tv Today in Washington CSPAN April 11, 2013 6:00am-9:00am EDT
prices? >> the one thing to understand is, keystone xl to a pipeline -- [inaudible] and so what keystone xl will do is it will divert oil to the midwest, increasing oil prices in the midwest, and the only thing to understand about the gulf coast refinery -- sorry about that. the gulf coast refineries were keystone xl would bring the oil are exporting a significant amount of their refined product, nearly 3 million barrels a day exported in the summer 2012. spirit does anyone else care to answer that question? how keystone will affect domestic gas prices. >> i would be happy to give a brief comment on that. mr. swift did make an accurate characterization with respect to right now because there is a
lack of pipeline particularly capacity in the u.s. midwest, typically -- or recently crude oil prices in the u.s. midwest have been lower than they have been on the gulf coast. that is being solved by our gulf coast project, enterprise has a project. that bottleneck is being removed. this keystone xl projec projecte talking about today is only from alberta to cushing. so it is not going to exacerbate or change that problem, but that differential between gulf coast prices and midwest prices is going to be removed in any event by the projects that are under construction. one other point i would say is the fact there's been lower priced oil in the midwest has not led to lower gas prices for midwest consumers. it's led to higher margins for refiners that have been benefiting by that. so to suggest that any of those
projects will increase gasoline prices would be incorrect stack or two lower than? >> i would just say on balance, what keystone xl in his adding another source of supply to a finite demand and it's been a long time since i took economics that typically when you add in criminal supply to a finite demand, the impact should be to reduce prices. but i don't think anyone is suggesting it would be a very significant reduction. >> mr. swift, how much more carbon is emitted per unit of gasoline reduced and sold to a consumer from the keystone tar sands, not keystone, tar sands versus conventional oil spent i think state department estimates were somewhere up to 70% as far as the lifecycle emissions per unit of gasoline. >> does that include energy required to get the oil out of the ground? >> i believe it does. i believe it does, but much of
that is from the production side of things. >> does anyone else care to answer that question? >> just one quick comment i was and that is, the range i think they've given with somewhere between about 12-17%. they base that announces on a replace, a barrel of oil sands oil versus the average real of a refined in the u.s. it is worth noting that those gulf coast refineries that keystone is targeting are presently configured and run heavy oil. so they will not be replacing a barrel of canadian heavy with a barrel of light. they will be replacing it with a barrel of venezuelan heavy or some other heavy, in which case the percentage i would argue would be smaller. >> mr. jaccard, i assume that you believe that global warming is caused to a large degree by human activity? >> i believe in lifting -- listening to scientists. >> thank you. one of the things in your
written testimony, was brought up, in order to achieve a less than two-degree celsius change in global temperatures, the keystone pipeline needs to be a part of that, whether it's prevented or not. could you comment on the? >> keystone needs to be part of the. what i would like to say is that i'm involved in a lot of analysis of what happens to global energy markets to meet the constraints of two-degree celsius a scientist and political leaders have talked about. and when we run those you don't expand oil sands in canada. you don't expand the venezuelan heavy oil. and that means, it doesn't mean shutting down the oilsands. you're not trying to triple production and that means projects like keystone and the project in british, columbia, are not part of the feasible future. and in my testimony i quote, i refer to a study by mit researchers that just focus on the alberta oil sands.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> at this time recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. hall, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a question but first i want to just note that the chairman introduced into the record the impact of climate change, and we've been debating that here four years -- that here four years. we have listened too much to scientists, and the liberal press doesn't always reported to the people. what the site is on either side safer. they say we need more, more work, more hearings. we sent 22 bills over to the senate. one of them got through, and the president vetoed it. ms. gabbard says he doesn't deny that the climate is changing. none of us deny the.
we know we have to keep an eye on the. we know we have to be aware of it. but i'll take it was keeping and not on, the taxpayers of this country. we haven't changed one iota. the testimony and all the acts of this congress has been to look at it, be aware of it, listen to scientists to come here under oath, tell the truth. my question to you, mr. pourbaix, in your written testimony, i'm not going to allude to you that you didn't tell the truth at all, your written testimony though you mentioned 60% of southern pipeline segment is complete. and would you give some examples of the economic impact that that's had? >> i think, you know, it's important to remember that that small portion of what was originally a keystone xl
pipeline is in and of itself a two-and-a-half-$3 billion pipeline. we have put 5000 construction workers directly to work working on the project, and the pipe, the pumps, the consumables, all of that equipment that is required for the project was largely sourced from american sources. and so all of the spinoff benefits are accruing to the communities that supplied, that supplied the equipment. >> county specifically how that is affecting texas. >> -- tell me specifically how that is affecting texas? >> i don't have the specific infamy but the lion share is in a state of texas all those economic, the large part of those economic benefits would be accruing in the state of texas. >> are you exercising eminent domain in texas at this time?
>> we, transcanada -- >> have you purchased any land and the state of texas at the time? >> we have purchased massive quantities of, we purchased easements which give us the right to go on property. over 99% of those easements were negotiate -- >> does that require you to have the land owners rights and letting you alone own the property? >> absolutely. >> that's not the way it is occurring in my family. i live in the smallest county in texas and you're going right through the middle. i support the bill overall force. i support telling the president we don't agree with him on crossing the states on the boundary, international boundary. because of the influence that this amount of money and jobs would mean to all of us. but when they talk about anwr, little anwr, 19 million acres, we want to drill on 2000 acres. it that ruins the
19 million acres come it's like saying drop a silver dollar in yankee stadium and running the whole outfield. that's outrageous. what it says cost the american pack taxpayers $34 million we haven't changed one iota of global warming. do you agree with that? >> we -- >> if you have change, tell me where. >> i think it is a fact the effort has had relatively little impact on global attempted. if keystone were denied and were not built it would have -- site, or the oilsands were not developed, it would have an impact of less than sober in the range of five, 11 hundredths of 1%. >> i will yield back my time just a minute but the only change i have noted is the change in outdoor deposits and bank and the bunch of scientists have come to testify bunch of money. i yield back. >> this time recognize the full
committee ranking member, mr. waxman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. doctor jaccard, i appreciate your thoughtful testimony today. some supporters of a keystone xl pipeline acknowledge that using oil from the tar sands produces much more carbon pollution than conventional oil. and they recognize this extra carbon pollution will make climate change worse, some. but they argue that building the keystone xl pipeline to move the tar sands oil won't make climate change worse. their argument is the oil companies will carry out their plans to triple production of the tar sands, whether or not keystone xl is built. but oil companies can only do that if they have real alternatives to keystone xl. they can't expand the tar sands if they can't get oil to the
market. and of right now that's a big problem for the oil industry. so this is a key question. is keystone xl necessary to tar sands expansion plans? if yes, then building the pipeline will produce more carbon pollution and make climate change worse. is there any way the tar sands producers could realize their plans to triple production levels without building new pipelines or figuring out other ways to get the tar sands oil to market? >> i don't believe so. not when we are talking tripling. yes, of course you can move some i really so want but that will have its own challenges about allowing massive amounts of rail transport of oil, even as mr. pourbaix talked about what those risks and impacts are. so if you stopped building pipeline, and it won't just be keystone, but in my own jurisdiction, that's how you slow down climate change.
>> the state department draft environmental analysis acknowledges the keystone xl pipeline could affect the climate. currently proposed pipeline projects were block, tar sands production would be lower. at the analysis also that this effect would be small. that's because the state department assumes that is keystone xl and other proposed pipeline are not built, producers will move all of the tar sands of oil on trains instead. so let's look at whether these assumptions are realistic. the first key question is, will candidate build of the pipelines to the west coast of canada? a few years ago the state department assumes that if we didn't approve the keystone xl pipeline, the oil was simply the west to china. dr. jaccard, how good does that assumption look now? >> one can't be certain, but as i stated in my testimony, the odds are against it right now.
