U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–910 2015

KEYSTONE’S RED TAPE ANNIVERSARY: FIVE 

YEARS OF BUREAUCRATIC DELAY AND 

ECONOMIC BENEFITS DENIED 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 

Serial No. 113–85 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVE B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex officio 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. John P. Sarbanes, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Maryland, opening statement ............................................................................. 4 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement ........................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES

John Hoeven, a Representative in the U.S. Senate from the State Of North 

Dakota ................................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Rush Holt, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey ........... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ......................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Steve Daines, a Representative in Congress from the State of Montana ........... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

David Delie, President, Welspun Tubular, LLC ................................................... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 134 

Karen Harbert, President and CEO, Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce ......................................................................................... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 138 

Dennis Houston, President and CEO, Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce ..... 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Ron Kaminski, Business Manager, Laborers Local 1140 ..................................... 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 141 

Lucian Pugliaresi, President, Energy Policy Research Foundation .................... 66 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 144 

Jane Fleming Kleeb, Executive Director, Bold Nebraska .................................... 80 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82 

Anthony Swift, Attorney, International Program, Natural Resources Defense 

Council .................................................................................................................. 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of September 19, 2013, from Hudson Products Corporation to the 

subcommittee, submitted by Mr. Olson .............................................................. 131 

Letter of May 8, 2013, from General Electric to the U.S. Department of 

State ...................................................................................................................... 132

(1) 

KEYSTONE’S RED TAPE ANNIVERSARY: FIVE 

YEARS OF BUREAUCRATIC DELAY AND 

ECONOMIC BENEFITS DENIED 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND

TRADE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lee Terry (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Terry, Lance, Harper, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Barton, Upton (ex 

officio), Schakowsky, Sarbanes, McNerney, Matheson, Barrow, 

Christensen, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Sean Bonyun, 

Communications Director; Kirby Howard, Legislative Clerk; Nick 

Magallanes, Policy Coordinator, CMT; Brian McCullough, Senior 

Professional Staff Member, CMT; Gib Mullan, Chief Counsel, CMT; 

Andrew Powaleny, Deputy Press Secretary; Shannon Weinberg 

Taylor, Counsel, CMT; Michele Ash, Democratic Chief Counsel; 

Will Wallace, Democratic Professional Staff Member; and Alexandra Teitz, Democratic Senior Counsel, Environment and Energy. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. We are going to go ahead and start our 

hearing on the 5th anniversary of the filing of the permit for the 

Keystone XL pipeline. By way of explanation, Ms. Schakowsky is 

at the Intelligence hearing. I guess there are some issues that they 

are dealing with on that committee. Will she be able to make it 

later, we don’t know. We will see. 

But Mr. Sarbanes is taking her place as the ranking member of 

the Subcommittee for the day. So, welcome. And he said he had a 

nice commute from Baltimore. That is nice. I had a nice commute 

from my office. 

So I will start with the opening, my opening statement, so go 

ahead and start the clock. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you all for being here today as we mark the 

5th year of the jobs and economic benefits that have been denied 

by this Administration’s refusal to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. 

2 

Today marks number 1,826, exactly 5 years to the day since the 

original permits were filed to build the Keystone XL pipeline. To 

put this delay in perspective, it took our Greatest Generation just 

over 1,300 days to fight and win World War II. It took Lewis and 

Clark just over 1,100 days to completely walk the Louisiana Purchase and back. It took just over 1,400 days to build the Golden 

Gate Bridge. 

Now, according to President Obama’s own State Department’s 

analysis, the Keystone XL pipeline will create over 42,000 jobs. 

With us today we have Ron Kaminski, who is my constituent and 

also a respected labor leader in Omaha, and he will tell us that it 

is indisputable that this project creates jobs. 

We will hear from those along the route. Dennis Houston, President and CEO of the Norfolk Chamber of Commerce, will testify to 

the benefits of building the Keystone XL pipeline that has on the 

local economy. During the construction of the first Keystone pipeline, the project became the third-largest employer in Norfolk area. 

But these jobs Keystone creates aren’t just in Nebraska. Mr. 

