they produce about 100,000 barrels of oil per day. this is disconcerting for two reasons. one it's a sort of business that was as we are supposed to be deterring and two it provides for russian control over significant european energy supplies. mr. friedman is not currently subject to u.s. sanctions despite his close ties with the kremlin. do you know whether he might be a potential target for sanctions? >> thank you for that. i'm going to give back to on some the details but just to make absolutely clear that u.s. and european sanctions have targeted russian public and government assets and entities. mr. friedman runs one of the few remaining private companies in russia and as such has had his own strong views as a private citizen about appropriate russian european relations but let me get back to you on how we have evaluated that particular deal. but it is not a russian government deal. it does not deepen russian governments ties into european's dependence on the russian government. >> thank you. my second question, u.s. law currently allows for investing in frozen assets pursuant to a ieepa under certain circumstances. those circumstances include when the u.s. is directly engaged in conflict with another country for when we have been attacked by another country. in such cases the president has designations over frozen assets. should we consider broadening the law to allow for vesting of frozen you craning assets? ukrainian assets? ukrainian is in need of cash and this would be a good way to get cash into the country. >> i'm going to admit you have stumped the witness. i'm going to take that one and look at it with their treasury colleagues. >> thank you and my last question. i would like to get your impression on russian influence in europe. russians on media properties in great britain and russia has close ties with political parties in britain and france namely the u.k. independence party as well as the national fund in france. we know of close relationships as well. some of the ties such as the energy relationships are clear. others are more in the shadows. can you shed some light on russian influence in the european media and finance sectors and give us a sense of who in the western media political landscape are close with the president? >> thank you for that question. this is something we are watching extremely closely. i think the russian investments in government propaganda in europe are clear for everybody to see the massive investments that their platform is made in germany and france etc.. interestingly there has been quite a public backlash in both germany and france to the kind of propaganda rush is trying to sell and the marketshare for this kind of effort has not been as big as they hoped justice in the united states the market share for russia today is relatively small because people want truth not kremlin fabrication. that said the more nefarious dirty money sloshing around is what you highlight this question of funding candidates and political campaigns out of kremlin coffers setting up false ngos to look like they are representative of a certain society that they are representative of a foreign governments view. we are watching this very closely with their allies and working together to expose it and make sure that the public's in those countries know where this money is coming from. >> the gentlewoman yields back and the chair now recognizes mr. ted poe from texas. >> thank you chairman. thank you ambassador for being here. like a lot of folks including you i am concerned about russian aggression. the russians go into georgia in 2008. they take one third of that country away from them and the russian tanks are still there and they're not going to leave. the west pontificated and said that was bad and meanwhile putin is still there. russia goes into crimea and takes over crimea and now they are in eastern europe. i believe when they successfully take over eastern ukraine they will keep moving and maybe to the baltics. last year when you were here in me to be exact i asked you the purpose of u.s. sanctions. and i have got the transcript here if you want to see it. the purpose of our sanctions to stop the russians or is the purpose of our sanctions to make the russians leave crimea? and you answered that the purpose of our sanctions were to make the russians leave crimea. is that still the purpose of sanctions against russia regarding crimea? to make them leave? >> yes sir we want to crimea were stored to ukraine. we have designated sections which we deepened significantly in december essentially denying u.s. companies the ability to invest in crimea and their european partners have been the same. we talked earlier in the hearing about the impact that has had in crimea and we will continue to keep those in place. >> so are the russians leaving crimea? >> it is not resulted in changing russian policy. has driven up the price in crimea for russian coffers. >> that maybe the sanctions and it may be the world price in oil has dropped which is the main reason for the russian economy. or are the russians building military installations in crimea crimea? >> as you know the russians have had bases in crimea. >> are they building more? >> or significant information to indicate they're putting more improvements into the spaces and equipment. >> said the sanctions the building of installations in crimea arnie at this installations nuclear installations? >> me think we would like to speak to you about dual-use capability in a different setting. >> anyway they are building up their military presence in crimea. >> yes sir. >> that would seem to me like they are there to stay. what do you think? >> i think we have to maintain the pressure and we have to maintain the cost and keep faith with ukraine so that it can continue to try to get its territory back. >> when i talked to the president of ukraine last year and asked him what we could do he replied and i'm paraphrasing that they would prefer that we send something other than canned food to them mres which was what we were doing. are we still talking about helping them fight for their own freedom and innocence innocence giving their military aid? are we still talking about that or are we still doing that? >> sir we have over the last 14 months provided $180 million in security assistance. i can give you a rundown of what was bought with that but it includes things like counter fire radar batteries communications equipment counter jamming a full suite of emergency medical and all those kinds of things training and we will continue to look at what more we can do. >> that is all nonlethal aid. are we sending them any guns bullets? >> nell sir. >> why not? that is what they want to defend themselves. >> as i said we have continued to look at other requests from the cranes including on that lethal side but no decisions have been made. >> so the russians are now in eastern ukraine besides being in crimea which i don't think they will ever try to leave crimea. other nations in my meeting with ambassadors today they are concerned that they are next in the russian aggression. what is our policy regarding russian aggression whether it's the baltics or other countries soviet union? what is our policy to throat -- toward back? >> congressman i didn't go through that link. i haven't passed testimonies but we are with regard to nato allies starting with the decisions taken at the wales summit in september which you now see implemented we are providing concrete visible reassurance to our nato allies along the eastern edge on land sea and air. we have some 300 young americans in the baltics and in poland. we will have new deployments in bulgaria and romania. they are exercising its address. we are working with those nations to establish headquarters that will allow nato forces to move quickly in a contingency. we are standing up a very high readiness nato force. >> are we helping non-nato countries? >> we are as well. all of this is designed to make it absolutely clear that crimea will defend every inch of its territory territory. we are also providing security assistance to georgia and moldova moldova the countries most under threat and continue the relationship with other countries. >> thank you mr. chair. >> pajamas time has expired. we appreciate the ambassadors time this morning. as you can tell the committee is greatly concerned by these situations and especially the dismemberment of ukraine. we can't wait forever. we look forward to following up on these critical issues and without the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> the senate failed to override president obama's veto today of a bill authorizing the construction of the keystone xl oil pipeline from canada to the gulf coast. the attempt needed a two-thirds majority and fell four votes short, 62-37. "the new york times" reporting that republicans used the debate on the vote to attack president obama for his years of delay in making a decision about the pipeline. the article continues saying the vote ensures that the first significant veto of the obama administration will stand and also that his future vetoes are likely to withstand similar efforts. those who supported the override including bill sponsor senator john hoban of north dakota have said the approval language will be inserted into upcoming bills and will eventually pass. we will show you part of today's floor debate now leading up to the failed veto override. it runs about an hour. >> thank you so much mr. president. i really appreciate it. i know senator cantwell will be doing the comanaging of this bill and i want to thank her very much for her strong leadership. this is a very important vote that's going to occur at 2:20 this afternoon and i rise today to oppose the attempt to override president obama's veto message. the very first bill, the senate majority brought here to the floor and as i look at this bill, it says to me that the only people that get help are the big canadian special oil interests and i would ask that there be order if possible. >> the senate will be in order. >> mr. president the keystone pipeline is presented as something that is going to really help this economy is going to help oil prices and i think the only thing it helps frankly