>> why? >> the reasons i mentioned is that there's a lot of opposition in british, columbia. when one says that canadians supportive of the oilsands, yes, in alberta they support it and yes, there's some support elsewhere in the country but their meeting regions in the country where they don't support the and british, columbia, is where that's much more difficult to find that support. and opposition to pipelines crossing british columbus or a strong and being manifested politically. >> the state department has basically agreed with that and said the state department assumes the tar sands producers would use railroad to get the tar sands to the gulf. but my understanding is that this analysis is also flawed. mr. swift come is moving all of this tar sands oil by railroad really a viable option? and if not, why not? >> it is in, and the reason why not, i mean, one way to evaluate this, tar sands have been under the same market pressure to move
by rail. tarzan producers have been able to manage it. and it's because there are a lot of unique challenges to moving tar sands by rail that light oil doesn't have, and northern alberta is a lot farther away. so simply stated, it's far more expensive and tar sands producers don't have the margins to afford it spent in the real option is economic for oil but not tar sands. tar sands crude requires specialized rail cars and loading and offloading equipment, must travel further and it's heavier meaning less can be moved per car. current real cost for tar sands is $31 a barrel versus $8, for pipeline. new tarzan projects have high breakeven gaza substantially higher transportation costs are going to make a much less attractive? >> that's correct. >> the pipeline is key to getting tar sands oil to market.
without keystone xl, producers won't be able to triple the production of tar sands oil. celebrating keystone xl would give the green light to a huge amount of additional carbon pollution. we can't vastly expand use of the dirtiest oil and avoid catastrophic climate change. the only responsible action is to say no to keystone xl tar sands pipeline. i hope the obama administration and others, secretary terry at the state department, understand this and don't use this, well it's going to happen any well -- anyway rationale because it's just not accurate. is that a fair statement? >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, mr. scalise. >> thank you. want to thank mr. terry's wealth for your leadership on the keystone pipeline and try to get this approved.
when you look at the jobs number that just came out last week, begin another weak jobs report, more people unemployed, millions of americans have given up looking for work because the economy is so weak. and yet literally with a stroke of the pen president obama can create more than 20,000 new jobs in america are proving the keystone pipeline. it's just that simple. just with his signature. this doesn't require an act of congress. unfortunately, we here today for whatever reason for more than four years the president has refused to approve the keystone pipeline. you're talking about a program that no one would create 20,000 direct american jobs, studies show over 100,000 new jobs would be created in america. billions of dollars of private investment spent in america. when you talk about america's energy security that would be about 1 million barrels a day of oil coming from a friend in canada that we don't have to buy from an asian countries who
don't like this. it's not like america demand for oil has dropped just because the president said no to the keystone pipeline. we still use the same number of barrels of oil a day that if he would have approved it yesterday. gas prices are going up, people are paying more and because of volatility in the middle east to our trade deficit is up because we send billions of dollars in asian countries who don't have a great trade relationship with us. when you talk a lot approving the keystone pipeline, there are many advantages of doing it. the first is the great impact of jobs and the reduction of threat to our energy security. but if you look at the trading relationship we have with canada, canada is a great friend but those a reason for the president to be harming our relationship with canada by streaming them out for years, when everybody else who looks at this, everybody who is impartial looks at this as it should have been done years ago. the keystone pipeline should've been approved years ago. if you look at our relationship
with canada, if we're trading the same barrels of oil with canada instead of these middle eastern countries who don't like us, we get about 90 cents on the dollar back from every dollar we send to canada in trade. that same dollar that goes over to the middle eastern countries we get less than 50 cents on the dollar back. again we're using the same amount of oil. the question is who are going to get it from. are going to get it from canada, we have a great historical relationship right across the border, or are we going to continue to send billions of dollars to middle eastern countries who don't like us who use that money against us? why does the president continued to say no? that's why we are here today. without action from congress it can be done but for whatever reason as the president doesn't want to do it, when congress has addressed this issue, before it's been large bipartisan support. that's not a partisan issue that i think the fact if you look at
the palace today that are here to support it, traditional republican groups and democratic groups. these people understand economic impact. i want to ask you, mr. stelter, you talked about what the delays mean to jobs in america. if you can expand on that. we've heard about this is is that of either close down or have delayed operations, waiting. american businesses. not even canadian businesses. american businesses that are heard every day by an action from the president to expand on that, if you could give examples. >> as i mentioned in my testimony, my company has been blessed in that we been able to expand and other parts of the world that we were selling to previously to stave off layoffs or cutbacks. but i know some of our competitors, big american companies, tyco international, some of the big players in the pipeline industry, and labor, even though they're still hiding
it up in that area for labor, it's scaled back because of delays and cancellations of a lot of these projects. >> that's a shame. and there's no reason for those jobs to be lost. we could have those jobs today as i mentioned earlier. i want to ask you, mr. pourbaix, there's been some suggestion this oil will just sit there and if american president just wait a couple more years and canada will sit and do nothing with this valuable asset that they have, i've also heard reports to the contrary that china aggressively wants to get this oil. china wants those jobs. china wants the energy security that america would be denied if the president doesn't approve keystone. can you talk to what happens if the president doesn't say yes to keystone? doesn't just sit there in the ground, or does he go to another country and they benefit from its? >> no, i think, you know, i have said this many times, but the oil sands are truly the economic engine that will be driving candidates economy for the next 50 years. the canadian government has been
exceedingly supportive of our project on all the other projects to get the oil out of the country. we are in a great situation that we're production far in excess of our needs. that oil will be developed that it will get to market. you've already heard me talk about if it can't get but i've come it's going to get by rail. i would take exception to a characterization that these projects, these pipeline projects will not be approved by the regulators. in canada the regular for pipelines is a national energy board, a federal agency. that same federal agency approved the canadian portion of keystone xl years ago. approved the basic keystone and the canadian federal government has gone on record repeatedly saying that there in support of both the lesson projects and projects to take oil lease. so i think it is absolutely clear that the oil sands are going to be developed and this
oil will get to market. the only question is what market is going to get to. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, mr. molineaux, thank you for being here, and all our panel. you mentioned similar legislation is mr. to allow construction in trans-atlantic pipeline back in the 1970s. could you elaborate on that? >> i was a child back then, i've been doing this for 20 some years but i wasn't around. so i would have to get much more specific and get back to. >> i was actually a state legislator in texas in the 70s. but i did not remember that congress had to step in and approve the transcanada pipeline. our trans-alaska pipeline. >> i think what congress had to do with step in and clean up some of the final regulatory hurdles but again i'm not an expert.
>> so we're not breaking new ground by this particular legislation. dr. jaccard, i visited the oil sands last summer and i learned that in 2007 the province of canada begin regulating large sources of greenhouse gas emissions immediately requesting each unit to reduce their ghg output by 12%. and per its march 2012 statistic, over 34 million tons of emissions have been avoided. they've also will revisit it in the near future to strengthen the stand and update the law. from what your testimony, canada as a nation hasn't made the decision, but province of alberta has. is british, columbia, taken thet pakistan's on ghg? >> yes, british, columbia, and i helped with work on those policies has a carbon tax across the board now of $30 per ton of co2. and also a requirement of no electricity be generated that
produces greenhouse gases, even though we have very -- >> i only have five minutes. how much electricity is british, columbia, produced by hydropower? >> 93%, but we are the cheapest natural gas and coal in the country spend find them at 93% are electricity comes from hydropower. i disinfected we don't have that benefit that some places have. i understand speed it we won't allow -- [talking over each other] >> most of their electricity comes in hydrogens like british columbia. but alberta has made an effort to control their ghg in the province. >> the regulation as i studied it carefully, basically tracks what our normal efficiency gains that happen. the actual costs on a per ton of co2 basis is about one or $2. effectively close to zero.