Delie, President of Welspun Tubular, who has contracted with 

TransCanada to actually make the pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline, will testify that this project so far has created around 600 jobs 

in 1 1⁄2 years in the Arkansas area. I believe the operative words 

here are ‘‘so far,’’ because there is still the northern route of the 

Keystone XL to be approved and built. His company has already 

made an economic impact of $108 million. 

How much more of an economic impact could building the Keystone XL pipeline have, and how many more jobs could be created 

by approving this critical infrastructure project? Without construction of the northern route, these benefits to our nation of builders 

are denied. The uncertainty and political gamesmanship from this 

Administration is weakening our trade relationship with Canada, 

who also happens to be our country’s number one trading partner. 

In our trade relationship with Canada, 90 cents of every dollar 

used to purchase Canadian goods and services, including oil, are 

returned to our economy by Canadians buying American goods and 

services. 

The Keystone pipeline is not only in our economic interest; it is 

plainly in our national security interest.We have seen in the last 

2 weeks just how much instability in the Middle East affects the 

price at the pump. With our oil and natural gas here in North 

America, we now have the option to become energy independent. 

Why wouldn’t we want to have our energy come from middle America rather than the Middle East? 

These opportunities are game-changers and there is no reason 

why we should continue to deny these economic benefits. During 

the last 5 years that this Administration has denied building the 

Keystone XL pipeline, it has acted on other critical infrastructure 

projects. One of those critical infrastructure projects includes the 

southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline. Construction is near completion on the southern portion of the project. While President 

Obama has had nothing to do with approving this portion of Keystone XL, he took credit for it; even posed for pictures. 

And the Administration has approved another vital cross-border 

pipeline with Canada, the Alberta Clipper. In approving the AlVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:27 Feb 04, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-85 CHRIS
3 

berta Clipper pipeline, which coincidentally is sourced from the 

same oil sands as the Keystone would be, the State Department 

said: ‘‘The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline 

capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a 

number of strategic interests of the United States. These include 

increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United 

States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tensions in other major oil producing countries and regions; 

shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and 

increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-OPEC provider. 

Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the 

United States in which we have free trade agreements, which augmented in the security of the energy supply.’’ 

The State Department went on to say of the Alberta Clipper: 

‘‘Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal in a difficult economic period about the future reliability of a portion of 

United States energy imports, and in the immediate term. This 

shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in 

the United States.’’ 

With logic like this, I don’t know why it is not time to build the 

Keystone XL pipeline. With the stroke of a pen, the State Department can deem this project in the national interest and the President could approve. I am encouraging him to do so as he did already with the Alberta Clipper for the same reasons as the State 

Department outlined. 

And that concludes my opening statement and at this time yield 

to the acting ranking member, Mr. Sarbanes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Terry follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY

Thank you for being here today as we mark 5 years of jobs and economic benefits 

that have been denied by this administration’s refusal to approve the Keystone XL 

pipeline. 

Today marks day number 1,826—5 years to the day since the original permits 

were filed to build the Keystone XL pipeline. To put this delay into perspective, it 

took our greatest generation just over 1,300 days to fight and win World War II. 

It took Lewis and Clark just over 1,100 days to walk the Louisiana Purchase and 

back, and it took just over 1,400 days to build the Golden Gate Bridge. 

Now, according to President Obama’s own State Department analysis, the Keystone XL pipeline will create over 42,000 jobs. 

With us today we have Ron Kaminski, who is my constituent and also a respected 

labor leader in Omaha. Ron will tell us that it is indisputable that this project will 

create jobs. We’ll also hear from those along the route. Dennis Houston, President 

and CEO of the Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce, will testify to the benefits of 

building the Keystone XL pipeline on the local economy. During the construction of 

the first Keystone pipeline, the project became the third largest employer in Norfolk, 

Nebraska and had a $10 million dollar economic impact for rural Nebraska. 

But these jobs Keystone is creating aren’t just in Nebraska. Mr. Delie, the President of Welspun Tubular, who has contracted with TransCanada to actually make 

the pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline, will testify that this project so far has created 

over 600 jobs in one-and-a-half years. I believe the operative words here are ‘‘so far’’, 

because there is still the northern route of the Keystone XL to be approved and 

built. Mr. Delie’s company has already made an economic impact of $108 million 

dollars. 