are the special interests in canada, the special big oil interest to by the way are going to carry the dirtiest filthiest tar sands oil into our great nation. if you look at the history of the tar sands, you find that misery follows the tar sands. we still have that terrible problems in michigan and in arkansas because there was a spill of this dirty filthy oil and we can't clean it up because it's so so difficult to clean. this is a picture of the tar sands spill 2013 and mayflower arkansas. that has not been cleaned up because this is the tar sands oil. we had a spill in michigan and we know since 2011 they have not been able to clean up that spill. so why would we build a pipeline to bring dirty filthy oil into our great nation into our great communities when we know the dangers and i would ask that there be order in the senate mr. president. >> the senate will be in order. >> i know senators have an opportunity to talk to one another and i appreciate that but it is hard to make your thoughts outright when there is so much talking so i think the president very much. so here is the deal. why on earth would the republicans make the first bill a bill to help canadian special oil interests bring in tar sands oil which has caused terrible problems for communities, the hardest oil to clean up why would they do it and why would they go against public attend -- opinion? a recent "washington post" poll showed that 61% of americans support the president's position on this pipeline which is don't stop the presses, keep it going. let's see what this does to our people and to our communities. you know i spend a lot of time on environmental issues and i am saying to you that as you look at the environmental laws of our great nation we find that they have brought such a better quality of life to people and we can turn that around if we decide at this point with all the challenges we face to our community, the challenges of lung disease, the challenges of heart disease, the challenges of stroke. that's what happens from the pollution we get from this tar sands oil. i said before misery follows tar sands. i met with the canadian people who live near the tar sands excavation site. they have terrible rates of cancer. so bottom line because of climate change and we see it all around us. just the other day we learned that remote alaskan village has to be relocated due to climate. we know the impact of this dirty tar sands oil on that. we know what happens when the tar sands pipeline spills. we know all of these things and i think the president is right. let the process continue. he was very right to veto this bill and i hope we will have enough votes to sustain his veto. i would yield the floor to my friend senator cantwell. >> thank you mr. president. >> the senator from washington. >> i rise to urge my colleagues not to override the president's veto of the special interest piece of legislation and i want to thank my colleague from california for her leadership on this issue and for her constant involvement in making sure that national environmental and safety standards are adhered to. she has been a great advocate through out this process and very much appreciate her voice in this debate as we close hopefully the debate about the keystone pipeline legislation. this bill to approve the keystone pipeline undermines a well-established process in determining what is in the national interest and if we overrode the president's veto we would be subverting safety and environmental standards that are important to the american people. i'm glad the president veto this legislation and i urge my colleagues not to override the decision. i think the president's veto message said it best. quote in a spill the united states congress attempts to circumvent a proven process for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest and because of this act of congress to conflicts with the executive branch procedures and cut short considerations of issues that could bear on our national interests including security and safety and the environment. therefore it has earned my veto end quote. so the president sums it up pretty much i think why circumvent the process. the people who have been advocates for the pipeline have been circumventing the process all the way through. they circumvented the process by not going to the utility commission in their state the public utility commission and instead wrote legislation around that. that legislation has been challenged in court and the rest of it has been an enormous process here in washington d.c. while the company was negotiating with the state department and was also supporting efforts to circumvent that process at the state department and just get a rubber stamp on their permit saying project approved. i think this project like every other project in the united states of america should follow the rules. while we spent the better part of january considering this legislation there are other things that transpired. we have heard a lot about the routing and it was a settled matter. well in january or since january nebraska landowners have taken a new step to further rises driver property owners and on january january 92015 the nebraska supreme court upheld a special carve out of transcanada to cite the xl pipeline. they do this even though for judges to adjust that this carve out was unconstitutional. after the setbacks of the landowners their property this would be seized to file the lawsuit and hopefully stop the seizure of their land and last month just this past february 2 nebraska district courts have issued temporary injunctions joining transcanada severed to acquire keystone pipeline by eminent domain. so the pipelines two nebraska are still in doubt because the lawsuit challenges the governor's ability to approve it. it is also worth knowing that south dakota will hold a new hearing on the proposed route of the pipeline to their state in may. at this time we simply don't know whether south dakota will make the same decision it did when it first approved did when i first approve the route 3 years ago. the situation in nebraska and south dakota made it clear that this bill were to become law the keystone pipeline would not get built anytime soon. so i know my colleagues would like to rush the process and talk about the various steps where this project got delayed but who said building a pipeline through the united states of america by a foreign interest should get expedited approval stamp on it from the very beginning? that's what they have done. they have circumvented what is the process in the state which should've been through the utilities commission and then try to circumvent the process here in the united states senate. i hope that we will veto we will not override the president's veto but give the president of the united states the ability to still consider these national interest of the environment and security. we had a pretty robust debate on the senate floor and many of the issues that would have been important my colleagues voted to say we shouldn't consider those environmental issues. so i get on the other side of the aisle there are people that want to give a. >> permit to this process and i urge my colleagues not to override the president and allow him to do what is needed on security on an environment in making sure due process is followed here. i ask my colleagues do not override the president's veto and with that mr. president i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> the majority clip. >> mr. president i came here to speak on another topic but let me just interject in light of the comments from our colleagues across the aisle on the keystone xl pipeline. everybody says on a bipartisan basis we want job creating legislation. we want to facilitate the creation of new jobs here in america but when it comes to voting our friends across the aisle seem to be stuck on voting against job creating legislation because our state department has estimated as many as 42,000 jobs would be created by the construction of the keystone xl pipeline. and the thing that mystifies me the most about this debate is at last count we have roughly 2.5 million miles of pipelines crisscrossing america. i've come to the floor before and i suggested that people might want to just do a search on their laptop or on their tablet for oil and gas pipelines and you can see a map of those pipelines. it looks like a spaghetti bowl because they are everywhere. indeed we also know that this is the most efficient and the safest way to transport natural gas and crude as well. so i remain mystified by the fact that the president and many in his party seem determined to try to kill what is clearly job creating energy providing legislation that would be from a friendly source. >> protecting the president's veto of the keystone pipeline approval is about protecting the review process for this project. the president deserves to have all of the input from the different agencies deliver to him so that he can make his decision. so today in the vote that we will be having shortly we are saying that the president should be able to exercise his prerogative to review the pipeline and to decide whether or not it is in the national interest to have this pipeline constructed through the united states of america. but we are also protecting his prerogative to decide in the end because this is a pipeline that should be rejected on its merits. the pipeline fails to test on job creation. after it is built it will only have 35 to 40 permanent jobs that the united states will have on its soil. meanwhile, we should be having a debate about the wind production tax credit because if we extend that we would keep 30,000 people working permanently here in the united states as this window revolution continues to explode. last year there were 5000 megawatts of solar energy installed in the united states. that's like five huge power plants. this ear 7500 megawatts at least of solar are going to be installed in the united states in next year 10000 megawatts at least but that tax break is expiring at the end of 2016. you would think that they would be in urgency here on the floor of the senate to debate the wind tax break, the solar tax break which will create