>> since you've studied this, and i know the refineries that are in my area typically import heavier crude from venezuela, from all over the world. the know of any of our importing countries that we have had of done what alberta has done? let's take venezuela as an example. >> no, but it's inconsequential. >> obviously it's not as if that's our decision. appreciate your opinion. again, the question -- >> the number is from the canadian petroleum producers. >> another question, actually represent refiners were most of the oil sands project ago. the fact that they seek -- when the keystone xl if approved or not, the problem is that failed to secure long-term energy supply from canada will only cause these facilities to purchase oil from unstable foreign countries that do not
have anywhere near the environmental regulations that alberta does. is that correct, mr. swift? >> the report suggests venezuela imports in the gulf are going to decline either way. spent and i agree with you. venezuela is losing production just like mexico but again, the question is are those countries that we're going to import from have stronger standards or even equal standards? >> [inaudible] >> a pipeline developer and operator working in western canada, do you agree with mr. malone and mr. swift assessment that neither of the two asian pipelines through british columbia will be built? >> as i said, i believe there is
a very high likelihood that canada's national energy board will find a need for those pipelines and will approve the pipelines spent i have to admit coming from houston, texas, that we're the houston company has an interest in one of those pipelines. would either get the crude oil out of our refiners i guess we'll send it to asia. mr. chairman, thank you for your time. >> recognize the gentleman from nebraska for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. pourbaix, appreciate you being here again. decides they need to obtain a presidential permit, which is the basis of h.r. three, can you discuss some of the other outstanding permitting issues? >> the biggest issue is the presidential permit. we do require some other federal approvals, key among them would be some issues with respect to
migratory birds and endangered species. and water crossings, those type of issues. >> and what specific permits are required for the? >> just -- >> take crossing waterways. who do you have to get a permit from? >> that's the army corps of engineers. we require a permit that will allow us to cross all, any major wetlands or water bodies. >> and then who, which agency would permit any endangered species issue? >> that's fish and wildlife spent appreciate that. and if the transcanada fails to receive any one of those permits, what impact would it have on the construction of the pipeline? >> we are not able to proceed with the construction of the pipeline until we are in receipt of all those required federal permits. >> so it will continue to remain on hold until we receive those
permits. >> so in that regard, what a litigation has transcanada already face in federal court over the construction of this pipeline? >> i don't have the exact number of lawsuits, but the opponents of the project have long came to the conclusion that ultimately delayed means denial. so generally their strategy has been at every possible stage in the process to put legal claims up against the project. to this point we have one everyone has been brought against us, but there have been many, many legal suits filed. >> and do you anticipate any more? >> i fully anticipate there will be many more spare what is the basis of a feeling that there be many more? >> just the fact that our opponents, they truly are focused on a strategy of delay with the view that eventually it of the project opponents or the
shippers will give up speed the opponents are not shy saying they have petition sitting on their desk. county's lawsuit and others that are yet to be filed if the presidential permit is approved, seriously delay or impact this pipeline? >> this is nothing new. our opponents have brought these same suits and all major pipeline and energy infrastructure projects. in all cases that we've been involved in, the proponent has been able, we've been able to succeed in all of those legal cases and we would expect we will succeed in these. once we receive the presidential permit we will commence construction and fight the lawsuits. >> since i represent omaha, nebraska, that has a history with rail. in fact, we grew into a
corporate down because of the railroad. they have told me that even with the keystone pipeline, and they, union pacific and bnsf, have said that even with the pipeline they still expect to be hauling from both oil sands. can you tell us your understanding about even with the pipeline, the rails and trucks would still be involved? >> there will always be a role for trucking and rail in moving oil around. they serve a legitimate purpose. the point that i've always taken is that as the distance get very long and the volumes move to get very large, the benefits of pipelines becomes very apparent with respect to the cost-benef cost-benefit. it's much cheaper to move oil through pipelines. their safety record is higher. there's less likelihood of spill commanders significant as
greenhouse gas emissions when you have large volleys of oil a long distance. so there will still, there will still be rail movement and truck movements to get oil to those main collection points where the pipelines can take it away from. >> thank you and i yield back. >> this time i recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell, for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i thank you for your courtesy. my questions are for anthony swift. mr. swift, these will be yes or no because our limited amount of time. is there currently and over comment period for draft supplement of our middle impact statement regarding the keystone xl pipeline, yes or no? >> yes. >> when does this period and? >> at the moment i believe apr april 21. >> okay. is the draft supplemental environmental impact statement currently open for public comment the same as the one
referenced in h.r. three, yes or no? >> yes. >> this legislation deems approval of certain permits within the jurisdiction of the department jurisdiction of the department of state, and carry a defense, and prohibits epa from being involved in providing input for permits under the clean water act. is that so? >> yes. >> are we certain all the probation has been gathered to justify issuing these permits, yes or no? >> no. >> mr. chairman, never had the american people been comforted by the words i am from the government, i am here to help. president bush establish a process to issue these types of permits and i believe allowing the public to know how this project will affect their communities is simple common sense. i would point out that they were going to go through nebraska over a very, very sensitive aquifer, and they found out that it posed enormous risk. that information was not available to the public the and as the house author, on which i
labored long and hard, i can say that it was created to create transparency so that the people would know the impact of the project and what it would be on their communities. however, this bill will circumvent that transparency even as the public comment period is in progress and is only going to create more delays. instead of allowing the process to probably play out, congress is choosing to rush the administration without allowing the establish process to run its course. this has already caused us trouble on one occasion. and now by rushing the administration to make a decision at the beginning of last year they were forced to start this process back again at square one further delaying a final decision. i have repeatedly said that i support the building of this type of the i believe it's in the national interest. it is also in the national interest that we should comply with the wall -- law, to see
that the permits are properly issued and that they reflect the need for us to address the public interest. that's why we passed the clean water act, why we passed endangered species and why we passed the national environmental policy act. i would much rather see the manufacturing construction and other jobs be created in this, construction, to go down south through the united states rather than going west to china where the oil will be processed and spent and burned in a very bad way. however, the bill that we passed already, this bill would do exactly the opposite. it circumvents the establish process and potentially opens the process as a project to a plethora of lawsuits where the lawyers are going to have a wonderful time delaying process
as the construction even further. instead of legislative permitting process where it is not needed, this committee should instead be focusing on comprehensive energy legislation and i'm supervising the processing of this to see that it goes forward properly. as i've observed the keystone pipeline in my opinion should be a useful part of our national energy strategy, and not be given litigation of this time. they should be viewed as an opportunity to make technological advance is, changes in the economy to gather new information. and we should be giving consideration to this as a part of our national energy policy, including spurring a large number things like nuclear renewable and fossil fuel. let us stop helping where it's not needed. the bill is a solution to a problem that does not exist.
i very much want to support this legislation, rather, to support the pipeline. i believe it is in the national interest, but you are compelling me and many other americans to oppose this legislation and to oppose the construction of pipeline because you do not choose to do any proper way in conformity with the law. these unnecessary changes that you are making to hasten the process are counterproductive and extreme, and i beg the committee not to engage in this type of silly activity. >> at this time recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for the recognition. mr. pourbaix, did i pronounce that directly? >> yes. >> let me ask you, you heard chairman emeritus dangled speak about this. do you feel rushed? do you feel like we are rushing you? i feel like it's groundhog day.
every time we come you were talking of the keystone pipeline. it's been like that for two and a half years. >> i think it is without dispute the environmental review process for this project has been the most, certainly the most involved, the longest, certainly in any experience i've ever had with energy infrastructure projects. we've had dozens of public hearings to prevent hundreds of thousands of pages of public comment and testimony. i don't think anyone could argue that every material issue related to this project has not been exhaustively analyzed. >> let me tell you what i think, texas is my home state. march 22 of last year president obama went to cushing, oklahoma. obama to the gulf of mexico. so that your company has been
doing that work. it's not been without some anxiety at home, and i will admit that. there are people who have had their lands disrupted by the placement of the pipeline. but okay, national interest, interest of our economy to get this going and texans, we are understanding of energy issues and the necessity of getting energy to market. but here's the problem that i have. why is it okay to build a pipeline from oklahoma to the gulf of mexico, disrupt the lives of hard-working texans when the administration apparently never any intention of completing the other part of the pipeline that would actually make it economically relevant and economically beneficial to the nation? i believe ask texans to give of their land for the pipeline, and yet the administration still seems a mobile in its ability to
make a decision for the betterment of the country. am i missing something here speak what no. and i think at the time the president denied the permit in early last year, transcanada took the initiative. we saw the opportunity to separate the southern portion from the larger keystone xl application because there was an independent need in the industry to connec protect cushing, to rt crushing videos gulf coast. so we took that opportunity. that was not a, something the federal government encourage. it was an opportunity we saw to take that portion of project and add independent utility and removed from his presidential permit application process. one comment i would just say on your comment about the land. there is no company that takes those issues with right-of-way and land owners more serious than transcanada.
in texas alone more than 99% of our landowners we reached voluntary negotiated easements and did not have to go to any eminent domain procedure. we are down to literally a handful of landowners. >> and i appreciate that and i appreciate the fact that this was a privately instigated and funded venture. but still the president went to cushing, oklahoma, with 200 invited guests, took a bit of a photo op in march of last year. it was an election year you may recall. i have always felt a little bit of unease by the willingness of the administration to capitalize on hey, i'm here for grading jobs in america, build it in america and all the right things, and yet really if were going to capitalize, if america is going to cap was on the promise of delivering this energy where it can be refined in mr. green stitcher, the rest of the pipeline has to be built.
i don't know that i'm smart enough to do this. we will have figures coming up for the first quarter of this year. last quarter of lesher was pretty disappointed. i would just submit, if you were to subtract the texas component to the gdp for this quarter we just finished, the last quarter, i wouldn't be at all surprised if the country was not still in recession with negative growth into quarters, which is the definition. it's taxes or forwarding activities i in the energy field that of early prevented the recession it has been a game changer and if we really were serious about reemployment americans, this is where we would concentrate our efforts. i thank you for your indulgence, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my
time. >> recognize the gentlelady from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you each of you for your testimony. after multiple handset markets on this committee in recent years, decision issues -- i'm disappointed that one of our first legislative hearings it again on this well-vetted issuing there so many other important issues that we could be considering. i continue to have serious concerns about this legislation and the potentially devastating impacts of the keystone pipeline on public health and the environment. of course, one of the main issues in the discussion is jobs. rightfully so. there's no denying that construction of the pipeline will create temporary jobs. these jobs are still desperately needed, especially in the construction industry. but as policymakers i believe we must also look at the big picture. when we are facing estimate of job losses of 750,000 duty sequestration, creating a few thousand temporary jobs, though
helpful, does not help. it is our responsibility to do policies that the best long-term interests of our nation as a whole. doubling down unlimited fossil fuels is a dead-end policy. it pollutes our planet and only delays the inevitable, especially considering the series impacts key so could have on public health and on the environment. as our witnesses have testified to government oilsands is even more carbon intensive than traditional oil development. so this is a big step in the wrong direction. it makes far more sense to focus on promoting the development of clean renewable technologies we all know we're going to need down the road. these new technologies reduce our dependence on oil but also create quality long-term jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. i see this all the time in my district on the central coast of california. local companies like and dignity wind, are easy so, are harnessing clean renewable energy sources.
so dr. jaccard, how did i say it lacks in your testimony, you focus on environmental and economic impact of development the alberta oil sands and have the keystone pipeline plays into that. could you very briefly and i have a second question to ask as well, could you briefly discuss some of the economic and if i'm at the benefits of developing clean and renewable energy resources compared to fossil fuels? >> yes, well, in california certainly i follow the numbers but i don't have the numbers at the tip of my finger for california budget for british columbia because when we passed the rule of clean electricity it meant that to coal plants in the natural gas plant that were going to be built in 2007-2011 period were not built. instead we developed a small-scale hydro wins and would waste power. they produce three times as many jobs.