How much more of an economic impact could building the rest of the Keystone 

XL pipeline have, and how many more jobs could be created by approving this critical infrastructure project? Without construction of the northern route, these benefits to our nation of builders are denied. 

4 

The uncertainty and political gamesmanship from this administration is weakening our trade relationship with Canada, who also happens to be our country’s 

number one trading partner. 

In our trade relationship with Canada, 90 cents of every dollar used to purchase 

Canadian goods and services-including oil-are returned to our economy by Canadians buying American goods and services. 

The Keystone XL pipeline is not only in our economic interest; it’s plainly in our 

national security interest. We’ve seen in the last two weeks just how much instability in the Middle East affects the price at the pump. With our oil and natural 

gas plays here in North America, we now have the option to become energy independent. 

Why wouldn’t we want to have our energy come from middle America rather than 

the Middle East? 

These opportunities are game changers and there is no reason why we should continue to deny these economic benefits. During the last 5 years that this administration has denied building the Keystone XL pipeline, it has acted on other critical infrastructure projects. 

One of those critical projects includes the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline. Construction is nearing completion on the southern portion of the Keystone XL 

project. While President Obama really had nothing to do with approving this portion 

of Keystone XL, he took credit for it; even posed for pictures with the pipes in Cushing, OK. 

And, the administration has approved another vital cross-border pipeline with 

Canada—the Alberta Clipper. In approving the Alberta Clipper pipeline, which coincidentally is sourced from the same oil sands as Keystone, the State Department 

said: 

‘‘The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between 

Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the 

United States. These include increasing the diversity of available supplies among 

the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political 

tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and, increasing crude oil supplies from a 

major non-OPEC producer. 

‘‘Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, 

with which we have free trade agreements, which augment the security of this energy supply.’’ 

The State Department went on to say of the Alberta Clipper: 

‘‘Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic 

period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States energy imports, and in the immediate term. This shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.’’ 

With logic like this, I don’t know why it’s not time to build the Keystone XL pipeline. 

With the stroke of a pen, the State Department can deem this project in the national interest. 

If the price instability of oil and the instability in the Middle East can’t convince 

Secretary John Kerry that approval of the Keystone XL pipeline is in our national 

and economic interest, then we need to seriously question this administration’s commitment to job creation here at home. 

# # # 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. SARBANES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Chairman Terry. I appreciate it and 

am looking forward to hearing from two good panels this morning. 

I have deep, deep reservations about the Keystone XL pipeline 

and have for a long time. And I wanted to just sort of address 3 

areas that I think are going to come up in the course of this hearing. The first and foremost is the environmental impact. And you 

have to look at the environmental impact of this proposal from two 

sides. One is the impact in terms of the frontend of the process. 

5 

This is the dirtiest source of transportation fuel that is currently 

available. When you look at the process that is needed for extraction and production of tar sands oil, the impact that that has in 

terms of CO2 emissions, other environmental impact in my estimation is not worth the benefits. 

But that is just one lens you can look at it through. The other 

is what happens if you experience an oil spill. And we already have 

evidence the Kalamazoo River experienced in 2010 is one. When 

you have a spill involving this kind of tar sands oil, it is very, very 

difficult to clean it up and there are lingering effects that have a 

tremendous impact on the environment. So you have to look at the 

environmental impact both on the frontend, the CO2 emissions that 

are generated, the negative contribution that it is making in terms 

of impact on climate change, but also the risks that are involved 

if you have a spill or an accident on the backend. 

We hear a lot about how this is going to be a real benefit to the 

U.S. energy consumer. I don’t see that and I am interested to hear 

from the panelists today on that topic as well. This tar sands oil 

is going across the United States to be refined in Texas and then 

is bound for world markets. It is not bound for U.S. markets. In 

fact, the entire business model of the tar sands industry is premised on the idea that this oil will find its way to international 

markets where it can get the highest price. It is the only way you 

can justify the high costs that are associated with extracting and 

producing tar sands oil. So the notion that this is somehow helping 

us with our all-of-the-above energy portfolio and that it is a benefit 

to the U.S. energy consumer will help us reduce our dependence on 

foreign oil and so forth, that dog just doesn’t hunt when you look 

at it. 