upwards of 250,000 jobs in the united states. we are to have 175,000 people working in the solar industry. there is no urgency to take up wind and solar but a pipeline from canada, taking the dirtiest oil in the world, tar sands tar, think about that. the tar has to be actually melted down so it can be put into a pipeline. it is tar. the dirtiest oil in the world and a pipeline like a straw through the united states of america built right down to port arthur texas and what is so unique about port arthur texas? i will tell you right now. it's a tax-free exports on. so there is a plan for the canadians. build a pipeline like a straw through the united states down to a tax-free exports on and get that oil out of united states of america and why is that? i will tell you right now the price for oil in the united states is now $12 less than it is if you can get it out onto the global market, per barrel. so you don't have to go to a harvard business school to get a degree to put that business plan on a 3x5 card. get it out of the united states and you will make $12 a barrel more. now the advocates for the pipeline say well that's not going to happen. and so that's why i made the amendment on the senate floor so oil will not be exported. if we are going to take all the environmental risks then we should be seeing the benefits of the oil being here in united united states. why is that important? it's important for this reason. the united states is the largest importer of oil in the world. china does not import as much oil as we do. we are the leader. now you might see these ads on television where the american petroleum institute and other oil companies advertise with regard to what a great job we are doing and producing more oil and the united states and we are producing more oil in the united states. let's take note of that. the truth is we are still 5 million barrels a day short so this pipeline will be moving 800,000 barrels of oil from canada right to the united states which could reduce our dependence upon imported oil but it's going to a tax-free exports on so we know what's going to happen. why is that important? it's important because we export young men and women in uniform every single day to the middle east to protect the ships with oil coming into the night it states that we import from kuwait, from saudi arabia, from other countries around the world so why would we be exporting oil out of the united states while we are exporting young men and women in uniform out of america who then protect oil coming back in from countries in the middle east. that makes no sense. that is what this pipeline is all about. it's all about getting some benefit for the united states. climate change, a big loser, the dirtiest oil in the world. the canadians actually escaped paying the tax in the event that there is an oil spill. they don't have to pay into that fund either if american oil companies do and notwithstanding their ads on television that say they are going to keep the oil in the united states. they bitterly object to any provision being voted here that keeps it in the united states. while they run ads on television saying not american energy independence. you can't have it both ways. life is not like that. either you say what your goal is or you're going to export it. but you can't have it both ways. do one thing on television and another thing in real life and say in the senate please don't put in any restrictions on our ability to export the soil. so that's the challenge for us here and by the way if we keep the oil here in the united states that's going to keep up the pressure to keep the price of gasoline lower because the more oil we have here in the united states the lower the price of gasoline. every time there is a 1 penny reduction in the price of gasoline is $1 billion that goes into the pockets of consumers. a penny equals a billion so when the price of oil gasoline drops 10 cents that is $10 billion. when it drops 1 dollar, that's $100 million it's down by a dollar. it's down by more than a dollar over where it was this time last year. that's a lot of money as stimulus into the pockets of americans who can spend it on other things. this oil is going out out of the countries of the pressure we can to help our manufacturers, to help our drivers is not going to exist. and so it fails on each one of these items. one that gets exported into cup they don't pay their full taxes to go oil spill liability fund. we don't care for keeps the prices lower for american drivers. i understand the canadians want to make the most money by the open market but that hurts us. so that's the challenge. it fails each one of these tests. it fails on climate change. it fails on export test because it goes overseas. it fails on the tax issue. it fails on the process issue of trying to short-circuit the president's prerogative to be able to consider this in a comprehensive sense. so the president has correctly vetoed this bill. the president is standing up for the american taxpayer for the american consumer, for the environment of the united states. he is asking the right questions. he is doing the right things and i urge my colleagues here on the senate floor in the next hour to vote to sustain the veto of president obama on this policy which does not advance the best interest of the united states of america. mr. president i yield back the balance of my time. and i question the presence of a quorum in the chamber. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. president. >> the senator from massachusetts. >> i asked for the pga should have a quorum call. >> without objection. >> i ask. >> i ask unanimous consent that all time within the quorum call be divided equally between the two parties. >> without objection. >> mr. president i once again doubt the presence of a quorum. >> thank you mr. president. i rise today to address the motion to override the president's veto of senate bill bill 1 which would force approval of the construction of the keystone pipeline to transport tar sand heavy oil from canada to the gulf coast. we will be having that vote in just a few minutes from now, a little while from now. my key consideration today is what we contribute to global warming? what would the impact of this bill be on global warming? and the reason that is the core question i am racing is that already we are seeing extensive damage to our rural resources around the world from a warming planet. we are seeing this in oregon and we are seeing therefore an impact on our future economic prospects. to put it very simply the burning of fossil fuels is damaging our forests and our farming and our fishing. by many estimates to contain local warming to two degrees celsius which is almost four degrees fahrenheit we must transition aggressively and rapidly from burning conventional fossil fuels for energy for the use of nonfossil renewable energy. now this shift is well within our power. it's well within our technology but do we have the political will to make this happen? and that test is once before us in the vote we are taking today. building the keystone pipeline opens the faucet to rapid exploitation of massive new unconventional reserve called tar sands and it takes us in exactly the opposite direction from where we need to go. indeed the pipeline locks us into utilizing the dirtiest fossil fuels on the planet for a generation. it accelerates human civilization down the road towards catastrophic climate change. this building this pipeline is a mistake and there is a lot to be concerned about. global warming isn't some imaginary scenario 50 years from now about some computer model projects something that will happen. no it's about facts on the ground right now. the warmest 10 years on record for global average surface temperature have occurred in the last 12 years. 2014 the calendar year that we just passed was the single warmest year on record. while some senators may come to this floor and say it's just an anomaly here or in the anomaly there it's not. the facts are in. when you have 10 of the 12 or 10 of the warmest years on record within the last 12 years you know something dramatically is happening to the globe. the average forest fire season is getting longer. since the 1980s the season has grown by 60 days to 80 days. 60 to 80 days longer than it was before. that means with each year that is passing the fire season is growing by an average of about two days and a number of acres consumed annually by wildfires has doubled to more than 7 million acres. this is an enormous impact and those fires himself put additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and so we start to see a feedback mechanism that is accelerating us down this road to catastrophic change. and the snowpack is decreasing in our oregon mountains, the cascade mountains which means smaller and warmer streams which are certainly not good for trout but it also means less water for irrigation. we have right now virtually no snow in the cascades. at this point we should have a substantial snowpack so the possibility of yet another major drought faces us this coming summer. we had a worst ever drought in a large agricultural basin in southern oregon in 2001. we had another devastating drought in 2010 the near worst ever drought. another devastating drought in 2013 and here we are this year with virtually no snowpack to provide irrigation water during the summer. so that is a very big deal. and it isn't just farming and four straight. it's also fishing. the carbon dioxide we are pumping into the air is absorbed through wave action and becomes carbonic acid. you can envision then kind for a a -- vast vats of carbonic into the ocean and that is effectively what we are doing but if you think that acid would have bad effects you are right. the ocean has become 30% more acidic than it was before the industrial revolution, before we started burning coal and other fossil fuels as a major source of energy. you can start to see the impact. at whiskey creek shellfish hatchery on the oregon coast we have a big problem in the big problem is baby oysters are having trouble holding in -- pulling enough carbon out of the water to create their shelves because the water is too acidic. that is a little