Organization ando political organizations its clear over the past several electoral cycles the Koch Brothers and others associated have pumped likely hundreds of millions of dollars particularly into nonprofit political organizations. And this is where it really gets technical but also gets very important in the sense that these types of organizations which are not supposed to have a primary purpose of engaging in politics are still spending tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars collectively to engage in the political process, and this is really where the row begins. Where the argument that harry reid and plenty of other democrats have articulated saying fine, play politics, get in politics but we should know who truly is behind it. Can either of us put a dollar figure on how much money the Koch Brothers have put in the system in in part no, because we dont have the information by law to put such a dollar figure on their pending. Host based on that, lets take a step back. Who are the Koch Brothers and how do they make their money and why are they so act ive and who are they aligned with . Guest they are two of the most wealth i didnt individuals in the country and industrialists in the broadest sense and involved in oil refineries, georgia pacific, the Paper Company and a variety of things throughout the country under the broad umbrella of Koch Industries and libertarians at heart. You might not really associate them first and foremost with the Republican Party because so much of what they are about philosophically speaking of what they are driving for are free markets, free enterprise, the ability to do business in this country without rules and regulation and Government Intervention thats going to prevent business from being successful, from earning money, so much of the money they are donating are going to these Nonprofit Groups and a lot of their detracters call it the chtopus where its just a nerve center with arms spread out throughout the country with all these organizations and groups that effectively try to involve they musts in certain issues that support the Koch Brothers philosophies or elections supporting candidates who in turn will support those types of philosophies, the center to protect patients rights and the future fund and several different organizations that demonstratively that we have been able to track and other organizations have been able to track back to the Koch BrothersDonor Network or the Koch Brothers themselves. So its ooh very, very Massive Network that then able to put in place and they have been very successful for the large part to secure the identities and the dollar figures of their donors, of their supporters. We dont know a whole lot about some of these groups. We know what they do and support but who is actually running them and behind them and pulling the levers and how much money they are injecting in it is difficult to ascertain even though we have had success in ferretting out where the money is coming from and where the money is going. Host based on the historic Citizens United ruling everything they are doing is perfectly legal. Yes. Guest and another point you made earlier, who are the Koch Brothers . A lot of people, particularly liberals on the democratic side would like to paint them as these mono crow matic aforementioned free market but at the same time, too, its important to note that theres plenty of shades of gray here. Theres a bit of a stratification in the operations that they are interested in. For example, in definite fairness to them, they are some of the biggest backers, particularly david koch of the arts. He loves the ballet and the arts in new york city. He has donated tens of millions to them, if you ever watched nova on pbs, a particular big supporter of that too so as individuals they go beyond the political sfeer and have more many years although their political involvement really is at a height in the 2012 election cycle and the 2014 cycle were now in. Host but to give a sense of how the Democratic Party is reacting, this is a website its called koch addiction. Com dscc says he republicans are addicted to koch and keeping track of where they are spending and Background Information on the Koch Brothers themselves. And this really points to the idea that the 2014 election cycle is largely at least early on going to be about trying to demonize not a particular candidate on the republican side or the Republican Party in and of itself but using the Koch Brothers as the foil to try to number one on the senate side try to regain control of the senate which democrats desperately want to do although it seems difficult to maintain the house but all the while the Koch Brothers have been very much at the heart of this all as a fundraising and motivation tool. You need an enemy. You need a vinl. They have found their villain and enemy in the Koch Brothers and until further notice expect home the keep pounding that drum as hard and fast as they can go with it. Host and this is how they are doing it. Meet the Koch Brothers. Car christian against and Greenhouse Gases and also the website pointing out no obama care, lower wages, no social security. Tax breaks for billionaires and who will gain much from the Koch Brothers . Corporate tax breaks, looser regulations tax loopholes and outscoresing jobs. Guest you can talk about issues until youre blue in the face and all those issues very key and important to democrats strategy and the heart of their philosophy in 2014. But if you dont have somebody to personify those issues or again a villain to present to somebody who is fighting against the issues that you care about, oftentimes its very difficult to connect with your voter base, with your potential supporters, the people who will elect you in november when the midterm Elections Come around and its also important to note too that the democrats are playing this game to an extent too. They do in a different way but still an important key way have plenty of billionaire backers or multibillionaire backers who