. i'm here representing our members that are up and down the pipeline route. i'm here representing the more than 76 friends here around the world because this pipeline is a dangerous, deadly polluting pipeline that will take our planet into climate chaos. we have not been silenced about
our opposition to this pipeline, but we want to live within the process, the fact that citizens have a fair right to express their opinion, but unfortunately, secretary clinton and the state department very early on tipped the scales in transcanada's favor. in october, secretary clinton said she was inclined to approve the pipeline. she was inclined to prove it before comments here today and around the country were heard. that is an imbalanced process. it's also shocking to see that cardinal, a consultant for transcanada, a business partner of transcanada is leading this process. that is tipping the scales. just last week, friends of the earth got over 300 pages of foya information from state department officials that were coaching, that were rooting for transcanada and the lobbyists that they hired, mainly paul
elliot, to get this pipeline approved. finally this week, we filed a lawsuit in nebraska because the state department is allowing illegal clearing and moving of endangered species before this process is complete. this is an unbalanced, unfair process. you asked the public for questions, and now i have a few questions for state department. are these hearings a farce? are they a parody of the governing process and a parody of the rule of law? why are you asking input right now when it's very clear from foya documents that i'll submit for the record so that the future generations of your pipeline is approved can read how the state department helped this pipeline get built. are you guys clearing the way and making excuses for transcanada?
finally, why is the state department allowing this illegal clearing in nebraska, in the moving endangered species before a permit, before it's approved, and the process for public hearing is done. president obama ran a campaign on trying to clean up washington, d.c. in cleaning up the lobbying process. it is clear this process is failing his promise, and it's failing the american people, and that it's failing the environment, and it is failing our need globally to address climate change. this pipeline should and must be stopped. president obama must take the authority from the state department and make the decision on his own because that is the only way that we protect this planet, protect the american people, and ensure that there is integrity in the process, which is lacking right now. thank you. [cheers and applause]
>> please. please, do go ahead. >> oh, sorry. >> i am a land owner, and a rancher from the sand hills of nebraska. first of all, i'd like to shout out to mom and all the people back home helping me out while i'm here. i have traveled all the way here to tell you this permit must be denied. it is not in the national best interest for anyone except the money hungry, greed corporation of transcanada. i'm part of a fourth generation ranch raising black an gus cattle. our way of living could go away in seconds, and that's not why
we've signed the contract with the transcanada land agents. people out here have no idea what it takes to work in the land of the sand hills of nebraska. it is a seven day a week job. we are proud of what we do, but not everyone can do the work we do. you have to grow up in the type of atmosphere to stick it out day after day. when a foreign corporation comes in and tells land owner lie after lie to get us to sign, it leaves a very sour taste in our mouth. we're concerned about the sand hills and ash water. you see, if i don't take care of both, it could leave the land destitute for anyone to live off of it forever. i don't want tar sand chemicals in our water. our water table on our ranch is only two feet underground. knowing this pipeline will sit in, not over, the aquifer is a
serious threat to the livelihood of nebraska. we have been threatened with imminent doe domains so many times, that the bad reputation and false promises does not make anyone trust them. all the jobs promised 1 not worth the economic stimulus that nebraska sand hills and our aquifer will stand. we are an ag state with the world's best kept secret until now. now it is an all-out war to battle transcanada and keep them off our property. if i can't sell my cattle or my lands, if i cont shower or drink the greatest tasting water on earth, when there's a leak in the aquifer, where will i work? president obama, you promised to let the earth heal and look for better ways to lead our future. madam secretary of state clinton, this is definitely in our nation's worst interest.