bit like the canary in the coal mine. if the oysters are having trouble what other shellfish are being affected by the increasing level of acidity? as humans on our planet we have a moral responsibility to exercise wise stewardship of our resources. responsibility of this generation to the generations to come. now our youth will have a better understanding than do the lawmakers who come to the floor of the senate. our youth widely rank global warming as a major concern, a major issue and they want to see us take it on. they will face the challenges that we will leave behind but here is the problem. if we wait to tackle global warming until we have pages on the floor, our 15 and 16 16-year-old pages-year-old pages are an office in their 40s and 50's then it will be almost impossible to address this issue because of the feedback loops that are occurring. i was just watching yesterday the time elapsed series of ice in the arctic and i can tell you essentially as viewed from north america there was a swirling mass of ice and this is over several decades and that swirling mass becomes less with every passing year to where pathways are starting to be ice free in the summer. that is a massive change happening with a single human lifeline which is but a blink in time when you think about the aging course of this planet. so big change is occurring and when those changes occur we do have additional problems arise. all of the open water in the arctic absorbs more sunlight. it becomes warmer where's the ice reflects the sunlight and keeps the water cooler and so therefore we have the magnification of the effect of global warming at the polls. this is not a good thing. so whether we are looking at the impact on our farming were the impact on our forests which are burning for the impact on our oceans and fisheries which are becoming too acidic we have a responsibility to address those issues. and that means that we are going to have to not burn all the fossil fuel that we have been clever enough to find in the crust of the earth. it's estimated that we would have to leave four-fifths of the fossil fuels we have already identified in the ground we have to leave it in the ground rather than burn it to reach two degrees centigrade in global warming tray that's a huge challenge. that means we cannot proceed to build infrastructure designed to accelerate the extraction of these fossil fuels. the pipeline is exactly that kind of infrastructure. have no doubt i love the idea of jobs in construction. that is why i'm a huge supporter of the build america act. the build america act would create hundreds of thousands of construction jobs over the course of a number of years in america. that's the type of investment in infrastructure we should make but we shouldn't by investing in the structure that's going to do profound damage to our planet. that does not honor the moral responsibility we have in the stewardship of this beautiful blue-green orb that we live on known as planet earth. honor our responsibility and let's not override the veto that the president has put on this bill. thank you mr. president. >> i am here today to discuss the keystone pipeline approval legislation in the president's recent veto as well as our effort to override that veto. i will be joining this colloquy by it my distinguished colleague from minnesota also our colleague on the other side of the aisle from west virginia will be joining us shortly as well as the chairman of the energy committee our colleague from alaska. i would like to make a couple of points upfront and turned turn to my colleague from south dakota. what i've got here and i've shown this before on the senate floor is the route that the keystone xl pipeline would take from the oil sands in hardesty alberta. they would come through montana where we pick up domestic crude. often people think of it is moving canadian crude but it also picks up domestic crude in the bakken region. buck inslee-doyle from montana and takes it to refineries throughout the country. so that is the project we are talking about. this chart shows what's going to happen if we don't approve it and you have to understand this has been going on for now over six years. the president has the president has delayed this project for more than six years but if we don't move our domestic crude in the united states canada will build pipelines to the west coast and the oil will go to china by tanks or ships or be refined in china. so again we go through all these different discussions but the reality is that oil will be produced. the question is do we want to have oil in our country or would we rather see it go to china and of course it goes to china not only does that affect their ability to -- because we don't have an infrastructure moving around safely and cost-effectively but we also been we continue to import oil from the middle east. and it's not like and i will point to a couple more of these charts and kind of bring us up-to-date with warrior. not like we don't have pipelines pipelines. when the president takes more than six years to make a decision having such a hard time it's not like we don't have a few pipelines in the country. we have millions of miles of pipelines and of course this will be the latest state-of-the-art with the safety features something like 53 different safety features that are required as part of the approval process for the pipeline pipeline which ssa has been going on for more than six years. the other part before we kind of go into this status as this is the finding of not one not to not three, not four, not five findings by the administration that but the obama administration state department has done five environmental impact statements three draft statement into final statements to final environmental impact statements. here is what the obama what the obama's report is after studying studying. no significant environmental impact according to the u.s. department of, state department of as a result of the keystone xl pipeline. so here we are today after more than six years in the quote approval process by the administration did we pass this legislation with 62 votes in the senate and it passed through the house with 270 votes so big bipartisan votes for this legislation. last tuesday we sent it to the president. we sent it to him in the morning and he vetoed it the same day and had it back to us that afternoon. so that was pretty efficient. we sent it to him in the morning and then he has to back here in the afternoon. his rationale for vetoing the project company said it cut short his review process. they cut short his veto process so he figured out he could veto it one day after he got the bill, he has been studying for over six years and he vetoed it because we have cut his review process short after more than six years. subsequent to that person was asked mr. president if congress is cutting it short when he going to make a decision and his response to the press, i believe it was last week or earlier this week was well he's going to approve it by these going to make a decision either in a couple of weeks or maybe in a couple of months but certainly by the end of his term. my question is this how can there be a process? what process is he talking about? if he delays it for more than six years and a situation where transcanada the company with every single requirement of the law and regulation, it met all the requirements for more than six years. the six states on the route and i will show them to you have all approved of the project so all six states have approved the project. the american people overwhelmingly support this project in poll after poll, 65 to 70%. my question is what processes he talking about? if you go on for six years were an economy spent millions of dollars taking six years to build an 8 billion-dollar project that will help us create energy security in the country working with our closest ally canada what processes he talking about a? and when asked what he going to make a decision as to the process he said maybe in a few weeks, maybe in a few months. by the term of my -- by the end of my term anyway. that's eight years. how would you or anyone else in a company feel if they comply by the law do her thing they're supposed to do and do it over and over again in somebody who is elected to office says well you know i just don't feel like it. when did we cease to become a country of -- when did we cease to have a situation where we could rely on the laws and regulations of the state whether an individual or family a community at company or anything else? so when we look at a project like this, that's a question we have to ask ourselves because it could happen in the situation can't happen in any situation? when do we as a congress step up and say we passed the laws. we passed the laws and those laws have to be respected and enforced. isn't that her job job? isn't that our obligation and isn't that what the people of this country send us your? i believe it is. it's one thing to say you know it's that transcanada company. they do business here. what if it was your company? what if it was six plus years of your life? what if it was millions of your dollars? then how would you feel about a? remember america is the place where people throughout the history is come to do business. this is where they come to do business because they can count on our laws and count on our regulations and count on the fact that if they made the investment they would be able to do business on a certain basis. what happened to that? when we lose that what happens to our economy? with that i would like to turn to my good friend from minnesota minnesota. besides creating jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue i would like to ask him for his thoughts. >> i appreciate the senator from dakota's leadership on this. it's been a fierce advocate for jobs and economic activity the energy independence, the positive benefits to our national security for building this pipeline for many months in the united states senate. the most developments -- the most recent development development having a president veto a bill that has 60 co-sponsors in the united states. it's a broad bipartisan bill. the senator from north dakota has