are playing this political game of unlimited money. Sometimes a lot of people like to call it dark money. Forthcoming money into Nonprofit Groups or less dark if you will funneling it boo super packs which are these types of organizations that have only been around a few years that can nonetheless raise and spend unlimited or ts of money to for against a political opponent. One has been adamant about getting involved in the political sfeer even environmentalists so in a way democrats are holding him up as an elicksor to fight dollar for dollar with the Koch Brothers but somebody who is going to be very supportive of Environmental Issues and at the same time they dont the party dont have direct control over his actions so he is in a way a free agent doing what he sees fit using the laws instituted in this country particularly in the aftermath citizen united sers verse federal election case in 2010 which really set all these things in motion and animated the political system we have right now. The democrats are getting smart to it and read if they dont engage and play this game then they do so at their own peril which is why you see more and more democratic aligned super packs, nonprofit organizations that are getting politically active that are very liberal in the way they operate. They may not be matching the republicans or conservatives but definitely playing the game at a much more aggressive level than they were in the 2010 election cycle and even in the 2012 president ial election cycle. Host go going back to the george soros s of the world, can we expect a campaign against these bundlers helping out the Democratic Candidates . Guest maybe but not in the way the democrats are going after the Koch Brothers. The republicans have always held wealthy democratic supporters as being their foils on the other side but youre not seeing anything at least in the 2014 election cycle coming from the republicans going after the democratic donors in the way youre seeing it going the other way around. The republican sort of have their own problem right now with outside money in the sense that we reported recently that during the first two months of 2014, that of all the money that has been spent to directly advocate for or against candidates running in the 2014 midterm cycle, about one out of err five dollars spent is coming from demonstratively conservative organizations and attaching republicans with it, those groups are actually spending more money attacking republicans than democrats during this early portion of the 2014 election cycleso it really speaks for the fight Tea Party Versus main stream and conservative verse vs. More moderate or pain stream as well. And you have these primaries in kentucky with Mitch Mcconnell and several other key federal primaries throughout country where theres just a heck of a lot of infighting going on. Some might say its tenant amount to a republican civil war. If its not to that level its at least to the level of significant battles all across the country and broadly to the idea of the tea Party Struggle within the Republican Party and whether the Republican Party wants to move more to the center or to the right. Host Dave Levinthal with politico a graduate of Syracuse University and now with the Public Center for public integrity. From ohio, good morning. Caller im from athens, ohio. But im glad to be on here. Im glad for somebody to stand up and talk about the Koch Brothers and this is the national ji graphics one day about they told all about how putin gets back in there, he has been in there trying to tell them to invest in the United States. They own 2 3 of the United States. They can george bush had come in and won 2006 if im not mistaken he turned up donate anything, open money to the campaigns for political elections. Why cant that be stopped about donating so much . On there about so much you can put in on political but he got Koch Brothers got case again near ohio. We watched the video where the elections are 15 minutes down from taking all of them and the Koch Brothers come in and even told them they put in 145,000 votes for him. He was not elected here. He was bought. Host abby, thanks very much for the call carolyn had this point as well along the lines. Money is not speech. Its assistant amount to briarry and buying rep resentation. To both these points, david lauter . Guest first of all, in this country you can still not donate unlimited amounts of money directly to a candidate. If i am a rick donor and i want to give you a million what i can do is take that Million Dollars and say, all right, im going to use that to buy Television Advertisements and facebook ads and twitter ads and going to independently support your candidacy. Thats pretty much the way that its working right now because of the way the law reads in this country because of that continual prohibition in being able to give unlimited amounts directly to a campaign. But in practical terms its the second best thing for political operatives or political actors being able to independently use the money to run in a way a pair level campaign. So thats where that particular situation is working right now. And nick makes this point. You can share our thoughts. Alex from New Hampshire on our line. Caller thank you for taking our call. And thank you for the facts on the Koch Brothers. Two quick questions. Im concerned about the Mainstream Media not mentioning how much george soros, unions, bar associations donate nearly 100 of their money to the dnc and the democrats and that kind dollars pails in comparison to the Koch Brothers. Are he second point is why people not offended and why is arry reid not excoriated for constantly giveing the floor and excoriating the law abiding citizens . Guest the caller makes a very good point that there are little rab democratic donors putting money into the citizens. A lot of democrats like to demonize the Citizens Uniteded as a terrible thing but they are gaining from the rule because to know if it takes 30 yards for them to get a first down and ten