And I think we have to be clear-eyed in our analysis of whether 

there are any benefits there. I don’t see them. And actually what 

we are doing is the Keystone pipeline you could refer to as the Keystone lifeline to a tar sands industry that again is one of the dirtiest sources of transportation fuel out there. And I know there is debate on that front, too, that we will hear today. But I don’t see the 

benefits to U.S. energy consumer even though that is an argument 

that is put forward quite a bit. 

And then the last item has to do with jobs. And, look, I am very 

sympathetic to the case that is being made there. We are still recovering from a very tough recession and trying to get our feedback 

on the ground. No industry experienced that more than the construction industry. And I understand why they are eager for the 

opportunities that can be presented by this project. We will probably hear testimony as to, you know, exactly what is the number 

of jobs that are projected both on a temporary and permanent 

basis. 

But I think we have been presented with a false choice here. We 

keep hearing about, well, here are the jobs that would be created 

if we had a Keystone, and if we don’t have Keystone, then we won’t 

have the jobs. There are plenty of other infrastructure investments 

that we can make that would generate good jobs across the country, hundreds of thousands of jobs. 

And fact, in the 5-year time frame that this process has been 

going on, there have been plenty of shovel-ready projects that, with 

6 

a modest commitment from Members in this chamber, particularly 

on the other side of the aisle, to those sorts of investments in partnership with the private sector, we could have launched those 

projects. They are on the books. The designs are in place. They are 

ready to go. That is the alternative. 

And that can happen also in the energy-related industry as we 

create an infrastructure that can deliver more renewable energy 

sources to the driving public and others. 

So that is the choice we are faced with, and so for those reasons, 

I continue to have real reservations about the pipeline will look forward to the testimony today. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

At this time I recognize the full committee chair, Mr. Upton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

TransCanada first submitted its application to build the Keystone XL pipeline to the United States’ State Department exactly 

5 years ago today. And in the fall of 2010, then-Secretary of State 

Hillary Clinton stated that the Department was ‘‘inclined’’ to approve the project. In 2011, in opposing our initial Keystone bill, the 

White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy, stating 

that the bill expediting the pipeline was unnecessary because the 

State Department was ‘‘committed to reaching a decision’’ before 

the end of that year, several years ago. But here we are now, 5 

years after the application was filed, and we still don’t have approval, 1800-some days. 

Five years ago, the economy was certainly on an unsteady 

ground, enduring volatile markets that would lead to the Great Recession, and we are still facing stubbornly high unemployment, certainly in my State of Michigan. And worse yet, we now have a 

shrinking labor force with the smallest participation rate since the 

Carter Administration. It is understandable why some Americans 

who want to work have given up hope: they see a government that 

spends their tax dollars on companies that fail while denying permission to build privately financed projects that create real jobs. 

Keystone XL can’t solve all of our employment problems, but it 

could have helped many by now. And Keystone XL is hardly alone. 

Whether it is private investments in energy development or plants 

facing new regs, Washington’s red tape factory is making it harder 

to build things. This subcommittee has focused this year on Our 

Nation of Builders, yet it seems the federal regulatory maze is designed to prevent us from investing, constructing, and building the 

next big thing. 

President Obama’s State Department estimates that the $7 billion private investment, shovel-ready Keystone XL infrastructure 

project will support over 42,000 jobs during the construction phase 

alone. And if the project had already been approved, companies 

with contracts could have hired additional workers instead of laying them off. Companies like Delta Valves in my district in Niles, 

Michigan, who previously testified that they would double their 

workforce because of the Keystone pipeline. 

7 

I would also note that Keystone XL will be the safest pipeline in 

the Nation, with 57 new safety controls specific to the project. Pipeline safety is of critical importance to all of us, and for me particularly, having endured a 2010 spill in the Kalamazoo River just outside of my district. Understanding the lessons from that accident, 

I joined forces with my fellow Michigan colleague John Dingell in 

helping getting landmark, bipartisan pipeline safety legislation into 

law, signed by President Obama last year, to ensure we have stricter controls and higher fines to protect the public on every new 

pipeline. 