worked hard to make it that way and a lot of members on both sides of the aisle here support this pipeline. what is striking to me about it is some of the misstatements and things that have been said recently in the present veto message and some that said the "washington post" fact checker as recently as a couple of days ago pointed out that person said this is going to bypass united states. we are not going to benefit from this. not only did they give them one, two, three, he got for pinocchio's from the "washington post." what that means folks, that is a really really big to suggest there is not going to be benefit to united states from this. in fact they went on to point out in the story that they are estimates of 70% of the oil refines that would be used in this country. furthermore so senator from north dakota pointed out this is a significant investment obviously by people who want to do business in the united states because of our rule of law and the certainty that comes with that. they production the oil sands in north dakota is 30% owned by americans. there is a lot of american ownership and our ally canada instead of getting the same type of quality of oil from a country we don't have a favorable relationship with like venezuela we can get it from canada. if you come to this country and the suggestion that is not going to benefit anybody in this country is completely completely wrong. i know the senator from north dakota has pointed this out before that up to 100,000 barrels of oil a day from his state of north dakota and montana a lot of the light sweet crude that is so valued and it would take pressure off. interestingly enough he pointed out it was found by the administration no significant environmental impact. think about this. you are are putting this oil on a rail car or on a truck and a studies show that creates 28 to 42% more emissions that should be in the pipeline. it's going to go some way. it's going to go on a truck. it's going to go on a rail car or a pipeline. if it goes on a rail car or a truck, 22% more emissions than doing it through a pipeline soap from environmental standpoint it makes all the sense in the world. i would say is somebody who represents a border state like north dakota we had our own issues these last couple of years with rail service is trying to get our agricultural commodities to the marketplace. .. facts and most of the facts that we're talking about are things that have been put out by the administration themselves. and my state of south dakota, as the senator from north dakota mentioned, would be crossed by this. the estimate by the state department was it would create $is 00 million in earning in south dakota. it would create 3,000 to 4,000 construction jobs and generate about $20 million in property tax revenue. so there's an awful lot of interest in my state in what happens with the economic activity the jobs, the property tax revenue understand that what happens with the economic activity, jobs, property tax revenue what they could do to support law enforcement and schools and those sorts of things obviously not to mention getting us away from the dependence we have on foreign sources of energy. but let's be factual. this does not bypass the united states. this has tremendous positive impact on our economy. we should not forget that and not to be able to as we debate this and have an opportunity to vote on it at least have a set of facts that is consistent with reality. that is something the sen. from alaska has been involved with and has been a great leader on. we we will be a couple of votes short but who knows maybe some people will come to the right conclusion. i think the senator for his leadership i no you pointed out the number of pipelines that already exist in this country and you have also pointed out the positive impact of you know, of, you no, when we get this down and refined in other parts of the country a lot of this we will be used right here in the united states. i appreciate that you have made this clear. it is unfortunate that we have not been able to persuade the president, but i still have hope. >> mr. pres., i think the sen. and turned to my colleague from west virginia who has been a champion on this project gets it, understands job creation and understands that we can make this country much stronger. thank you to my colleague for his leadership on this. >> thank you, and i appreciate it very much. this colloquy basically it is common sense. i came here november 15 when i became a senator a little over four years and was 1st brought to understand the keystone project underway and was asked the question what do you think. i looked at it quickly and looked at how much oil we buy from other countries around the world. we by about 750,000 barrels a day from venezuela. i would rather buy for my friends in my enemies, the people that take the proceeds in the profits from us buying a product and using it against us. i was clear on that. let's stick to the facts of what we are dealing with. 40 percent of this line is already built. we are talking about this producing. in the capacity from the balkans we talked about 12 percent of that volume the balkan north american. we are moving our oil, producing our oil buying for our best friendliest neighbor and ally canada. and it makes us more secure it as a nation. i have heard all the arguments against it. they make you believe it will come right down here, go to a tanker and get taken to another country. we had a press conference to her three weeks ago the prime minister of canada, the premier, everybody there that agreed that that is not going to happen because they need us to refine it be subjected to the same rules and regulations as are commerce department that no crude would be exported. that prevents that from happening. next, they don't pay the 8% into this trust fund in case there is a spell. they have agreed to do that. everything we have asked for they agreed. we can't even get our side to agree to put it in a peace of legislation to make sure that it happens. i trust the canadians that it we will happen and would like to codify it by putting it in the bill. the fact that we are doing with the politics of what we are dealing with is this if we can get can't get four more democrats on my side to vote with me to repeal the veto to be that veto that the president has this is coming back. none of us in this room, none of us in this body do not understand the reality of politics of it coming back in the form of an infrastructure bill, a road bill, something we will all vote for an have to spend a lot of time and energy on the same subject. let's do it let's do it now and move on to something we need to move on to something of great interest. i i have a hard time reasoning with some of this. the amount of product we use in this country will not make us more secure. we by 7 million barrels of oil a day 7 million barrels we buy from other countries such as saudi arabia venezuela, even, venezuela even russia. if you want to make this country more secure the last i checked i don't think venezuela uses resources the money we buy their oil by their oil from to not benefit america. saudi arabia, i'm not convinced that saudi arabia uses any of our money to benefit our country. country. so this is appropriate commonsense solution. our good friend from south dakota talked about the trains, the amount of trains. in a state that just had a tragedy, think there was no loss of life and they're were no injuries by the grace of god, but i can tell you, the amount of transportation on the rail has increased 3300 percent since 2,009. 3300 percent more oil in america is being transported by rail. if we can relieve some of that we should. i asked my colleague, we have a chance to put it to bed. it makes common sense. jobs, i we will say one more thing about jobs. when i was governor and sen. when you were governor we built a lot of infrastructure, roads, bridges. i never remember creating one permanent job. a lot of good jobs and contractors were happy. but we never expected to create a permanent job. they are construction jobs. that is what it is. this is construction. when it is done it is done. we talk about the infrastructure bill. we talk we talk about building 20, 30 40,000 jobs if that is not something we can all embrace, i say this to my colleagues on my side of the aisle and to the other side of the aisle, this makes sense to the working people of our nation. i applaud you, support you, support you, cosponsor this bill and we will continue to speak on it as long as we have to. i hope we get this be to repeal and move on. with that, i thank you. >> i thank our i thank our colleague from west virginia for his tremendous leadership. if we don't win the battle today we will win the war because we we will find another bill to attach this legislation two. we ought to pass it on its merits as he so eloquently explained. let me turn to the head of the energy committee, someone who is truly committed to and all of the above energy approach and demonstrates that leadership everyday in this body and certainly in her leadership of our energy community, whether she speaks of come on this issue in a way that everyone should listen to what you think it should be fossil fuels traditional energy renewals, this energy, renewals, this is a senator who has supported all of these and has great credibility on this issue. i i turned to my colleague from nebraska. >> i think my friend and colleague for your leadership not only as we have advanced this measure through the floor and the process but truly over the years. it seems inconceivable that six plus years 2350 days since the company seeking to build the keystone xl 1st submitted its cross-border permit application. it is almost inconceivable. i think my colleague from west virginia who just spoke and articulated some of the myths and misconceptions that have been out they're the senator from south dakota enunciated as well. when you think about where we are today a recognition that this veto override that is in front of us this is bipartisan energy legislation. the 1st bill that we have sent to the president this year bipartisan, strong support around the country from an environmental