yards for the republicans in a cash sense theyre going to be in big big trouble and they realize that in no Uncertain Terms in 2012 when one of the biggest critics of Citizens United president barack obama effectively said i give my blessing to have a super pac formed on my behalf to raise and spend money to support my election. He realized like a lot of democrats that even if they dont like the decision, even if they disagree, theyre going to have to abide by the law in order to stay competitive with republicans. But to speak to that callers point and your previous caller, the i. R. S. Is going to be a big player Going Forward in the way that the rules and regulations may or frankly may not change for future election cycles. Right now as we speak, the i. R. S. Is considering a whole new slate of rules that would cause these socalled 501 c 4 organizations, Nonprofit Groups, that are supposed to exist to ben fift the social welfare or not engage in politics as their primary purpose, the i. R. S. Is considering saying, look, none of that any more. Youre not going to be able to be a 501 crrn 4 and work in the policecal sphere and work in the way you are right now. But its very controversial and a lot of liberals and democrats dont like the potential rules because in a way it goes farther than that and doesnt speak just to political activity advocating for and against but talks about voter education, Voter Registration drives, having a candidate come to your Nonprofit Group and speak before them immediately before an election season. So there were tens of thousands of different comments that had been sent to the i. R. S. And had been logged with the i. R. S. During the Comment Period that was open in preparation for the i. R. S. To considering these new rules theyve proposed and most of those were negative even coming from a lot of liberal and democratic groups in addition to republican groups. So this is not a black and white issue, not just republican versus democrat, conservative versus liberal. People want to win. If youre in politics youre going to use the tools at your dispostal. Oftentimes the rule that you have that you have to play by or not. Youre going to use them to the best of your ability to get what you want at the end of the day, which is to win elections in november. The last couple of weeks the Senate Democratic leader has gone to the senate floor taking aim at the Koch Brothers, part of a larger effort by the democrats to use the Koch Brothers as what politico is calling the 2014 version of mitt romney what we saw in 2012. One of our viewers saying republicans are not addicted to the Koch Brothers, republicans are owned by the Koch Brothers. Lets lets listen to mike. Caller thank you for taking my call. I never know where to start. I cant ever cover all i want to cover but what i want to say is im glad a lot of the previous callers have recognized between whats the difference between soros and the Koch Brothers as far as directing their money . And i was a republican for a long time and i registered independent about part 10 years ago for the reason the republican doss not strategize like the dracts do. All theyre doing is trying to redirect somebody elses attention on or direct the attention of the lowinformation voters on the moral bankruptcy of obama. Thats simply what is their point because soros is doing the very exact same thing that they claim the cokes brothers are doing. But theyre doing it conservatively. Host thank you. Guest hillary is a fascinating case in the senses that she is not a registered candidate. Most people think she is probably going to run for president in 2016 but she hasnt yet. It may be another year before she decides but yet theres multii believe super pacs that have germ nated and sprung up over the past year and are raising millions of dollars because they have the ability to do so to support a potential Hillary Clinton campaign. So yes were in the 2014 mid term election cycle and yes the 2016 president ial election is nearly 3 years away but we already have because of the way the laws read in this country the ability for groups such as ready for hillary, which is the primary super pac, thats supporting Hillary Clinton to set up an entire operation typically backed by 10, 20 years ago if you wanted to start up the potential campaign that you want to start, if you want to create a proto campaign, you would have an exploratory committee. You can still do that today but you can also have your supporters go and raise a whole boat load of money and get together and organize and go and start a super pac which no better case than probably ready for hillary of the way that things work in this brave new rld of outside money and the postCitizens United. Host political writing about tom stire who is pushing for Climate Change issues and the story pointing out that he is putting forth up to 100 million in his own Campaign Push on Climate Change issues. And another viewer ed williamsson saying that the Koch Brothers have become public enemy number one to use their own money to support their own political views, nothing more. Am from georgia. Good morning. Caller i want to say harry eid is George Soros Monica lewinski. Soros wants to take the dream away from black americans Martin Luther kings dream and give it to illegals across the border and thats not right. Guest whether its any issue from immigration to environmental, you can be an environment list, you can be the biggest deregulation fan in the whole world. Were not here necessarily to argue who is right and who is wrong. But when it comes to the process, the ability to advocate for your own personal special interests. If youre a billionaire and youve got a whole lot of money that youre willing to spend on politics, on races, on campaigns to support candidates that you like, or for that matter attack candidates that you dont like, you have more ability regardless of whether youre a conservative or liberal. And democrat or republican, than perhaps youve ever had in modern u. S. Political