please, for our children's future on our ranch deny this permit. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> [inaudible] >> good morning: i'm george. i think i'm the one who's out of the ordinary here, because i'm first nation and come from northern canada, from the tar sands area. i represent many first nations in canada, and i'm here today representing the families who are also living and dying with very rare neglected cancers we suspect caused from the tar sands. we live in an area called the peace delta, one of the largest fresh water deltas in the world. unfortunately, the tar sands are situated in our traditional homeland, and we have been
observing many issues of the 40 years of open pit mining of the tar sands, and only 3% of the total tar sands deposit has been mined. we have seen water quality issues, water quantity issues, impact to animals, to birds, to big game, to fish health, and more critically, we're seeing rare neglected cancers in my community today. we've seen injustices, human right abuses, infringement of the constitutionally protected treaty rights by alberta, canada, and third parties like the multinational oil companies invested in the tar sands. there's nothing ethical about using tar sands oil versus saudi arabia oil. your thirst for tar sands and for the pipeline will undoubtedly mean the total devastation of the homeland, the water, the animals, the birds,
the fish, and contribution to early deaths of my people, and undoubtedly the genocide of my people. we imminently and categorically reject the approval of this pipeline for very obvious reasons, and i want to challenge secretary clinton, president obama, who, i think, has an ethical and moral obligation prior to making this determination of an approval to visit the tar sands, to see the tar sands, to hear our people, and to listen to the many concerns and issues our people have, and so with that, i'm happy to be here with our indoing nows brothers and sisters from -- indigenous brothers and sisters from both sides of the border to oppose this pipeline. thank you. [applause] >> i'd like to call, please, mr. steven anderson, mr. george stanley, mr. randy thompson,
ms. leslie fields please. >> retired general, united states army, senior stay tigs in iraq for 15 minutes, directly working for general david petraeus. i want to tell you why i believe that this pipeline is against our national best interests and why it's against our military's best interest. [cheers and applause] this pipeline will keep us addicted to oil, and our addiction to oil gets soldiers killed. we have watched over 1,000 american lives moving fuel on the battlefield in iraq and afghanistan, and i know because i was the guy running those convoys, controlling that from the top. it wastes billions of dollars. this nation will spend $20
billion this year alone on the fuel and the energy to air-conditioned structures in iraq and in afghanistan. that's just for air-conditioning. $20 billion in consideration of the fully burdened cost of fuel which is $30 a gallon in afghanistan, and $18 a gallon in iraq. we're talking the most isolated nation in the world, it's hard to get fuel out there, folks. this pipeline will continue to fund our enemy, and our enemies are delighting in this pipeline because they know that their wealth will continue to prosper, and ours will degrade. we'll continue to send billions of dollars over to our enemies that are right now building bombs and trying to kill us. our soldiers are dying because of it. over 3500 american lives have been lost due to ied's that were funded by our oil money. this pipeline takes off pressure
to develop renewable energy. we heard about that compellingly already. we need to continue that development and that gets jobs for a green economy for veterans like me. this will continue, co2 emissions, and co2 emissions relate to climate change that leads to instate, and that means soldiers like me have to continue to fight and die in order to police the world. this pipeline will set back the clock 25 years of energy development in this nation. it will delight our enemies. it comes down to a couple things, folks. co2 emissions, clean water, and american blood. stop this pipeline. [cheers and applause] >> george stanley, please. >> good morning.
to my american brothers and sisters, my name is george stanley. i represent alberta region, 45 first nations committees. i come from assembly first nations. i bring you some couple key notes to you folks, and i'm sure that this has to do with the health, environment, and our species at risk, but foremost, i want to bring a strong message from ha -- 45 nations that i represent. we, back in 1971, we had a premier called peter laki, that make very clear to albertaians when he initiated open pit
mining that it was meant for alberta. he never envisioned keystone and so on. today, is very concerning as well as for leaders like myself. we bring forward to our canadian counterparts, we send strong messages that we want some communication, consultation to the first nations that are most impacted. today, we can see tar sands from outer space. that's how huge it is. i come from that very, very bed of that oil of tar sands. i don't expect to live more than 15 years.