perspective, from an energy security perspective, and from a national security perspective. keystone. keystone xl pipeline is what we should endorse. it is wrong and shortsighted that this president has chosen to veto this bipartisan energy initiative we have heard on the floor here all of the reasons why this proposal is good and sound and rational and it focuses on energy infrastructure, but it is important to remind colleagues that when we have this bill on the floor in january we have something we have not had in a long time, an open amendment process moving forward 41 different amendments to the floor some of which actually passed and became part of this keystone xl pipeline. in addition to veto any infrastructure the president has vetoed a time sensitive provision that will provide regulatory relief to a water heater manufacturer which is now off the table, multiple provisions to increase the efficiencies of our commercial buildings, now off the table. he has he has vetoed a position that would improve the energy retrofitting assistance available for our schools which my colleague from maine had endorsed and pushed that is now not part of what we are taking up. and he also vetoed what many of us viewed as a very responsible path forward on the oil spill liability trust fund and our statement x earning that climate change is real. we made progress on that and it is now off the table. we included some things that this body felt were important to advance which is all been vetoed by this president. it was wrong to veto this legislation. the senator from south dakota mentioned the four pinocchio test. it is important to highlight some of the irony that we see with this veto of this legislation coming from this administration. the president is making a mockery of the executive order meant to expedite decisions. 2,360 days since this application has been submitted for permit. there are other ironies. last month the white house released the national security strategy for this country and the challenges faced by ukrainian and european dependence on russian energy provide a spotlight on the expanded need for energy security that recognizes the collective need of the united states, our allies and trading partners as well as the importance of competitive energy markets. therefore we markets. therefore we must support diverse avert a diversity of energy markets, greater energy security and independence within the americas being central to these efforts. the president vetoed the keystone xl pipeline. contradicting his own energy policy that he outlines in the council of economic advisers when they say the extent to which the country's economy is exposed specifically international energy supply disruption. the president is contradicting himself at every turn whether his climate action plan that he introduced the telling his own climate policy. we we have an opportunity mr. president, to boost our economy help our allies increase energy security and delete on energy. this president's veto denies us that. i recommend we come together to override this veto. >> mr. president, majority leader, president obama has advocated reducing our reliance on middle eastern oil reaffirming the commitment of the united states to its close allies let us to believe he would work for creating american jobs. signing the keystone xl jobs bill would have advanced this priorities. president obama chose deep-pocketed special interests it is the kind of thing that puts union workers on edge. i suspect it makes our democratic colleagues uncomfortable. the good news, our democratic friends do not have to make the same choice that the president did. a bipartisan jobs coalition right here in the senate that would love to have their support. pro keystone jobs pro keystone infrastructure pro- middle-class. saving your party from an extreme mistake join us for a vote with us to override a partisan veto and help the president pursue priorities he has advocated in the past there is no reason to allow powerful special interests to block the billions this would pour into our economy or the thousands of jobs keystone would support. your your vote can release the special-interest wrangell hold return sanity to washington, and there is a lot we can encompass by working together with serious jobs ideas and commonsense reform as guiding principles. i hope you will join the knew majority in that effort. no matter what no matter what happens today this knew congress we will not stop working for good ideas command we will not stop -- protect the president from them either. >> mr. pres., i would like to thank the majority leader and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this bipartisan legislation. the prime minister of israel was here yesterday speaking to congress. we have an opportunity to declare our energy independence. we do not need to rely on oil from the middle east. i asked my colleagues to join with us and vote yes to override the president's veto of this legislation. >> on the next washington journal former undersecretary of state nicholas burns facing the united states including the us relationship with israel, negotiations over iran's nuclear program and the threat posed by isis. >> the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road. this this weekend we partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> people thronged to the beach. the rising tide the rising way and certainly drew them. they watched in amazement as both of these factors battered the beachfront structures. at that time we had bathhouses and peers. we even had a huge pavilion. as the storm increased in intensity these structures literally were turned into matchsticks. the marching storm struck galveston saturday september 8, 1900. the storm began before noon increased and dramatic intensity and finally tapered off before midnight that evening. this hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. >> watch all of our events from galveston saturday at noon eastern on c-span2 book tv and sunday afternoon on american history tv. >> now our keystone xl oil pipeline coverage continues with a discussion on us canada relations. the bill vetoed by president obama today would have authorized the construction of a pipeline to carry canadian oil into the us. us. the panel talk about climate change and domestic security hosted by canada's cable public affairs channel and runs 90 minutes. >> hello and welcome to washington dc. we have come to the american capitol to talk about us canada relations, and they are a little bit frosty these days. a long relationship of respect cooperation and friendship between two of the world's great nations but now it is marked by friction. the museum on pennsylvania avenue for our latest townhall. tonight we present keystone and beyond, the future of us canada relations. >> on the executive producer of cpac. a special welcome to our viewers watching on c-span and the united states. we we will draw down on the state of the relationship between canada and the united states the trouble spots, bright spots and the road ahead. ahead. we we will take questions from the audience as well, and you can join the conversation on social media. with me for our townhall this evening bill owens senior strategic advisor. he steps down in november as the democratic representative for new york's 21st congressional district. he is he is very familiar with the issues. ryan bernstein's chief of staff for republican senator holden of north dakota. welcome. we hope the senators feeling better. canada's man in washington. a former premier of manitoba senior attorney with the national resource defense council who has worked in both canada and the united states on the environment and climate change. with us as always political editor for mclean and washington bureau chief for mclean. in a moment we will begin the conversation on the state of canada us relations let me take a few minutes to set the scene. [inaudible conversations] >> perhaps it is a well-worn joke in washington but the fact that opens port is board is being made of the us canada relationship these days is telling. no one expects things we will always flow smoothly but the list of irritant is piling up, and so is the resentment. >> a a president to simply has not got it that canada is important to the prosperity of the united states. it's frustration with a white house that clearly does not want to engage canada to promote the healthy economic relationship. >> we are supposed to be the best friend and closest neighbor but instead we keep getting hit with these things. >> nothing >> president obama has taken steps. under current policy canada we will fall short. the case in washington might have been strengthened if they had introduced long promised greenhouse gas regulations. prime minister harper making it clear that will not happen anytime soon. >> it would be crazy economic policy. >> the project to build a 2nd bridge linking detroit michigan and windsor ontario. not only is canada paying the entire $4 billion upfront cost canada is also footing the $250 million upfront cost of the u.s. customs plaza on american soil because the obama administration refused to. >> the government of canada has been fabulous. >> as an american it is embarrassing that we cannot find our own infrastructure and equally embarrassing that we are asking canada to foot the bill and when it is all over and paid for we want half of it. >> at least the bridge project seems to be going ahead. on canadian soil but leased to the state of alaska who recently wanted to upgrade the terminal using only american steel. canada said no way and threatened legal action. alaska canceled the project. if canada and the us cannot solve smaller squabbles what about the big stuff? the long-running dispute over canadian and mexican beef and pork sold in us stores. us law requires those products to be labeled. canada says that costs it produces a billion dollars per year. the wto has twice ruled mandatory labeling is discriminatory. it is true the us canada relationship is envied by most countries in the world and overall is a good one. "operation on border security. that progress has been slow. canadians and americans fought side-by-side in afghanistan and our allies