And despite the added safety controls, exhaustive studies, some 

15,500 pages of State Department analysis, thousands of jobs are 

still being held hostage to an ever-moving goal line. Our friend and 

ally Canada is pursuing other options, now considering building a 

pipeline to the eastern seaboard for refining and export. And I 

would note today that we already import some million-and-a-half 

barrels of oil sands every day, and pipelines obviously have less of 

a carbon footprint then we do by rail or by truck. 

So the Keystone pipeline is certainly an important component of 

our architecture of abundance that is necessary to achieve energy 

self-sufficiency. In January of 2012, the President said he would 

‘‘do whatever it takes,’’ his words——To create jobs, but here we 

are still today, 5 years later. It is time for the President to join the 

broad coalition of job creators, labor unions, Republicans, and 

Democrats alike, and say ‘‘yes’’ to this jobs and energy project. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

TransCanada first submitted its application to build the Keystone XL pipeline to 

U.S. the State Department exactly five years ago today. In the fall of 2010, thenSecretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the department was ‘‘inclined’’ to approve the project. In 2011, in opposing our initial Keystone bill, the White House 

issued a Statement of Administration Policy, stating that the bill expediting the 

pipeline was unnecessary because the State Department was ‘‘committed to reaching a decision’’ before the end of that year. But here we are today, 5 years after 

the application was filed, and we still don’t have approval. 

Five years ago, the economy was on unsteady ground, enduring volatile markets 

that would lead to the Great Recession—and we are still facing stubbornly high unemployment. Worse yet, we now have a shrinking labor force with the smallest participation rate since the Carter administration. It is understandable why some 

Americans who want to work have given up hope: they see a government that 

spends their tax dollars on companies that fail while denying permission to build 

privately financed projects that create real jobs. 

Keystone XL can’t solve all of our employment problems, but it could have helped 

many by now. And Keystone XL is hardly alone. Whether it’s private investments 

in energy development or plants facing new regulations, Washington’s red tape factory is making it harder to build things. This subcommittee has focused this year 

on Our Nation of Builders, yet it seems the federal regulatory maze is designed to 

prevent us from investing, constructing, and building the next big thing. 

President Obama’s State Department estimates the $7 billion, private investment, 

shovel-ready Keystone XL infrastructure project will support over 42,000 jobs during 

the construction phase alone. 

If the project had already been approved, companies with contracts could have 

hired additional workers, instead of laying them off. Companies like Delta Valves 

in Niles, Michigan, who previously testified they would double their workforce because of the Keystone pipeline. 

I would also note that Keystone XL will be the safest pipeline in the nation, with 

57 new safety controls specific to this project. Pipeline safety is of critical importance to me, having endured a 2010 spill in the Kalamazoo River. Understanding 

the lessons from that accident, I joined forces with my fellow Michigan colleague 

8 

John Dingell in helping get landmark, bipartisan pipeline safety legislation into law, 

to ensure we have stricter controls and higher fines to protect the public. 

Despite the added safety controls, exhaustive studies, and 15,500 pages of State 

Department analysis, thousands of jobs are still being held hostage to an ever-moving goal line. Our friend and ally Canada is pursuing other options, now considering 

building a new trans-Canadian pipeline to their eastern seaboard for refining and 

export. 

The Keystone pipeline is an important component of our architecture of abundance that is necessary to achieve energy self-sufficiency. In January of 2012, the 

president resolved to ‘‘do whatever it takes’’ to create jobs, but here we still are 

today. It is time for the president to join the broad coalition of job creators, labor 

unions, Republicans, and Democrats alike, and say ‘‘yes’’ to this jobs and energy 

project. 

Mr. UPTON. And I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Kinzinger 

from Illinois. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, everybody, for holding this hearing. Gentlemen, thanks for being 

here. 

I can’t believe it has been over 5 years since this thing was really 

even brought up. It really is mind-boggling to me. What does the 

Keystone pipeline mean for the U.S.? It means 20,000 jobs, not just 

jobs but high-paying jobs that will pay workers’ salaries well above 

the prevailing wages of their local areas. These workers and their 

wages brought about due to the construction of the pipeline will be 

about $5.2 billion in new property tax revenue for local economies. 

As local governments struggle to close budget holes, this is going 

to be vital to recovery in those areas. 