>> perfect. thank you very much but i have a question for you, anthony swift their jobs are critical to economic growth but we must remember that environmental and public health are also critical to a strong workforce and resilient economy. 1969, my home district was a victim to one of the worst oil spill in the united states history, offshore. so i know firsthand that local communities bear the brunt of industrial accidents for a long time after they occur. the proposed pipeline that cuts straight through america's heartland putting numerous communities at risk, these farmers and ranchers depend on clean soil and clean water to grow the crops and raise livestock feeding our entire nation. a bill could have devastating -- they still could have devastating effect. would you elaborate on this, and what are some of the economic impacts a spill could have on commuters along the pipe and?
>> that are over 500,000 agricultural jobs along the pipeline and they depend on clean water, cleaned lions. we learn unfortunately through two major spills, one in michigan and another in arkansas, a tar sands bills have significantly different and longer-term impacts. in kalamazoo, michigan, over nearly three years after that spill of 800,000 gallons of tar sands, and nearly a billion dollars in cleanup activities, 38 miles of the river still is contaminated. and spill response don't think that they're going to be able to put the river back to the state it was before this bill. so tar sands pipeline and tar sands bills pose unique and pretty dramatic risks to sensitive waterways and in the places -- regulars did not have a handle over. >> i did ask a very briefly, just a few seconds left, to discuss some of the differences between, you know, the safe use
of tar sands, if there is such a thing, the keystone pipeline, the crude we normally -- would you go into the difference on that? >> it's called a deluded bitumen. vitamin is basically solid. it has to be mixed with light petrochemicals. it is moved as a fixed substance of the pipeline. state department estimated friction heating on keystone xl was in a temperature between one and 30-one at 50 degrees in some places. we have learned in california at high temperature pipelines are much more likely to spill. and when they spill occurs, the light stuff gases off and it's the heavy stuff, the heavy bitumen dark its water body, it stinks and at that point spill responders have a very difficult time either containing it or cleaning it stinks of tar sands
and -- >> dramatically different, yes. >> recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> i thank the chair. and good afternoon and welcome. i represent a suburban houston district. so as you can imagine keystone pipeline coming to the port of port arthur is very important to my state. and while we all have our own opinion, but none of us are entitled to of her own facts. so before i submit my questions, i just want to reiterate a few facts that seem to be forgotten in this. fact number one, canadian oil from alberta is already coming to the united states. they keystone pipeline, mr. pourbaix i think called it the basic keystone pipeline, that pipeline is bringing over 500 million barrels a day to our country right now. the alberta clipper is bringing about 50,000 barrels a day to superior wisconsin. fact number two. that are 25,000 miles of
pipeline over the ogallala aquifer right that the 25,000. 2000 over nebraska. fact number three. this oil will be brought to market. i do comes to united states or it goes to china or india or some other country. secretary carney -- last year, this is a quote, moving oil from the midwest to the wrong class -- [inaudible] create jobs, encourage americans and production but we look forward to working with transcanada. [inaudible]. those are the facts. mr. pourbaix, transcanada is about halfway done with its part of the pipeline for east texas. can you describe the steps are taken to ensure the safety of his pipeline? >> sure.
i mean, right off the bat i think it's very important to understand that the keystone pipeline system is truly a state of the art of pipeline system. it uses modern high strength steel, fusion bond of epoxy coating, multiple redundant leak detection technologies. in addition, you heard me say this in my prepared statement, that in addition to following federal code we have voluntarily agreed to follow 57 additional special conditions. those are things like reduced spacing of isolation valves, bearing the pipe deeper. doing more inspections. all major river crossings where it is feasible to do so we are, in fact, doing horizontal directional drill so we are 20-40 feet below the bottom of the river in bedrock so we don't ever have to worry about the kind of problems that occurred at kalamazoo for the yellowstone
problem that exxon had. i mean, these modern pipelines have incredible records with respect to spill and safety. and we are building the most modern pipeline ever built in the u.s. >> so again, your opinion, keystone pipeline, it is designed to be the safest by put in the history of the world? >> you don't have to take my word for. that's the funny of the department of state in environmental impact statement. >> in your opening statement, you said the keystone xl is not a pipeline. it's a lifeline. opponents say that many of these jobs great will be temperature can you explain how pipeline is not a temporary job? >> in our industry, our members work job to job. job starts, job in spirit sometimes you go into the job of a job, maybe someone else will
come back to that job by the way, not you should pay but the way your benefit package is structured, the way you earn your health insurance, the way you earn your pension credit, are determined by the number of hours you work in a given quarter. so without a project that creates hours, whether it's a highway project, an infrastructure project or energy, water, without projects, our members don't work. f. our members don't work, they don't earn a living antidote on benefits. and in that sense it's a lifeline. this job, a temporary job has been used to dismiss these jobs, and that's unfortunate because it truly doesn't take into account how the construction industry works. it's done in a very derogatory way by people who want to dismiss the importance of these jobs. >> one final question for you. what is the range of these jobs? educational level necessary to have these jobs?
$75,000 max as a pilot in united states navy. that's over 1 million through training and all these things, i suspect there in that range. >> it varies by craft. depending upon what your skill set is and what your unique that you were for, it would very. in some parts of the country are pipelines, workers, make about 20 bucks an hour plus benefits package. in other parts of the country that's much, much higher. if you with the operating engineers, they will be back in the back of the room summer, their benefits package is structured, and how different are their salary and benefits will be much higher. it depends on what you're doing on the project but they are good jobs. >> i am out of time. just a summit, 800,000 of the day, 20,000 good paying jobs. yield back spent at this time the recognize the gentlelady from the virgin isles, ms. christensen for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
is a lot of really bothers me about the bill we're considering today but one is that i'm through the committee is proposing to do one project, a predatory in mark and i don't see what one particular project owned by foreign corporations should get special treatment. my constituents and u.s. virgin islands are american citizens who are expensing extreme high energy price spikes, and a community with limited resources but my constituents are suffering. while help is being offered, there's no special legislation to the americans and u.s. virgin islands or support for my bill h.r. 92. but the subcommittee is proposing move yet another third year granting special treatment to transcanada's keystone xl pipeline and has now for hearings on this project in the same period. as a vision i'm also concerned about how the keystone xl prop one would -- as a physician i'm concerned. pipeline can directly harm
public health when there's an accident where reminded of pictures of oil flowing down the streets in arkansas, and we talked about kalamazoo, michigan. so despite mr. -- mr. pourbaix's testimony, transcanada's provided immense amount of reassurance the keystone xl would operate without accident. the keystone xl tar sands pipeline threatens human health and others as well. i understand low-income and minority communities near the refineries even import architects or have a higher chance of contracting leukemia and other diseases limited to bush but these commuters are worried that refining more tarzan could go after the pollution that is already harming their health. mr. swift, let me ask you, i these communities right to be concerned? does the state department analysis adequately address the impacts on those communities? >> to the first question i would answer yes.
tar sands bitumen has some of the most dirtiest, the dirtiest crude in the world, both in carbon emission also has higher sulfur content, much higher heavy metal content. the sort of emissions that you expect from refining these complicated, heavy, high sulfur bitumen would be at the top of the scale. and the state department did not adequately address the impact of these increased emissions on communities in the refinery very. they basically assume that these refineries would be processing oil either way, and so they didn't really evaluate how much more pollution would be generated by these refineries if keystone xl goes through. >> we will be refining about up to yea a year and half ago, venezuela heavy crude, and our inventory was quote out of the
roof in the virgin islands. so i suspect it would be the same. and dr. jaccard, could we know that keystone xl pipeline will address the baseline changes that you figured, that also has devastating impacts. could you also please speak to this? and also if granting special treatment to transcanada will benefit our constituents, and do the benefits outweigh the harm? >> right. the point i was trying to make is that it's very difficult to deal with climate change we have to of political courage to say we start here and went to push for things to happen in canada, things happen in china. there is no other way to solve it. when you do that what you're trying to do is prevent acidification of oceans, dramatic changes in extreme weather events, and also, also to produce with ecosystems which all come back to human health type of issues. assigns is very clear on this.