again. with the two countries focused on disputes it is hard to imagine them working on vision items. >> a willingness to put aside short-term domestic solvency concerns in favor of the larger cooperative vision which i do not see any more. >> at the end of the day there has to be a personal relationship and chemistry between the two leaders that we just have not seen. >> who can forget the sense of promise and both countries when barack obama was 1st elected. now some suggest better relations will only happen with the change at the top, maybe in both countries. >> that sets the scene for our conversation. we will work through some of these issues we have raised allowing for your questions. we we will start our panelists off at the same spot what is the state of the relationship. let's start there. they're. in your view what is the state of the relationship? >> the relationship between americans and canadians is fine. i am i am going to philadelphia after my stop here for two days and expect to be well treated by my captors. [laughter] billions of dollars of trade back and forth. the two countries working in parallel but the relationship is frosty. the predecessor says he has never seen the relationship between the two heads of government as cool as it yesterday. some people say that is just about a pipeline, but there is other evidence. the heads of government used to meet every year. 2,005, 2006 2,007, 2,009. the last time it was stephen harper's turn to host that summit he canceled. the last president to visit canada was richard nixon who decided one trip was enough. there is a lot of evidence that this relationship is not functional. there is a lot of blame to go around. it is too easy to say it is harper's fault or people who like the canadian government to say, well, obama is lost in his own will. they are actually very similar. they are loners. that similarity of style and divergence of ideology is hurting the two countries. >> what is your view? >> it is interesting to disaggregate what is happening in the relationship at large and the trade relationship the security cooperation intelligence cooperation everything that goes on in despite of what is happening at the top which is these two leaders who are not rushing into each other's embrace. what does that mean for the broader relationship? well, they are not meeting. it means that they are not setting priorities for the relationship looking forward to the future which is what happens at these summits kickstarting bureaucracies into trying to deliver things that can be announced and set the agenda perhaps it is more a question of what is not happening than what is. >> let's get your view on the state of the relationship. >> we think it is a good relationship from canada. we see it firsthand. the local people and people between canada and the united states. we are worried about possibly the frosty relationship that the united states has with canada based on the keystone pipeline which could jeopardize the economic relationship. i think unfortunately what we have gone through in the united states has affected the relationship. we don't want it to but long-term we need to work to put things back together and make things right. >> let's get your view. >> i don't think america has any better friend than canada. $2 $2 billion in economic growth between the two countries everyday, a shared border an extremely long history of working together, fighting together working together on a number of issues for decades. friends need to be able to talk about issues and need to be able to discuss what really matters. one thing we have got to think about is last year was the hottest year on record. sixteen of the last hottest years on record happened since 1997. we are now confronting climate change, dealing with blistering drought, rising seas, floods just a tremendous impact that we are experiencing and the reason we are experiencing a globally is because of fossil fuels. we. we're having a difficult conversation about fossil fuels and that conversation is likely to continue. the opportunity for the two countries to talk about how to confront that problem is where the future us canada relationship can go. canada has a clean energy revolution going on right now. it has been a doubling of renewable energy 30 percent growth in clean energy jobs a doubling of electric vehicle sales a number a number of things happening. those same things are happening in the united states. the the economies are growing, and the opportunity which gets to the heart of the relationship because it is where our administration is right now how can we confront this climate problem and confront clean energy. energy. i look forward to the beyond the keystone part of this discussion because it is where i think we need to go. >> and we will get to that. >> from my perspective living one hour for montréal i do not see any change in how the citizens interact with one another. this is not a situation that comes down if you we will to the grassroots. governmental issues some irritants, but trade is increasing consistently which tells you that business is largely ignoring what the media and politicians are stirring up as a problem. for most people this is not an issue. the relationship continues to be strong. people are working together more and more. we are seeing increasing trade. from my perspective i see this is something we are focusing on at the political level but when you get down to business and people people are comfortable that we are still friends. >> ambassador. >> first of all, i would give some advice to paul just a diplomatic bit of advice. i think listen both countries are can do countries and i think we have seen, especially in the united states and a bit of my bias way it is a a bit of a can-do government. my 6th crisis showing the border down. but the country and the decisions that are made as everyone has described are very very positive. i think that all are treated equally, but there are different levels of government. it is not all the president. i am frustrated with him about the keystone pipeline disappointed in nebraska because we have had three setbacks as well. i also believe that some of the comments in the scene setter are accurate about his inaccuracies in the pipeline. i think it was for pinocchio's this week. to say all of the oil is going off is wrong. to say it was all going from canada? who knew that north dakota have been bequeathed to canada? we are disappointed with those comments and we will continue to do what we have always done. it is our job to get the facts out about this proposal. on the bridge i found the president to be in most ways to be helpful. the biggest blockage is both here with the private owner of a bridge blocking in the michigan house senate, and then the michigan delegation appropriation of money. we had to get a financing agreement which is paid back by the users both capital and interest. we we got a presidential permit with a lot of cooperation from the white house, a waiver on the us steel covered under by america that goes back decades which was brought in legislation and a waiver to the white house. the customs plaza should have been paid for by the taxpayers on either side of the border. when we could not get that through we had to then go back and get a solution because this bridge has been talked about every sense nine/11. the biggest choke points are trade and security, and sometimes you just have to have a can-do attitude otherwise it will be another decade or the appropriation would come from the taxpayers as opposed to through a triple p. we also got the cooperation from the white house on the operating cost of the bridge you could have a clip a clip tonight, keystone and then the president after the horrible shooting on october 22 reaffirming his solidarity with canada reaffirming his commitment to working on border security and domestic security threats reaffirming the great cooperation that we have between our two countries. i remember there was an urban myth created in the united states that all the terrorists came through canada. it remains today, and i am thankful that the president stood up and stood strong with canada in that time. it helped us it helped us deal with threats on the border and was a strong statement. if he could approve the pipeline i would be happier. >> we are going to get beyond the pipeline. we need to stay with the pipeline. it is what is making news in the relationship. the president has veto this legislation. what is the next move? when we will we see another move to try and legislate to push this through? >> soon. you don't have to wait long. tomorrow i am moving forward with a veto to override called the cloture vote. we we will get that. that we will move forward which sets up the veto override. we are four votes short but are still working on it. we still have good commitment from the democrats. we had 63 supporting as last time. we are working on a few others. the president said one of the main reasons he was vetoing this legislation was that we were cutting the process short that is after six years he is claiming we're cutting the process short. he we will continue to go back to the democrats that said this process needs to play out. this process has played out. we have had several environmental impact statements are coming back saying there is no environmental impact, that it lowers. so we will make that argument and see how it goes. after. after that, it has been clear from the majority leader that we will continue to push this project and look at other legislation probably appropriations maybe the transportation bill. we got close last time. this is an infrastructure project. it supports 42,000 jobs. it could be appropriate to put it in the highway bill. >> who wants to jump in? where do we go with this debate and process? are we going to get a a pipeline approval under this president or a decision? let's start they're. >> repeat the question. >> is barack obama going to end up having to say in say, in effect, allow this pipeline because of what happens in congress, or we risk not getting a decision at all? >> right now the president is basically -- the process has been going on for a number of years. >> who wants