history. So you can go as an individual and fund these groups to whatever degree you choose. You can either do it in a public way and have the note right thats associated with donating to a group like we talked about a super pac or if you want to do it behind the scenes and make it very difficult for the public to find out that you are truly the one who is behind a particular political effort, a political campaign, then you can do it at least for the time being through nonprofit entities. These 501 c 4 social welfare groups, 501 c 6 Business Trade organizations. These are the two types of vehicles right now that are frequently used in order to launch political campaigns in support or against candidates. But at the same time largely shield the donors from scrutiny that will come with, gren, the note right of donating 1 million or 10 million or 100 million to support the cause youre fighting for. Ost laura makes this point. Let me pun an example one way that were seeing the Koch Brothers and the response from the democrats. This is in one of the races likely determine the control of the u. S. Senate in 2015 alaska where mark ben yitch is seeking a second term. Well begin first with this ad. I trusted the president and senator begich. Lots of promises were made to pass obamacare. They knew the real truth. Now millions are losing their health care. Some are even losing their doctors. For too many of us costs are going way up. Senator beg yitch didnt listen. How can i ever trust him again . It just isnt favor. Alaska deserves better. Call senator begich. Tell him no more broken promises. Stop obamacare. Host that ad which was released just about a weekandahalf, two weeks ago, i want to go back to the response from the begich campaign. And this i believe is one of the first ads going directly at the Koch Brothers. Lets watch. First, it was the dc actress pretending to be an alaskan. Now ads attacking mark begich have been called false and not true. Who is behind the attacks . The Koch Brothers. The billionaire Koch Brothers. They come into our town. Just running it into the ground. A lot of alaskans are losing jobs im definitely concerned about the Drinking Water. I dont tell them what to do. I dont expect them to come to alaska and tell us what to do. Host dave, whats behind this very direct response . Guest nothing else straits the way that the democrats attack the democrats are taking with the Koch Brothers and perhaps a situation in alaska they see the Koch Brothers as the best proxy to tar republicans, to go after republicans, to try to defeat their political enemies. So the strategy right now whether its through fund raising, whether through advertising, through campaigns such as that, is to hit the Koch Brothers, hit the Koch Brothers hard, go after them, because the feeling is and ive talked to plenty of democrats who have been on the periphery of this strategy, they feel that if the Koch Brothers can really be demonized in the way that theyre hoping to, then by virtue of that, the Republican Party is also going to be demonized as well in the hearts and in the minds of voters. But theres another race that just occurred. It was down in florida, special election in floridas 13th congressional district, this is one where alex and david jolly the republican, sink the democrat, wrr fighting in a very, very tight race. Ultimately david jolly won, the republican. And but both sides came in and at the end of that race, with the information that we best have available to us, through the end of february, it was effectively even when it came to candidates spending and outside spending democrat to republican. So there was the best example that we have right now of what the greater 2014 election may look like. The republicans had a little bit more of outside money. That was coming in to support david jolly. Alex sink had the advantage when it came to money that her campaign raised but both sides went in, spent a hoke of a lot of money. It was one of the more expensive special elections that weve seen in history. 13 million for that one particular race in a district that not a whole lot of people would have paid attention to otherwise. Just shows what both sides are willing to do to score political victories and what is a very tight mid it have he remember election. Host and this comment, the Koch Brothers spending is for gain. Wn financial george soros and others spend on things with social or environmental benefits. Our last call on the republican line. John you get the last word with dave leventhal. Caller thanks for taking my call. I believe thanks to cspan gain believe that i believe with many callers that the wealthy seem to be increasingly dominating the political agenda. When they have the capacity to write a 1 million check. The politicians certainly do cater to their interests. If theres one thing though that all of these billionaires appear to agree with, really i dont know an exception to it, mark zuckerberg, george soros, paul sinnedler, former mayor bloomberg, shell natalson, they l agree on the socalled schumerrubio Senate Comprehensive Immigration bill, which is really a for workers. Hes promised to spend 50 million to get more h 1 v waivers to bring in people to replace American Workers at cheaper prices to make more money. Host thanks for the call. Guest the caller makes a great point. If you have a significant amount of money that you want to spend on politics and you have a pet issue, whether its immigration, gun control, you name it, the economy, jobs, any issue that were dealing with here on capitol hill, if youve got the money to spend, then you can spend it on that particular issue. And suddenly your ability to be a player, be a factor in political elections goes up just because of the money that you have and the ability for you to spend it. A lot of people ask, why dont we reform the Campaign Finance system . Why dont we do something completely different and in just, say, Citizens United is wrong, were going to get rid of it . The fact is that is going to be extremely