if someone could come and pay my bill, and the bills for the next generation due to the cost of the tar sands, i'm welcoming them to come and pay for that because alberta people are not paid on these health issues. i'm very adamant because we invest in those, and i'm sad to say there's no policy or no regulation from the province or federal government. i want to greet out my brothers and sisters that are wearing red and orange shirts. come and visit us in al alberta. it will be six hours before you get to the tar sands, and you will smell that. living there is another thing. i want to bring this message before obama, my brother, i should say, somebody said he's a
chief like myself, let's consider a dialogue before we agree to support this, and the farmers, their bills are getting higher, so they are making comments. american farmers, some don't agree, some disagree, we will not bring you the dirty oil if you don't want us to. thank you, and good morning. [applause] >> i'd like to call randy thompson, yes, you're next. >> good morning, i'm randy thompson from martel, nebraska, here as a nebraska citizen and land owner. i'd like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. i'm very proud to be a
nebraskaian. it's a great place to live, and it's filled with many hard working, honest, good people. normally, you never hear nebraska raising much of a fuss unless an initial makes -- official makes a poor call at a husker football game, but in the recent months, i've noticed the change in the behavior like booing a corporate sponsor at a husker football game. they were booed so severely, that the athletic director elected to remove the ads from the stadium. the corporate sponsor was transcanada. i've also witnessed something i have never seen before, and that's my fellow nebraskans
filling halls to make their voices heard. i bring you to this question, what's got you folks so stirred out there on the plains? well, the short answer is we feel like we're being thrown under the bus, not for a project that's in our national interest, but very much for a project that is in the private interest of big oil companies. we feel our legitimate concerns about the sand hills and our great aquifer have gone unrecognized in an environmental statement that was in part written by consulting firms with very close ties to big oil companies. we know the value of water to
our state and to this great nation. we realize that water, not oil, is the essential ingredient for life. we also understand -- [applause] we also understand that water will become a critical issue for future generations of americans, and we can ill afford no waste or contaminate one drop of that water, especially not for the sake of greed. we have difficulty rationalizing how a pipeline pushing oil across our country to some unknown destination can be in our national interest. in closing, i'd like to say this. history will be the ultimate judge of this project, and we are about ready to write that
chapter of our history. will our desen descendants look back and say thank god our forefathers had the vision to protect the resources we are dependent on, or will they say, what were them damn fools thinking about? [cheers and applause] >> i'd like to call, please, leslie fields, mike richter, and less less leaks, please. >> i'm in the partisan directer of the sierra club, and we appreciate the opportunity to testify in this important issue. i'm just hear to simply state that this pipeline as many of my friends. from all over have said is not in the national interest. not only that, the analysis of the pipeline is terribly flawed. the state department failed to
conduct an environmental justice analysis of this eis, and understand that president clinton was res and still serves as the guiding principle and conduct actions to further environmental justice. in the accompanying memorandum, he empathizes part of the every analysis, federal agencies must analyze effects including human het, economic and social effects, including effects on minority pop populations. the counsel environment of quality guidance states claiming the process must include analysis of the relevant public health data as well as announcement of the multiple exposures. this guidance also requires the department, state department, to consider cultural, social, historical, and economic factors that may be exsacker baited by
the pipeline. this was not done. we are very much appreciated of cynthia giles at the epa in their analysis saying there's not enough evidence that the influx of the oil into the refineries have no environmental impact. in fact, it is most likely to add another string of pollution to communities burdened by multiple sources of pollution. there's a failure of the state department throughout this process to give adequate consideration to the impacts and risks of the project that focuses on populations. the final estimate that is flawed is that this project has no environmental ramifications. also, it fails 20 provide sufficient mitigation measures to remedy spills or ruptures, fails to identify the most likely refineries that process the pipeline and fails to
analyze the health pack of the surrounding communities and avoid analysis by claiming the pipeline does not change the levels of heavy crude refinery. the they seem to ignore pipe lines spill. in fact, the transcanada predicted the one line only spills once in the first year of operation, and it's spilled 12 times resulting in the part-time line materials and safety administration issuing a corrective order to transcanada finding that the continued operation of the the pipeline without credittive measures is dangerous to health, environment, and land. associated with spills due to safety, integrity measures. epa strongly criticized the eis announcement of the impacts
refining the crude because it's not evident 830 million barrels a day capacity to canada from the refineries has no emissions -- >> can you wrap up comments? >> okay. >> thank you. >> refineries in port arthur, texas, include petroleum, great lakes carbon, total fena, the and also total waste management facility. we're very disappointed that secretary clinton has already made almost a determination for the pipeline and proposes to approve it. remember when she was senator clinton, she instituted and held the first ever environmental justice hearing in u.s. senate history in july 2007. we were encouraged back then. we believe she should heed what our spouse, when he was president, and his environmental justice executive order to make sure that these impacts, that these communities are protected
and we very much hope this current president vetoes this pipeline. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> lisa, i'm a doctor, on the advisory board of the center for health and the global environment at harvard medical school. one month ago i was arrested at the house in protest of the pipeline. i'm speaking about our health, and what we stand to lose. 50 square miles of lake sized bodies of toxic water formed from oil sands operations. they are spilling into our water shed. it is one downstream cancer hot spot. our brothers and sisters there are three times more likely to be stricken with leukemias and limb foe mas.