>> i agree. coming from a place that is prone to natural weather disasters and also where we are relying on our resource for food, for recreation, acidification of the oceans is very devastating to communities like mine. so thank you for your answers and i yield back the balance of my time. >> at the time i recognize the gentleman from west virginia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've heard several comments today here, mr. chairman, about these temporary jobs. quite frankly, dinner, i come from the construction industry, 47 years. i started in construction and 65. i never thought of my job back in as being a temporary job. that was my way of life, and the people i work with. so i find it almost the meaning, demoralizing comment when people
asking mr. swift and dr. jaccard, when i've talked with climatologists, they often refer to in trying to address this issue, they say go back to the bering strait. and i'd like to hear there your perspective -- from your perspective. 25,000 years ago, the ocean levels dropped 150 feet, 50 some meters. we weren't using the keystone pipeline. we weren't driving too many suvs, and we weren't burning, we weren't creating electricity with coal. but there was a natch aal, cyclical change in the globe that caused the temperatures to be at such levels that the water levels dropped in the oceans all across the world. can you enlighten me or tell me where the climatologists are wrong on that? >> yes. >> is it the waters dropped so that the land mass became exposed and people from asia came over and populated north america? >> yes -- sorry. >> go ahead, please.
>> i feel that i would be arrogant to pick and choose among the science that i wanted to believe, that was convenient for me and that was inconvenient for me. so when i take the body of climate science, which i read very carefully, it will tell you that climate has changed over long time periods in the past, and sometimes accelerated. and the climate science also says we are making something happen very quickly that we're causing it. and we're asidfying the ocean toes as well. so i don't know what you pick or choose from what the climate scientists are telling you. i've read the reports, i interact with leading scholars in the world who are very honest people who don't have any particular agenda, and they are saying climate, we are causing the change. we can do something about it. >> i will, i would concede that there are people who agree with you. but there's a document floating around right now, 33,000 scientists, that disagree with you on that. so i'm still torn over it. we're still arguing over this.
the science has not been determined. the conclusion is not determined yet. but yet we're holding up 20,000 jobs in america. people want to go to work. that's their livelihood, and we're holding up because we've got an ideological base, a disagreement. i'm troubled with that. i really am. i can talk about the bering strait, we can talk about the medieval warming period, what caused that? again, i don't think there were too many suvs, i don't think we were burning much coal or gas or oil to create electricity, but yet we had the globe heated up, earth heated up. i'm somewhat more in that field, i'm leaning that way more. is this natural, cyclical issue, and could man be contributing? of course we could be. i agree with you we could be. but are we the ones causing it in and what are the ramifications of it? too many disagreements on that. i'm hoping sometime in the balance of this year that we will have some opportunities to discuss global warming more.
but in the meantime, why are we costing 20,000 jobs to people tacked be working? -- that could be working? >> so we create jobs as we reduce carbon pollution just as we did as we reduced acid pollution and smog and so on. i'm sorry, i've seen so much evidence, i can't buy that we can't create jobs while reducing carbon pollution. and maybe even use more fossil fuels while doing it. >> are you of the school of lisa jackson that said we create, what is it, one job for every million dollars in epa standards making the more rigid a standard is that we're going to create a job in that so, therefore, or one and a half jobs for every million dollars spent on enforcement? >> is this talking about historical analysis? i haven't read that. i'm talking about historical analysis that i've been involved in. >> i'm sorry, my time's up. >> gentleman's time has expired. at this time recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. gentlemen, i'm an anomaly here
because i see both sides of the coin, and to tell you the truth, i'm torn. i have a lot of environmental concerns, but i also have concerns about energy independence. i'm the ranking member on the foreign affairs committee, i was the founder of the oil and national security caucus, and i think it would be important if we could safely develop this that north america become energy independent. so i kind of see both sides. i have some questions as to why we want to circumvent the process here. there is a process, and jump the gun and say that this project should be done. but i think the larger issue is how do we guarantee or try to guarantee that america is energy independent and at the same time try to guarantee that our environment is not despoiled.
so i'd like the -- it's kind of hard for me to see everybody there, but let me ask mr. pourbaix, why cannot we guarantee that the oil that is refined in texas stay in the united states? i mean, you've heard here today and we always hear colleagues express concerns that if we're going to take the chance on the oil pipeline -- and there's always a chance, i mean, i know there are safeguards and this is new technology and everything else. i'm willing to kind of go with it. but i'd like to know that if we're taking the risk, we get the benefit and that the oil isn't simply going to come down the pipeline, be refined in texas and get exported to china. why can't we get a guarantee, maybe 100% of it can't stay, but maybe we can get some kind of percentage that gives americans the guarantee that we're taking a chance, but it's a worthwhile chance to take? >> uh-huh.
well, i think -- i guess i'd have a couple of comments on that. the first is that the draft supplement went into great detail in examining this issue and came to the conclusion that it was highly unlikely that keystone xl would be an export pipeline. and so i think you have that side of it. i think the, you know, when you think about exports, it is very important to understand that the u.s. gulf coast is the largest refining center. it has about half of the refining capability in the u.s. but the u.s. itself typically needs more gasoline and less diesel. when you refine a barrel of oil, you get a certain component of oil -- diesel, certain of gasoline. the u.s. needs more gasoline. so to get enough gasoline, it tends to produce an excess of diesel which it then tends to import to europe because europe
needs, respectively, more diesel than it gets gasoline. so i think you have to be careful about unintended consequences of putting in place any kind of hard and fast rule. >> well, let me just say, i'm sorry to interrupt. you know, five minutes is not a lot of time. >> yep. >> you know, if my constituents knew, for instance, that by having this pipeline they would get a reduction a year down the line or two years down the line, a dollar of gasoline, you know, people would see something tangible. >> uh-huh. >> but people are very skeptical, and so am i to a degree, as to, you know, if we're looking at what -- if we're talking about making north america energy independent which is, obviously, something we'd all like to see -- >> uh-huh. >> then what would be the benefit to the taxpayers who are taking this kind of risk if, in fact, we're getting more oil but we're then exporting more oil as well? so it's the same equation. technically, we could be energy
independent, but we are exporting oil as well. >> but i understand the issue. i think the important point, though, is once the pipeline system is set up where this oil is going to the gulf coast refineries, it is entirely open to the u.s. congress should they choose at some point in the future. for example, if there was a war and there was a requirement to keep that oil in or those refined products in the country, the only place that oil can go is where it is being pipelined to. so just by having that infrastructure, the u.s. has the comfort that they have that energy independence and that energy security. >> can somebody also -- perhaps you're the one, mr. pourbaix, or anybody else, the pipeline -- we are told by people who oppose it -- they're saying it has to come through the united states because canada doesn't want to allow it to come west and go out to the pacific ocean on the west
coast. can anybody answer that? has it been answered? i've been in and out. >> i mean, i'd be happy to just -- the practical reality is the u.s. gulf coast is the largest refining center on the planet, and the refiners there are largely configured to run heavy crude. the oil sand production out of canada is overwhelmingly heavy crude, so the natural place, it was natural to connect the largest, the large supply with the large demand. and that's why it goes the direction it goes. and i think that is the most rational and economic place for it to go. but if it can't go to the u.s., it will go to china, it will go to india. but i don't -- i mean, i think from the canadian government's perspective, from the alberta government's perspective, the view is the right place for it to go is the gulf coast. >> i see you shaking your head. >> we know it's not going to china in large volumes because they don't have the potential to
process the canadian tar sands and, b, there is a small pipeline going west through british columbia. it's about 300,000 barrels a day. and we know that 99% of the crude on that pipeline is going to the u.s. so if there was an interest by china to receive of this crude, it would be buying it from the pipeline they already have going to the west coast, and they're not. so this argument that it's either the u.s. or china is a false one, and, you know, you look at the pipeline going through, you know, keystone xl through the u.s. to the gulf coast, the fact of the matter is i believe the number is 600,000 barrels of gasoline was ebbs ported from gulf -- exported from gulf coast refineries, and the state department indicated that over half of the refined products from the refineries getting oil from keystone xl would likely be exported internationally. so it's not a issue. this is not energy that is going to benefit primarily the american consumer.