difficult to do whether you agree or disagree with it. The Supreme Court has comb do you know with their law of the land. You could amend the constitution. That has not been done for any issues in 22 years. Something so politicized as the issue were talking about today. There could be bills passed that the work around the edges of this. But congress is not really willing to do much of anything these days when it comes to controversial issues. So dont hold your breath is the point. This is not something that is probably going to change and if anything does change again youve got to keep your eyes on the i. R. S. Going forward. They may have the greatest ability, for better or worse or however you feel about the issue, to affect change in the short term although these things with Campaign Finance issues and political influence issues, they do have a way like the pendulum proserbal pendulum swinging go back and go forth Campaign Finance along this country really never stay it is same and for long, for really a significant period of time. One final quick point. The great part of this program is the feedback from our cspan audience and one of our viewers saying that the jollysink races in florida attracted as you said 12. 7 million less than a third came from the candidates. And thats reporting that we did in fact. One of my colleagues had a wonderful report exactly how it all broke down and thats a great point that with one third coming from the candidates themselves, where was the rest coming from . It was coming from a small extent from the Party Committees but the lions share was coming from these independent outside groups nonprofit corporations, super packs that are related to the parties, that support democrats and republicans but are not controlled by the campaigns or the Party Committees. They can operate as free agents and pump as much money as they want to into these races for whatever interests they have whether its the candidates or whatever they can do it. Host dave next on washington journal michael allen. That is followed by kyle cheney on health care reform. And the fiveyear anniversary of the home modification program. We will except your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook or twitter. T 7shington journal live a a. M. Eastern on cspan. Next as a Senate Hearing on the Keystone Pipeline. Then a series Senate Hearing on a whistleblower retaliation. Formerhat, q a with Obama Administration we are focused on making sure that we can eliminate barriers to getting those networks in place. Billing out these networks are our priority. Issueses there are local and federal rules that might affect how we employ things are what the lighting might be an impact on Historic Sites are the environment. We want to make sure we are sensitive to those issues. At the same time, we want to move forward with employment. Thecustomers, those who use devices every day depend on having a good, strong connection on getting the day today when they want it and wherever they wanted. That means having a robust wireless network. The Wireless Infrastructure monday on the communicators at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan 2. Informer National Securities advisor for president obama says administration should approve the keystone xl pipeline. He told the Senate ForeignRelations Committee that the project within the u. S. National interest. It is for Americas Energy security. This is about an hour and 45 minutes. This hearing will come to order. We welcome the distinguished panel of experts and advocates to address something that has long been an issue of practical and political concern for many and across the nation. Today we are here to find answers and shed more light i hope on this issue. Here are the facts and the rationale on both sides. The proposed keystone xl pipeline with link men canada with the Canadian Border and nebraska. It would have a capacity of many barrels per day. The state department will determine whether the project is in the National Interest. That is the question we will hear testimony about today from our panelists. I hope this could be a balanced, thoughtful hearing and its aside politics that surrounds the debate and dont underlying question of what is in our National Interest. I hope we can build a record on both sides of this debate that may not result in agreement, but result in more agreedupon facts. Proponents of the pipeline according to jobs, economic development, and Energy Security are reasons why the pipeline should be approved. Opponents raise Climate Change concerns and attentional skills and downplay any Energy Security or economic advantage of the pipeline. That is not to say i do not have may own views. I do, i want to hear facts from the witnesses and have a full throated open discussion. Before i conclude, i want to introduce into the record a letter written on behalf of of the 500,000 members of the union of north america. The letter strongly supports the keystone xl pipeline. If there is no objection to that, i will enter it into the record. They have made it clear about the support of the pipeline and we offer him an opportunity to include his position on behalf of the members on this record. I called for this him because this Committee Comes to such issues. I know we can have a rational discussion. The senator and i believe this is a debate for having and i went to see misty to the Ranking Member for helping to put this hearing together. With that, let me turn to the Ranking Members for his remarks. Thank you. They key to all of our witnesses for being here. I understand we have two very diverse views on the keystone. I think we can all learn from both of those views. Thank you for the markup that we had yesterday and the strong Bipartisan Senate shown on the support of ukraine. It is unfortunate that administration declined to testify today. Very unfortunate. Want tand they do not i do think it would have been important and is important that they explain to us all of the factors that they will consider in making this