lung cancers are on the rise, and rarer cancers, sarcomoas, extremely lethal cancer of the soft tissues, they are seven times more frequently diagnosed. just two substances in the toxic waste water, the potent carcinogens linked to cancer. the technologists developing these in 2007 alone caused 40,000 pounds of benzine to be dumped into the river. arsenic, once released into the environment, can cannot be recaptured. it harms humans and animals great distances from where it was dumped causing infertility, liver damage, cancer of the lung, bladder, liver, also
linked. four teen months ago, they spilled a million gallons of the muck into the kal kalamazoo river. there was vomit, memory loss, rashes, what happens long term? then there's what happens to us when we breathe bad air. which will worsen with tar sands that produce even more carbon dioxide than traditional fossil fuels. i'm a psychiatrist. i pierce denial for a living. think about it. where will will seccombe -- where will we be safe? they'll know what we took and the destruction that this has cause the. we will be a riot. to the state department, secretary clinton, deny to
permit. [applause] >> i'm mike richter, a three time u.s. olympian, and currently here as a clean tech entrepreneur. lifelong athlete, understand the connection between my health and ability to perform at high levels and reach my potential. as the father of three young boys, a husband, and son of an elderly parent, i understand the connection we have with the level of health and the quality of life, the environment in which we live. there are, in fact, few things more fundamental in their importance than our health. we're going to fulfill our potential as people, as a nation, and even as a species, there's no higher priority than to take every measure possible to ensure that the health of our air, water, and natural resources in which life depends is taken care of. the question of the development of tar sands and the construction of the xl pipeline
offer such an opportunity. i want to stress two points here. the tar sands is an environmental disaster on many levels. secondly, the environment is never just about the environment. the greenhouse gas emissions for tar sands are estimated three times of conventional oil. whatever the level, given the best science we know, any increase should be avoided, and these levels are simply wreckless. tar sands crude con tapes more heavy metals, more carcinogens than oil, they have 11 times more sulfur, more nickel, five times more led than conventional oil. we'll suffer more respiratory diseases and cancer. this will cross through five states in the nation's heart land threatening sensitive land incoming the aquifer, 30% of the water and drinking water for 2 million americans. it carries corrosive material, carried at higher temperatures and pressure. the likelihood of catastrophic
spills along 700 miles is just unacceptably high. ironically, the economy and national security are two proponents used to support the tar sands. this is a mistake. increasing the concentration decreases the climate, increases extreme weather events, and undermind global security. trading a threat for an ecological risk is short sided. we learn one thing when deepwater horizon explode, it's that with one disaster, this cab just as bad as a terrorist attack. xl deepennous dependence on oil when we need to invest in alternative infrastructure. by supporting yesterday's fuel source, we feed closer to giving our leadership position in the global economy. the idea national security depends on putting our environment at risk and
sacrifices long term interest for the profits of private, foreign company is a bad choice. with the conception we can save 20 billion barrels a day by 2020, with a real effort of home grown clean energy industry, the united states has the poral to reignite the economy, create lasting jobs, significantly bolster national security, and the health of its people. we'll only realize the potential if the leaders realize theirs and stop the tar sands. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> like to call now leslie weeks, number 24, greg marshall, and number 25 #, larry schwagger, and number 26. if you can spell your last name and give your afghanistan, thank
you. >> i'm turning my time over to dee. >> i'm dean hubbard, h-u-b-b-a-r-d. we represent some 200,000 active members and retirees nationwide. our members work in airlines, public transit, on rails, gaming, utilities, and universities. we respectfully call on the state department not to recommend approval of a presidential permit for construction of the keystone xl pipeline. [applause] construction of the pipeline is not in the national interest of the united states. we share the concerns conveyed by the epa to the state department on two occasions. ..