to jump in. >> we will see if we get the veto override. the president was cryptic and recent comments saying it might take me a few weeks, might take me a few months. a lot of people predict he will decide it all before the end of his term and so now there is a lot of pressure on hillary clinton. to me it is interesting both the bridge story and this pipeline story being the bigger issue which is how canada as a foreign country build infrastructure in the united states. if if we look back at the 1980s the big thing was signing free trade agreements. now it has been going and is they're. you mentioned alan gottlieb who came to washington and said we are all dealing with the state department and white house. he changed the way that canada conducted diplomacy focusing on going after senators and congressmen it is not about sitting down with the president or the congress but dealing with landowners whether ranchers in nebraska were a private bridge owner in detroit and then dealing with local governments, state legislators campaign contributors, nongovernmental organizations whether the in our dc or in the case of the detroit windsor bridge the tea party. you have all these players. it is so does use. that is a that is a difficult challenge for a foreign country to come in and deal with diplomatically there are a lot of proposals on how we manage this. we need a we need a binational commission on infrastructure or some kind of development bank i understand the state department is looking at its own process for prioritizing spending on cross-border infrastructure so that the most important trade ports are getting the money and not just the ones where a border congressman is able to get his project into a bill and get it funded. with the case of the pipeline how we deal with these issues before we are into a specific project where your having public meetings in nebraska and people from all over the country come in and focus on this one project to play out a much broader national discussion. i see this as a broad challenge. >> i think just -- >> sure, and then congressman. >> we have not talked about the power of money and the ability to raise money. there is a lot of money against the bridge in michigan, a lot of money and there is a lot of money moving around for and against the pipeline. that is the broader discussion. it is quite different than it was ten years ago. it takes six years to get a transmission line between one state and another state. one lawyer per megawatt to get a transmission line approved. when we are dealing with these two proposals with clean energy it has taken us for years. we got a presidential permit a hydra line. these take a lot of time. the ability to work and the public interest for and against something is really, really slow and not just a foreign government. it takes that much time. even in canada there is no national grid. on the pipeline the state department said and has been correct that the pipeline is not built the oil will come down on rail. a million barrels a day extra since barack obama has been president more than any other president from canada to the united states. it is just getting there and the wrong way in my view. the state department said that if it is not built it will be coming down on rail. rail has higher emissions higher safety risks. when you look at those three liabilities one of them is to canada, the canada the cost. a 2nd safety issue is to the americans. they just had a horrific accident in west virginia. the oil went through chicago the 3rd issue is higher emissions. if the president says no you are actually going to have higher emissions. i would argue strongly that the united states is taking two of the three liabilities by saying no. it is the president's right to do that but we have over 63 votes in the senate and 61 percent of the house building for that pipeline. >> we we will come back to you in a 2nd. i think the question everyone wants to know is while barack obama is president one way or the other we will this pipeline get approved? >> it is less and less likely as time goes on. it is unlikely that he will approve it. whether or not whether or not the congress can put together a peace of legislation and attach it to it so that he has no choice may be a road forward. i would argue that what would be far more sensible here would be to come to an agreement where we have a trade offer. i would talk about the senate immigration bill why not construct a deal that gets the senate bill acted on something we clearly need and also allows the pipeline to go forward. when you talk about the safety issues we have many pipelines. there is very little risk or increased risk in building another pipeline. the argument that environmentalists take is that by doing that we enhance the likelihood of continuing to use fossil fuels. the fact of the matter is i i am a proponent of moving forward with renewable energy. i strongly supported the biofuels plan at fort drum which is taken fort drum off the district an excellent result created result, created jobs, and is a clean energy project but we have to do things in ways that make sense. one of the issues i talked about is what you need to do to educate the american public and american legislators about what is going on in their state relative to canadian business and that has to be done in the legislative office not necessarily in dc but district offices were people who work for canadian companies or have relationships with canadian companies are coming in and talking to those legislators >> let's give you a chance to weigh in. suggesting that it is less and less likely. for some people there may never be. what is your view on what you are hearing? >> i would agree with the congressman about the likelihood. the reason is not political. there has been a strong case made on a number of issues which includes the climate impact of what we have learned, what americans have learned. it does not act like conventional rail. as americans have come to learn more and more it is not in keeping with the type of energy where we want to go it has risks to water, to the climate and i disagree with you ambassador, on the rail issue. there has been an argument made. we no industry is pursuing both real and pipeline. the us oil industry is moving oil by rail but there was a projection made a projection made that there will be 200000 barrels a day of tar sands that will move by rail if keystone did not move ahead. guess what? only 40000 barrels a day are moving. it is not pipeline versus rail. pipelines are cheaper. that is what the industry wants. rail we will be used for balkan crude certain types of destinations. so we don't want the public to be misled into it will be either or. >> you want to jump in? >> at the risk of not being particularly helpful i want to express astonishment that it has taken this long. i remember before the end of his 1st mandate i ran into a colleague in the congressman. she said don't you worry. this will be passed as soon as the 2012 presidential election is behind us. if it is met ronnie, ronnie, he will approve keystone on his 1st day of president if it is barack obama he will approve it a few weeks later. scotty was not wrong at the time. the entire weight of conventional wisdom was the same that this was something that would be settled in the 1st part of 2013. we are now toward the middle of 2014 and everyone has their fingers crossed. that is an indication to the extent of which this one decision around which so much is happening but this one decision has caused the bilateral relationship to fester. >> i think it is not our finest hour. there is no question about it. i strongly believe it is and not only canada's best interest but also the greatest respect to danielle oil by rail continues to go up. you mentioned water. the whole the whole issue of having a pipeline is much safer. they provided -- there was a battle between oil and the environmental industry in washington and i believe the state department wisely assisted a certain way. i think the project should have gone ahead. i would not want to be a decision-maker when you have environmentalists and labor fighting each other or energy versus environment. have it a report that says 28 people will die if this project is not proceeded with. i've never heard anyone talk about safety and the environmental industry. even the epa does not comment about the safety issues. i think if i i were making the decision and got a report about comparison the safety and a political argument i am going with safety all the time. >> ambassador, if the president rejects this we will canada essentially take the administration to court? >> well they cannot decide until the decision. the delay is not a decision. i we will not speak to somebody above my pay grade as some of my friends would say. >> would your advice be if this gets rejected, let's take it to court? >> my advice would be to continue working to get it passed. we have the senate, 63 votes, for sure the house about 13 short. let's keep at it. again, how do you make a decision when you have a report that says this is the unsafe option? .. taking oil from canada the same sort into united states. so they already approved that on the determination and then in 2011, secretary clinton wrote us after some concerns that there was a delay and said this pipeline should be decided by the end

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Montana , Alaska , China , Minnesota , California , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Ukraine , West Virginia , Mexico , Massachusetts , Poland , Chicago , Illinois , New York , Canada , Germany , Texas , Afghanistan , Iran , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Georgia , Crimea , Krym , Avtonomna Respublika , Kremlin , Moskva , Oregon , Michigan , United Kingdom , Maine , South Dakota , Nebraska , Israel , Detroit , Saudi Arabia , Bulgaria , North Dakota , France , Romania , Venezuela , Kuwait , Americans , America , Canadian , Mexican , Russian , Alaskan , Britain , Canadians , Ukrainian , Soviet , German , Russians , American , Ryan Bernstein , Stephen Harper , Alan Gottlieb , Hardesty Alberta , Barack Obama , John Hoban , Richard Nixon , Ted Poe , Hillary Clinton ,