>> gentleman's time has expired. i might also add the department of energy did a study as well that was significantly lower than what they estimate the exports would be. but, mr. griffith, i'll recognize you, the gentleman from virginia, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate the witnesses being here today. i do have a lot to get through, so i apologize if i seem short at times. i would say in response to the answer to mr. mckinley's question by dr. jaccard, if your written testimony -- in your written testimony you indicated china might not have grown at 10% a year, but economic models say it avoided the dramatic increase in carbon pollution. so you do acknowledge that using a lot of fuel does, in fact, create jobs. would that not be correct? yes or no, please. >> i think it would have created more jobs in that same scenario. >> well -- >> it would have been more labor
intensive. >> your testimony was -- >> economic growth. >> right. >> but it would be more labor intensive, more jobs. >> that being said, i think that at times particularly in regard to keystone xl pipeline, we are straining out the gnat while swallowing the camel. i would compliment you, dr. jaccard, that you at least pay attention to the camel, and i point to your work with the council on environment and development of which you were the co-chair of the 2009 task force for sustainable use of coal. and while we're talking about the xl pipeline, i support the pipeline, i also support the use of coal. there's some really interesting data the in there. and i would point to the report of 2009 which i have a copy of and have read through while listening to the testimony that china has increased its production of coal 43 times since 1949, that it passed the u.s. being the world's number one coal prusiner 1996 -- producer in 996, that chinese coal profits are over 100 yuan a
year, and then i'm going to take a couple of quotes out of of here because i think it's instructive long term. never the less, the energy efficiency and pollution control of the coal-powered industry in china is still behind the most advanced level in the world. for example, the fraction of power capacity is 24.8% in 2007 while it's only 7% in the usa in 2007. the average coal consumption per unit, coal-powered electric supply in china in 2008 is 11% higher than that of japan. per unit electric supply of coal power in china in 2007 is 30%, and 150% higher than the u.s. respectively. i go on and later quote on the same page, i'm on page 13 of 47, normally the efficiency designed for boilers is between 72-80%. but in reality most of the actual thermal efficiencies are between 60-65, 10-15% lower than
identified thermal efficiencies of boilers. some boilers only have efficiency of 30-40 president actual application which is 30-50% lower than that of developed countries. 3.5 billion tons of coal are mined in china, just under a billion in the u.s.ment and so i think -- in the u.s. and so i think it's instruct i have because i don't believe the chinese are going to -- while you paid anticipation to the report and suggested some reforms -- i don't believe the chinese are going to take away jobs in order to make everything better and more efficient. and i would also submit to you that in that same report on page 19, beginning at the bottom of that page, and i'm going to edit this a little bit. there are five relations or five problems -- five recommendations or five problems, one, the existing laws, regulations or policies are mostly insufficient, without practical value. four, the existing regulations and policies are issued by
different government offices resulting in ineffective supervision on environmental protection work. five, the existing regulations and policies have no means of encouraging the widespread use of key techniques for sustainable development of the coal industry. i have a solution for china's problem, and that is that we use our energy in this country and our energy in north america, and we bring those jobs to the united states because we do it much more efficiently, and the bottom line is we can do it with less pollution in this country. there's a study that says that the pollution from china takes about ten days to get from the gobi desert -- actually, camels still exist in an indigenous state -- all the way to the eastern shore of virginia. folks, we've got to bring those jobs back. keystone xl pipeline is one way to do it. we reduce the world's carbon footprint by doing so because the chinese are using a whole lot more bebeing less -- by being less efficient, a whole lot more energy to produce the same goods we could produce.
wouldn't you agree with me, mr. stetler? >> yes, i would. >> thank you very much. i yield back. [laughter] >> thank you very much. at this time i recognize the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you to the witnesses for inspiring interesting discussion here this morning. when we consider actions that drive climate change, i believe that we can't just focus on short-term emissions, we also have to consider how major infrastructure investments impact a sustained long-term carbon emissions agenda. investment in a pipeline of this size would only be worthwhile if oil were going to move through it for decades, perhaps 30-50 years. dr. jaccard, could you please talk about the keystone xl pipeline in that context? >> in the context of infrastructure? >> of infrastructure and long-term -- >> oh, absolutely. >> yes. missions. >> one thing is when you put
that infrastructure in place, you are committing yourself to pollution for a long time to come into the future. and mr. pourbaix might agree with me that pipeline economics might change. i used to regulate pipelines, once you've already built them. in other words, even if the economics change, people don't need nearly as much return to keep a pipeline operating as opposed to initially building it. >> so that being said, with the keystone xl line are we committing ourselves to many years of high emissions and creating a major incentive for further tar sands production? >> absolutely. that's exactly what you're doing. >> then how would a comprehensive climate policy help avoid that? >> a comprehensive climate policy would make sure that just as the chinese told me that they wouldn't act unless the u.s. was acting, how else would they act? so you have to have a situation where what they said very clearly, we'll act if the u.s.
acts and starts to pressure, encourage us to act. and, in fact, when there were times when it looked like the u.s. would act, that's when i helped the chinese eliminate coal subsidies and several other policies. and so simply, you have to have a situation where the most powerful country in the world takes a first step. creating jobs as well, but takes a first step and then starts to push other countries to go in the same direction. it doesn't happen any other way. >> thank you. our highest priority, undeniably, is bringing about more jobs, needing more jobs and requiring many more jobs. is the keystone xl tar sands pipeline addressing that jobs policy? >> i may leave to mr. swift because of the specifics, but i have already given testimony that moving away from a carbon pollution future, which doesn't fessly mean stop using fossil fuels, is a job-intensive
future. it's a false idea that you trade one with off against the other. >> so thank you. and, mr. swift, how many permanent jobs do you quantify that keystone xl would create according to the state department? >> the state department found that keystone xl would create 35 permanent jobs. >> and i understand there would also be several thousand construction jobs over one or two years? >> that's right. the state department found that there would be 3900 construction jobs. one -- on the national level, one of the ways to think about this is thatst the chance -- it's the chance of getting a keystone xl construction job is similar to the chance of getting struck by lightning when considering the labor force. >> well, i understand any of those jobs to be important, but i sense that it's not the best path to follow if we rely on keystone xl as the job creator. let me put it into this context.
cbo estimates that the sequester will cost 750,000 jobs this year alone. if this were really about jobs, we would not have gone forward with sequester. we could have passed our president's jobs bill in the last congress. i believe we would be taking the advice of many economists and making infrastructure investments and energy investments that we need to support a modern economy as the best way to create jobs and advance a safe climate. this project is not about jobs, it's about committing us to an oil-based economy for another 50 years or more. it's about committing us to serious disruption of our climate system, our agriculture, our fisheries, our coastlines, our water supplies. i believe that we don't have to choose. we can have it both ways. we can have safe climate and good jobs. and i believe i'm almost -- but i would ask, um, dr. jaccard with the right policies, can we shift to low-carbon energy? and grow jobs at the same time? >> absolutely.
when you look at independent analysis at mit, university of maryland, stanford university, these are independent studies. we involve oil, fossil fuel companies in the projects and in the work. we continuously show if you start now, a transition over many decades -- doesn't mean shutting down production or coal mines or oil sands today, it means not expanding and transitioning towards cleaner energy -- that that's a jobs future, and it's a climate future as well. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. gentleman's time has expired. well, that concludes today's hearing. mr. rush. >> mr. chairman, if i might, your indulgence. mr. chairman, i want to kind of clarify a comment that you made earlier in the hearing when you referenced an article in the economist. and the reason that we don't need to worry about climate
change. >> i didn't say we didn't need to worry about climate change. i did reference the article in the -- >> well, if i can clarify the article just a little bit more, mr. chairman. i think you are referencing a march 30 article which describes the correlation between mean global temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions. mr. chairman, i think you should read the entire article which explains that we're currently headed towards a temperature increase that would, quote, be extremely damaging, end of quote with more areas affected by the drought, up to 30% of species and greater risk of extension -- [inaudible] likely increase of intense hurricanes like superstorm sandy and much higher sea levels. you might also want to read the editorial in the economist from the same day which advocates for
government policies to cut carbon pollution. finally, mr. chairman, if you want to look at an article in the scientific journal "nature and climate change" that came out just this week, the article explains this scientific issue, and it is anything but comforting. and i think, mr. chairman, this highlights the need to have a series of hearings, not just one hearing two years ago, but a series of hearings on climate change science so that this committee can better understand all the issues, better understand what's at stake. thank you, mr. chairman, for your indulgence. >> well, you know, i'm delighted that you raise that issue, and i really appreciate your referring everybody to this article. i think everyone should read this article. and all of us could pick out
specific parts of this article to butt rest the argument -- buttress the argument we want to make. there's no question about that. and that's why i think -- for example, let me just read this. lastly, there's -- this is from the article -- lastly, there is evidence that the natural, nonmanmade variability of temperatures may be somewhat greater than the international panel on climate change has thought. a recent paper by a group of chinese in the proceedings at the national academy of sciences links temperature changes from 1750 to natural changes such as sea temperatures in the atlantic ocean. and suggests that the anthroprogenerallic global warming trends might have been overstunted by a factor of two. now, you know, we here today can't answer this question. i know that you all have asked -- i mean, we've had a lot of hearings on climate change.
and it may make you feel good to know that this morning i talked to our staff, and i said, you know, maybe we should have another hearing about it because the temperatures have been flat for ten years according to this article. and maybe we need to address the issue. and so i, for one, am perfectly happy to bring in scientists because this is an ongoing issue. things are changing every day, every year. and i don't think any of us have all the answers. so i appreciate your raising the issue, and do you have any other comments? >> no, mr. chairman. i'd just like to know when will the hearing be scheduled, and i look forward to the hearing that will bring some scientists in so that we will start getting opinions from industry officials and those who have a legitimate or who have self-interest in it.