decision. I hope today we can look past circumstances that come up with a clear picture of what it should be. Both sides of this issue would agree in some respects that the u. S. National interest is indeed at stake here. The administration is not going to be able to be indecisive at the end of this process, which hopefully will end very soon. Im interested to hear both sides. The link between the completion of the Keystone Pipeline and ensuring our Energy Security, thus our National Security, is clear and compelling. Despite years of rigorous review and strong public support for completion of the pipeline, administration is the only thing standing in the way of thousands of american jobs with the potential for many more. Theres a large supply of north american energy. Mr. What i understand from similar type when decisions were the secretary kerry or the president determined that keystone is not in our National Interest, they would in effect have to embrace the idea that the single pipeline and not just fossil fuel in general, but this single type one would have a clear contribution to the Global Climate to castor fee. Such a determination the scene far beyond the bounds of what the process has been in the past him what we would expect it to be now. The president climate standard for the approval of the pipeline announced in a speech last summer appears to ignore the findings of exhaustive and concrete Development Analysis that demonstrates that benefits we would reap from this project. It would also strengthen ties largest trading partner. In fact, the state department has determined that the keystone is unlikely to affect an array or demand for [indiscernible] when compared to other forms of trance for for oil, the pipeline is likely to provide a safer and more environmentally friendly method. Im not sure how refusing to do this project would do anything to lessen our nations dependence on fossil fuels. Look forward to hearing your thoughts on this and other aspects of the issue. Thank you to the chairman again for calling this hearing. Thank you. Let me introduce our panelists. Part general served as a supreme candor in europe. Following his retirement, general jones served for middle east security. As the president S National Security advisor tom a we welcome you back. Thank you for your service to our country. Michael is executive director of the sierra club. Jersey fellow new resident and we welcome him and his insights. We have a professor on Climate Science awareness and solutions at columbia university. For more than three decades, she served as the head of nasas institute for space studies he served as the head of nasas institute for space studies. Both of them have been arrested as protesters for the Keystone Pipeline. I hope his proves to be a more comfortable experience. This proves to be a more comfortable experience. [laughter] ally, we have thank you for joining us. Her full statements will be included in the record. Without objection, summarize your statements around five minutes or so that members could have a dialogue. I will ask you to testify in the order of which i introduced you. General jones. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here today. It iss of the committee, an honor to be here to share my views with you about the National Interest at stake and the Keystone Pipeline determination. Thank you for making my testimony a part of the record. If i could, i would also recommend that we provide for the committees interest a twoyear study done by the bipartisan council where i cochair the study with the senator and a former epa administrator, which was a very a partisan on the Overall Energy future. You requested that i testify today on the strategic and National Security interests associated with the approval of the pipeline. Interest that in my view are intrinsic to Americas Energy security in this country. Public testimony will be useful to the committees deliberation about issues as they will largely determine the direction of our nations futures. Many years both in and out of uniform. It is highly commendable that the committee is holding a meeting focus on the oil pipeline. I think his weeks volumes about energy in modern international affairs. That message resonates powerfully today in light of the events playing out in ukraine. The fact that Energy Security is domestica nation economy is wellestablished. The crimean crisis is proving that Energy Security is a central pillar for the global stability. This Current Crisis serves as an example of the tension and the rivalry over access to energy. A place on conflict across international landscape. Mr. Chairman, im passionate about energy. Theres no doubt in my mind it is a National Security issue. Every audi i came to appreciate in my service as commandant of the marine corps and National Security advisor. He should understand clearly that mr. Putins encouragement in crimea is among other things about exercising political power through the control of energy and about brandishing the threat of Energy Scarcity to intimidate and manipulate affordable populations. For the very same purposes, the Iranian Regime habitually threatens the flow of energy through the straits of hormuz, in venezuela, hugo chavez used energy bonds to keep his population in check for decades. Its also the same reason that Saddam Hussein invaded kuwait, sparking 20 years ever International Tension and conflict, and why one of osama bin ladens last decrees to his forces was to attack the Global Energy infrastructure. Energy scarcity is a potent strategic weapon. The greater the gap, the more destructive that weapon becomes. The difference between mr. Putin and us, however, is that he wields energy as a weapon to achieve his geostrategic goals, while we look to energy flow in free markets as a means of promoting international peace, prosperity, and economic stability. Less than a week ago, four nato allies from the eastern part of europe, hungary, poland, slovakia, and the czech republic, appealed to the congress of the