let's bring some scientists who have been offering independent conclusions about climate change. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> mr. chairman? i just want to point out that while he may not call himself a scientist per se, dr. jaccard, actually, was part of that team that received the nobel prize working on climate change, so east no stranger to the issue. >> right. >> so i do feel it's a mischaracterization to say that we only have industry folks coming in. we have a couple here today who take a counterview but also one who shared in a nobel prize. >> and we've had many, a multitude of hearings on climate change over the last five years. >> mr. chairman? i really respect dr. jaccard, and i respect his accomplishments. but that doesn't nullify our request, that we have a hearing specifically with scientists to discuss climate change. not keystone, but climate change
itself. >> well, that'll have to be -- >> if you want to invite dr. jaccard to come in to be a part of that panel, i have no objections to that. but the focus of it would be climate change and not keystone. >> well, you know, we're all -- >> of which, of which we are really deliberating not keystone itself, but whether or not this congress is going to jeopardize the relationships, the international relationships between canada and the u.s., whether or not we're going to hijack the process and that this committee will begin to just write international policy without the influence of the administration on -- [inaudible] that's what this hearing's about. >> well, you know, we asked four
agencies to send representatives to in this hearing, and they were excused. >> but, mr. chairman, the nature and the subject of this hearing, i want to be real clear, is not climate change. it's keystone. >> keystone's very important. isn't that right, many mallino? >> well, i'm not in opposition that keystone is very important, all right? but i don't want to see the process short circuited by the actions of this committee ander into fear with -- interfere with this bill that's before us. >> well, i really appreciate you raising the issue, mr. rush, and, you know, we're very sensitive to your concerns. and i know that you and mr. waxman have written a number of letters, and we have a lot of issues to visit together. so thank you, and once again i want to thank the members of the panel for being with us today. we appreciate all of your testimony and your responding to our questions. and we'll keep the record open for ten days in the event some
additional material that someone may want to offer. and with that we'll conclude today's hearing and thank you once again. today's hearing is concluded. [inaudible conversations] >> this morning on c-span2, senate floor debate on the firearms bill with senators murphy and blumenthal of connecticut and senator mike lee of utah. then senators manchin and too discuss their bipartisan agreement on expanded background checks for gun sales. and live at 9:30 eastern, the senate returns to vote on whether to move forward with the firearms bill. >> today house leaders on legislation in congress. in the afternoon at 1:15 eastern, speaker john boehner discusses his party's agenda, takes questions on the president's budget, immigration and gun legislation. live coverage on c-span3.
and later minority leader nancy pelosi speaks to reporters on the top priorities on the democratic agenda. we'll be live at 2 p.m. eastern also on our companion network, c-span3. thursday morning at is 11 eastern, the senate will vote on whether to move forward with the firearms bill. while senators manchin and toomey worked on a partisan bill, debate continued. next, connecticut senator chris murphy speaks on the legislation followed by senator mike lee of utah on his opposition. >> thank you, mr. president. mr. president, it goes without saying that we all do our jobs here, that we seek a seat in the united states senate for a reason. we decided to run for this high office because of issues that we deeply care about whether it be more affordable health care or better housing or lower taxes.
in a job like this, you're driven to find the issues that move you. and then sometimes there are issues that find you. when i was elected to the united states senate last november, i never imagined that my maiden speech would be about guns or about gun violence. just like i could have never imagined that i'd be standing here in the wake of 20 little kids having died in sandy hook or six adults who protected them. but sometimes issues find you. and so here i am. i'm so pleased to have the majority leader, the majority whip and so many of my colleagues on the floor with me here today. i want to start, though, with the unpleasant part. i think it's important for all of my colleagues to understand why we're having this debate
this week and next week about gun violence. why for the first time in decades we were able to break the log jam to try to do something about the waves of gun violence that have plagued this nation. it's easy to avert your eyes from the horror of what happened in newtown. it's easy to just box your ears and pretend that it didn't happen. but we can't ignore the reality, because it's here. and on a disturbingly regular basis, it's here. in columbine, in tucson, in aurora n sandy hook. and the next town's name is just waiting to be added to the list if we do nothing. so here's what happened. sometime in the early morning hours of december 14th, a very disturbed, reclusive young man named adam lanza went into his mother's room and shot her dead in her sleep. a few minutes later, maybe hours
later, he got into her car, and he drove to sandy hook elementary school. about 9:35, he shot his way through locked doors with an ar-15 semiautomatic rifle that was owned by his mother, and he began a ten-minute rampage that left 20 children -- all 6 and 7-year-olds -- and six adults who cared for them dead. in ten minutes adam lanza got off 154 rounds from a gun that could shoot up to six bullets a second. that high-powered gun assured that every single child that adam lanza shot died. shot most kids multiple times. noah pozner was shot 11 times alone. the state's veteran medical examiner who'd been on the job for decades said he'd never, ever seen anything like this. but seven children did escape. six kids were courageously hid
in a classroom closet by their teacher, victoria soto, who shielded her kids from the bullets and died that day. five other kids ran out of the room when lanza had trouble reloading. five kids alive today because the shooter had to stop and switch ammunition magazines. and whether it's because he had trouble reloading again or because the police were coming into the building, at about 9:45 lanza turned one of the weapons on himself, and the massacre ended. but not before 26 people were dead. that's the reality. and the worse reality is this: if we don't do something right now, it's going to happen again. but really, mr. president, it's happening every day. this country has just gotten so callously used to gun violence that it's just rain drops.
of it's just background noise. and that reality, the one in which we are losing 30 americans a day to gun violation, in which a chart that shows you how many have died since december 14th is almost unreasonable because it's a cast of thousands, that reality is just as unacceptable as what happened in sandy hook that day. and so the question is, are we going to do anything about it, or are we just going to sit on our hands like we have for 20 years and accept the status quo with respect to everyday gun violence and these increased incidences of mass shooting? if we're really serious about doing our jobs here, we can't. outside the beltway this isn't a debate. this isn't a discussion. 87% of americans think that we should have universal background checks, everybody who buys a gun should prove they're not a criminal. two-thirds of americans think we should restrict these high-capacity ammunition clips. 76% of americans believe that we
should crack down on people who buy guns legally and then go out and sell them in the community illegally. the american public knows that we've got to do something here, and so why have we been stuck for so long? well, first, it's because members of congress have been listening to the wrong people. we should be listening to gun owners. they're comprised of a lower percentage of americans than they did 30 years ago, about one-third of americans today own guns, but they're an important constituency. the problem is the nra doesn't speak for gun owners like they used to, and yet we listen to that organization more than we should. ten years ago they argued for universal background checks in the wake of columbine. today they oppose those background checks even though 74 percent of nra members support universal background checks. i don't know the exact reason for that, but maybe it's because increasingly the nra is not
financed by its members, but by the gun industry, tens of millions of dollars coming into the nra from the gun industry, a program that actually allows the nra to make a couple bucks off of every gun that's sold in many gun stores across the country. we're not listening to gun owners. if we were, this wouldn't be a debate in this chamber. but secondly and maybe most importantly, we've really botched a conversation in this place about rights. and rights really are at the core of this debate. you know, i hear when i'm back home in connecticut a lot of people talking about the right to bear arms as a unalienable right or a god-given right. and, of course, the constitution makes no such claim. the idea of an unalienable right, that's actually found in the declaration of independence, and it's a phrase that we know very well. we hold these truths to be self-evident; all men are created equal, and they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
amongst these are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. but liberty isn't just about having any gun you want anytime you want it. liberty has got to also be about the right to be free from indiscriminate violence. i mean, what kind of liberty did these kids have in that classroom in newtown, being trapped by an assault weapon-wielding madman? and maybe more importantly, what kind of liberty does a kid just up the street from here in washington, d.c. have when he fears for his life every time he wants to walk to the corner store, walk home from school? that's not the kind of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that our founding fathers talked about. but even if we do accept that part of liberty is owning and using a gun, then we have to ask ourselves these questions: to what degree are our liberties really infringed upon if we just suggest that there's a handful
of weapons that are too dangerous to own? to what extent are our freedoms trampled upon by just saying that you're going to these to reload your semiautomatic weapon after every ten bullets rather than thirty bullets? how grave ri do we risk tyranny when we moderately restrict the size of a legally-purchase bl clip? if liberty's really our chief concern, than preserving and protecting the lives of little kids has got away against constraining a weapons payload. we can't agree on that, what can we agree on? and if we accept this balance, then the policy prescriptions are pretty simple. first, guns should be available, but they should be available to people of sound mind with no criminal records. now, we've believed that for a long time, since the brady bill was passed we've had about two million people who were stopped from buying guns because they were legally prohibited to do so. the raidty bill has worked, the problem just is that 40% of
weapons sold in this country don't go through background checks. i hope we'll have some good news by the end of the day on this front, but that's a pretty easily-acceptable premise, criminals shouldn't own guns. second, a small number of guns are just too dangerous for retail sale. we've always accepted that premise as well. we've always drawn a line. some weapons are reserved for military hands, others can be in the hands of private citizens. we know that assault weapons kill. we know what happens when we banned them the last time. gun homicides dropped by 37%. nonlethal gun crimes dropped by an equal percentage. third, some ammunition too easily enables mass slaughter. what legitimate reason is there for somebody to be able to walk into a movie theater or to a religious institution or to a school with a hundred-rounds of
ammunition? why do we need that? hundred rounds, never mind thirty rounds. that doesn't sound too irrational. secondly, guns don't really kill people, people kill people. well, as to the first argument, newtown's part of the answer. nancy lanza probably owned guns for a variety of reasons, but one was she was divorced, she lived alone. she wanted guns to protect herself. guns that nancy lanza used weren't used to fire upon intruders in her home, they killed her, and they killed 26 other boys and girls and parents. that's not just an anecdote, that's a reflection of a statistical trend. if you have a gun in your house, it's four times more likely to be used in an accident than disease against an intruder. if you own a gun, it's much more likely to be used to kill you than someone who's trying to break into your home. and as to the second argument as the author once put it, guns
don't kill people. they just enable people to kill people. guns enable violence that is vastly more violent. how do we know this? we know it by what happened in sandy hook that day, but maybe even more importantly, we know it by what happened that very same day on the entire other side of the world. on that same day the 20 kids died in newtown, in china a madman walked into a school and attacked 23 school children with a deadly weapon. same day. twenty kids in newtown, 23 kids in china. in newtown all 20 kids who were attacked died. in china all 23 kids who were attacked lived. why?