United States to protect them from russian domination not by requesting troops or arms, but by sending energy. This is the future we are facing, and fortunately we are blessed with a capacity to rise to the challenge if we choose to do so. How Many Americans are aware that within the next year the United States will surpass russia as the Worlds Largest producer of oil and gas combined . We can be sure mr. Putin is well aware of that fact. What a stunning change of fortune for our country. Whose Energy Narrative over the past 40 years has been dominated by terms such as dependence, vulnerability, and peak oil. The u. S. Is on track to produce nearly 10 Million Barrels of oil a day by 2016, equal to that of saudi arabia. The story, however, does not end at our borders. Our neighbors to the north and south are also blessed with energy abundance, and with the proper revolve and strategic, north america can and in my view should become a Global Energy hub. Energy supplied to europe can serve as a linchpin in the revitalization of the transatlantic dialogue with nato, and as a consequence to mr. Putins aggression in the crimea. Members of the committee within our reach is a his historic opportunity to Harness Energy to solve our countrys most significant challenges, insecurity, trade imbalance, and devastating national debt, all of which erode our strength and Global Leadership. But we cannot do this if we continue to say no to the Infrastructure Requirements necessary to develop and utilize these resources. So i would like to pose a pretty fundamental question. Why would the United States spend billions of dollars and place our military personnel at risk to ensure the flow of energy half a world away but neglect an opportunity to enable the flow of energy in our very own backyard, creating jobs, tax revenue, and security . I both respect and appreciate that Climate Change concerns weigh heavily on this issue and on the minds of us all as they should. We should not have a discussion on Energy Without discussing climate impact. At a later date, if you would like, i look forward to testify on the importance of tackling climate issues in a strategic, comprehensive, and realistic way through Global Solutions to what is clearly a global challenge. But in the meantime, i would simply raise two considerations. Canceling the keystone x. L. Pipeline does not mean that the oil from the Canadian Oil Sands deposits will go undeveloped, sparing the world some modest incremental Carbon Emissions. The Prime Minister of canada has promised that the countrys oil sands will be developed should the keystone not be approved. In fact, if the Keystone Pipeline is not approved, the perverse result would be that the hydrocarbons will go to countries of very poor environmental records rather than the United States where our regulations and comprehensive are both comprehensive, strong, and enforced. Second, in a more overarching but no less significant point, of this i am convinced, if america does not remain prosperous and strong, it imperative dependent on Energy Security, we will not be in a position to engineer the lowcarbon Energy Solutions the world needs. Nor will we be able to exercise the Global Leadership necessary to answer the Climate Change. And challenge. The decision object the pipeline is a litmus test of whether america is serious about national, regional, and global Energy Security and the world is watching. Americas workers and consumers are watching, investors and job creators are watching, our allies who need a strong United States and Reliable Energy partner are watching. The developing world which requires Global Energy abundance to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty is watching, and the international bullies who wish to use Energy Scarcity as a weapon against us all are watching intently. So if we want to make mr. Putins day and strengthen his hand, we should reject keystone. If we want to gain an important measure of national Energy Security, jobs, tax revenue, and prosperity to advance our work on the spectrum of Energy Solutions that dont rely on carbon, then it should be approved. We need more than symbolic over politicized debates on particular projects is a more strategic approach to u. S. Energy and climate policy, one that promotes energy diversity, sustainability, productivity, and innovation. And we need to develop the vast array of Energy Potential that we are blessed to have at our national disposal, bearing in mind the Environmental Impact on our of our actions. Mr. Chairman, once again allegations are being made both here and abroad that the United States is a nation in decline. My definition of that ill ask you to sum up. Im summing up. Youre well over five minutes. My definition is that a nation is decline when it can no longer bring itself to do those things that deep down it knows it needs to do in its own good. As a national and interNational Security issue, building this pipeline is one of those things that we should do for our own good. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Thank you, mr. Brune. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member corker, members of the committee. Its an honor to appear before you today. Is your microphone on . Mr. Chairman. Ranking member corker, members of the committee, its an honor to appear before you today to discuss whether keystone x. L. Is in our National Interest. Im michael brune, executive director of the sierra club. The sierra club and more than two Million People who submitted comments last week to the state department know that this pipeline is not in our National Interest. The keystone x. L. Tar sands pipeline would cut through more than 1,000 miles of American Farms and ranches, carrying oil that is more toxic, more corrosive, more carbon intensive, and more difficult to clean up than conventional oil. All the way to the gulf where most of it would be exported. Like many of you, im a parent. And im deeply concerned about the world we are leaving for our children. One lesson my wife and i try to teach our kids is the need to set goals and stay focused as they strife to achieve them. Our country has a clear, sciencebased goal to limit carbon pollution. We must keep this in mind in recognizing that achieving that goal is incompatible with permitting this pipeline. None of the scenarios in the state departments analysis show how keystone x. L. Could be built in way that ensures our nation can meet those climate goals. In fact, keystone x. L. Would significantly exacerbate climate pollution because it would increase substantially the development of tar sands in alberta that you see here. A report last week from carbon tracker found that keystone x. L. Would spur additional production of roughly 500,000 barrels per day. The emissions equivalent of building 46 new coalfired power plants. Id like this report be added to the record, please. Without objection. Although the climate impacts of tar sands are sufficient reasons to reject this project, there are others a. Few of which which illa few of cite. First, any spill from this pipeline could be catastrophic. Transporting tar sands crude into the United States poses a heightened risk to communities and their air and water than conventional oil. Diluted its heavier and more toxic than conventional crude. When it spills in a waterway, it sinks. Just one tar sands spill in michigan felled more than 35 miles of river. After 3 1 2 years and more than a billion dollars, it still has not been cleaned up. If you take a look here this image of a neighborhood in mayflower, arkansas, where an exxonmobil pipeline ruptured killing spilling more than 7,000 barrels of tar sands into residents back yards and driveways. Even without spills, keystone x. L. Would risk the health and livelihood of communities living near each state of the projects. Petcoke is a byproduct of the production and a major Health Hazard for u. S. Communities. It contains high level of toxins, including mercury, lead, arsenic, and chromium. Huge petcoke piles from refining processes have begun to appear in cities like chicago and detroit. Furthermore, keystone x. L. Would not even benefit American Consumers. This oil is intended for export. Keystone x. L. Would deliver tar sands to refineries on the gulf coast that already export most of their refined products, have increased exports nearly 200 in the past five years, and are planning to increase these exports further into the future. Keystone x. L. Would also be a threat to National Security, because it would facilitate the development of one of the worlds most carbon intensive sources of oil, its important to consider the impacts that these additional Greenhouse Gas emissions would have on people worldwide and on americaS National Security. Since 2010, key National Security reports have indicated that floods, droughts, and rising seas brought on by a destabilized climate in places of geostrategic importance to the u. S. , multiply threats antirisks for americans working in those areas. Climate disruption directly affects our armed forces. Admiral samuel locklear, head of the u. S. Military pacific command, believe the single greatest threat to forces is the instability sparked by climate disruption. Finally, clean energy will power a new american century, lets not delay. America is the land of innovators. Today the factories of detroit, the laboratories of silicon valley, and the next generation of American Consumers are already investing in and profiting from clean energy technology. Thanks to fuel efficiency standards, gasoline demand in the United States is decreasing, and projections show decreases through 2040 and beyond. Investing in the Clean Energy Economy is supported by american businesses, American Workers, and all who care about clean air, clean water, and a stable climate. Thats a winwinwin scenario. Compare this to keystone x. L. Which jeopardizes our Drinking Water farmland, climate, and health. The sad truth is its all risk and no reward. Secretary kerry has called climate disruption the worlds quote the worlds most fearsome weapon of mass destruction. Last week he instructed all u. S. Diplomats and employees around the world to lead by example through strong action at home and abroad to fight the climate crisis. America can lead on climate by saying no to this polluting pipeline and by saying yes to clean energy. Thank you. Thank you. Doctor hansen. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss climate and energy and the significance of the Keystone Pipeline. My first chart shows the carbon content of conventional oil, gas, and coal. And the unconventional fossil fuels, including tar sands. The purple portions have been burned already. The science is crystal clear, if we want to avoid leaving young people a climate system thats spiraling out of their control, the additional fuel burned must be less than that already pursuant. That means we must phase out coal burning and leave most of the unconventional fossil fuels in the ground. Tar sands are among the dirtiest and most carbon intensive fuels. It makes no sense to set up a system to exploit them in a major way. My second chart shows that china ask now the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. The pie chart on the left. However, it is the cumulative emissions that drive Climate Change, the pie chart on the right. The United States is by far the largest emitter. We have burned our fair share of the carbon budget and some of chinas and indias. We are all on the same boat. We will either sink together or find a way to sail together. My next chart shows that fossil fuels provide over 85 of our energy. Nonhydro Renewables Provide only 3 of our energy in the u. S. And the world. So how can we possibly phase down Carbon Emissions . My next chart shows the two things that we can do. We can reduce our energy intensity, and we can reduce the Carbon Intensity of the energy. We have been reducing the energy intensity, the amount of energy per g. D. P. , improving efficiency, and appropriate policies can further improve that