because in china the assailant had a knife. not a gun that could spray six bullets a second. so forgive me if i dismiss those like the president of the nra who choose to ignore the effect of the laws that we're debating this weak and next week -- this week and next week when he said that all we're talking about here is feel-good legislation. he's right about one thing. it would feel really good if daniel barden got on the bus this morning to go to school. daniel was an immensely compassionate little kid. he was always sitting next to the kids in school who sat alone. he never left a room without turning the lights off. when his family would go to the grocery store, they'd leave the store, they'd get halfway across the parking lot, and they'd turn
around and daniel wasn't there because he was still holding the door open for people who needed a way out. he loved s'mores. it would feel really good if anna marquez green could still sing all those songs that she loved. she sang and performed everywhere she went. she came from a really musical family. her mom said that she'd walk anywhere, that her preferred mode of transportation was dancing. ..
he wanted to be a paleontologist when he grew up. he said, that's what made is going to be. i want to do everything that nate does. so that's our task. be back all the naysayers who say we can't do this. that we will change the way things are. i believe we can. i believe we are good enough to drown out the voices of the status quo and the lobbyists. i think and the next couple of weeks we are good enough to change the way things are. finally, i want to tell you one last story to explain why i know that we are good enough. i would think when we see people in need, when we see children stripped of their dignity, we are to compassion of the people to close arise. i know sometimes we wonder what we really are inside.
are we truly good or is goodness a learned behavior? if may sound strange but after december 14, i just know the former to be true. because after entering the shooting, to swallow up those 10 minutes of evil, millions of acts of kindness rained down on newtown. from the teachers are protected those kids to the firefighters who didn't leave that firehouse for days afterwards, to just millions of acts of humanity of gifts and phone calls came in from the rest of the world. and because of anne-marie murphy, anne-marie was a special education teacher, charged with the care of this little boy, a wonderful gentle said joe boyd. he was doing great at sandy hook elementary school. anne-marie love dylan. and dylan loved anne-marie back.
there's a picture on his refrigerator of anne-marie. animals every day he points to anne-marie with pride, to his parents. nicole, his mom is here this week, said at dylan's funeral, she said, that when she realized till and wasn't going to show up at the firehouse that day, with all the other kids who were returning from the school, she hoped she would see mrs. murphy. she knew she wouldn't. she knew that anne-marie wouldn't leave dylan's side if he was in danger. and she didn't. when the bullets started flying, she brought dylan into her arms. she held him tight inside the classroom. and that's just how the two of them were found. on monday, nicole flew down here
to washington with myself and president obama to try to make the case of we need change, for dylan, for anne-marie and the thousands of other people before and after who have been killed by guns. and as nickel and the other parents walked up the steps of air force one, one mom raised a piece of paper above her head with a note she had scribbled on it that day. the cameras caught the moment. a note just said simply, love. i believe today more than ever have before that if we are truly doing our job here in this chamber, then love has to win. every single time. >> mr. president i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> the senator from connecticut. >> mr. president, thank you, and
i want to congratulate and thank my colleague from connecticut, senator murphy, on his profoundly eloquent and powerful statement to our colleagues, and join him in calling attention to the horrific tragedy that has brought us to this point in the debate on gun violence. is very eloquent and powerful summary of our losses i think is a way to begin a potential turning point, after newtown has given us a call to action. newtown is a tipping point in this debate. and my colleague from connecticut, and i, have spent literally days and weeks with that community, and have seen the courage and strength that they have brought to this town,
and to our colleagues. because they have been meeting with our colleagues, and they are indeed here today. benjamin andrew wheeler who was age six, his father, david, is here today. ana marquez-greene, age six, her mother and her father are here today. dylan hockley, age six, his mother is here. daniel, his mother jackie and his father mark ar r. here. jesse lewis, age six, his father is here. mary sherlach, one of the six educated, one of the six heroic educators killed at sandy hook, her husband, bill, is here today. we can draw inspiration not only from the memories of those
children and great educators who were killed here, but from the strength and resilience and resolve income into the halls of the building, meeting with our colleagues, indeed at this very moment, they are with one of our colleagues. looking him in the eye and saying to him, how can you not improve a bill -- approved a bill that stops illegal trafficking, strengthens school safety, imposes the requirement for criminal background checks, how can you not stop assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that were integral to the killing in newtown? how can you not do something about gun violence that has caused more than 3000 deaths since then? how can you not allow a vote,
how can you deprive the american people of a vote on a measure that is so essential to the safety, there will being, the futures of their children and their community? as the president of the united states has said so eloquently, and his leadership has been so important to this cause, the victims of newtown, of tucson, a roar, virginia tech, they deserve a vote. and the likelihood of a vote has been increased by the leadership of my colleagues, senators schumer, senator manchin, senator toomey, who have worked hard to bring us together to a very promising and profoundly constructive turning point in this process. and i want to thank also our leader senator harry reid for his determination and resolve. on the morning of december 14,
parents throughout connecticut, and newtown, and sandy hook, brought their children to school, thinking of the rest of their day and the rest of their days, when they would have play dates and snacks, breaks, holiday parties, christmas and hanukkah tree, present wrapping, paper angels, gingerbread, songs and poems. those were the memories, and the futures that they brought with them. just hours later i was at sandy hook, as 20 families of those children emerged from a firehouse, and i will never forget the cries of pain and
grief that i saw on that day. i went there as a public official because i felt a responsibility to be there. but what i saw was through the eyes of a parent, as all america did on that day. and i saw the families also of six heroic educators who perished trying to save their children. those sights and sounds changed america. we are different today than we were before sandy hook. this problem is with us, the problem of gun violence is the same problem that has existed for decades, but we are different because we know we can and must do something about it. there was evil and that day in sandy hook, but there was also great goodness. the goodness of the first responders who stopped the shooting through their bravery when they appeared at the school. the shooter turned the gun on
himself. they saved allies. the courage and bravery of the clergy. father bob, monsignor bob, robert wise, who the evening conducted a digital that we attended, when many resolve to light candles instead of first the darkness. the greatness of leadership demonstrated by many of our public officials beginning with the first selectwoman of newtown, the legislators who passed in connecticut a major that will provide a model for the country and attacking the problem of gun violence, and the leadership of our governor, daniel malloy. and, of course, the great goodness of the educators who, -- who threw themselves at bullets, cradled young people seeking to save them, rogue we gave their lives.
they are models of courage and leadership should inspire us at this critical moment. they should inspire us to think better and do better and resolve that we will not let this moment pass. we will seize this opportunity and we will demonstrate the kind of leadership that the majority of americans expect and deserve and need at this point. the majority of americans want commonsense measures. to stop gun violence. majority of americans want a vote, and they want action from this body. and we need to keep faith with them, but also with the victims. the victims who should not be forgotten. the connecticut effect is not going away. this result is not dissipating. we will keep faith with them, out of that tragedy, the unspeakable loss, the
unimaginable, horror of that day, and the days since then, and the days to come. we resolve that this country will be better and safer. and so as we begin this debate, as colleagues of ours at this moment announced a very promising compromise that may lead us forward, provide us with a path toward bipartisan action, and it should be bipartisan, there's nothing republican or democrat about law enforcement, or about law enforcement saving people's lives. we should resolve to go forward as one country. i've been working on this issue for many years. i helped to author and support connecticut's first assault weapon ban in the early 1990s. i went to court to defend and
when it was challenged constitutionally, argued in the trial, and then in the state supreme court to uphold our law. i have worked with law enforcement colleagues for three decades. and i know that they support these measures. our state and local police, our prosecutors around the country support a ban on illegal trafficking. they support a national background check. they support school safety, and they support bans on military style weapons that are so designed to kill and maim innocent people. and they support a ban on high-capacity magazines, because they know those are the weapons of war. they enable criminals to outgun them. they put their lives at risk.