In addition, we will see 130,000 barrels of safe and secure oil 

each day from Canada, not the Middle East, which means we will 

need less oil from the Middle East, and those that want to give 

money sometimes to people that want to kill our soldiers overseas. 

We can no longer rely on those countries and we need to be energy 

secure here at home. 

And let’s not forget finally somebody is going to benefit out of 

this oil out of Canada. It is either going to be the United States 

or it is going to be China. It is going to get drilled and it is going 

to get shipped. So I think this needs done. 

I thank the chairman for yielding the time and I yield back. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

Now, it is my honor to introduce and recognize the full committee chairman on the minority side, Ranking Member Mr. Waxman for your 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It used to 

be called ranking member but I—— 

Mr. TERRY. What did I call you? 

Mr. WAXMAN. It is OK. I don’t want to use my time. Full committee chairman on the Democratic side. 

Mr. TERRY. Oh, yes, ranking member. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, today’s hearing 

is on the TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. 

I oppose this tar sands pipeline because this locks us into decades 

of higher carbon pollution. It is a big step in the wrong direction 

9 

on climate change, and that is something we simply cannot afford 

to do. 

Yesterday, the Energy and Power Subcommittee of this committee held its first hearing in years on climate change, and we 

heard from the Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, who is also an 

acclaimed physicist from MIT and Stanford. He told us that ‘‘we 

have to act this decade’’ on climate change. Our window for avoiding catastrophic effects of climate change is closing rapidly. In fact, 

we are already experiencing harm from climate change today in 

our daily lives. 

Earlier this week, the House Safe Climate Caucus held a forum 

to hear from Americans who had been harmed by climate disruption. We heard from an Iowa farmer who told us how successive 

droughts and floods have destroyed his crops. A Californian told us 

how her community was devastated by the Yosemite rim fire, 

which has cost $113 million just to fight and is still burning today. 

A Texas rancher spoke of having to cull 2⁄3 of his herd in the 

drought. A survivor of Hurricane Sandy told us that a quarter of 

all the houses in her community are damaged and empty almost 

a year later. And a reverend from Louisiana described how sea 

level rise threatens his rural community and he invoked the Bible 

in calling upon Congress to doing something about it. 

Yesterday, I posed one question to those who oppose the President’s action on climate change: What is your plan? Don’t just say 

no; propose an alternative. Instead, we heard nothing. Instead of 

doing something to address climate change today, we are holding 

the 11th hearing since 2011 to push one favored project that would 

make climate change worse. This single tar sands pipeline would 

increase America’s carbon pollution equivalent to building seven 

new coal-fired power plants. It is hard to think of another project 

that could do this much damage. 

If our goal is creating jobs, Keystone XL is not the answer. Instead, we should be working to ensure broad opportunity for the 

middle class. We should be fixing America’s crumbling roads and 

bridges, and we should be investing—the other subcommittee is investigating this morning—but we should be investing in the clean 

energy technologies of the future. 

We keep hearing about this project and this 5th anniversary. It 

is also the 5th anniversary of the collapse of our economy, and we 

are still trying to recover from that. In these last 5 years, millions 

of Americans have lost their jobs, fallen behind on their mortgages, 

become swamped by debt, and they are barely getting by. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to take my full 5 minutes. I always 

feel guilty when I see such a distinguished group of Members of the 

House and even a Senator waiting to give us testimony, so I yield 

back the balance of my time and look forward to this 11th hearing—no, what is this? This—— 

Mr. TERRY. No, I think you said 11th. I haven’t kept track. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I can hardly wait for more hearings because 

this seems to be the only issue we are looking at in this committee. 

Thank you for the time. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. I appreciate it. We are going to go to our 

first panel now. And as is tradition, we will take your testimony, 

then there will be questions after. That is the tradition. And so I 

10 

am going to introduce all of you and then call on from my left to 

right. So our first panel includes Senator John Hoeven, who is 

former Governor of North Dakota. Now, he is Senator and the leading person on the Keystone pipeline in the Senate. 

Then, we have Congressman Rush Holt, a Member of Congress 

from New Jersey, who was also a classmate of mine. 

Congressman Ted Poe, senior Member from Texas, serves on Judiciary and Foreign Affairs. 

Then we have a newer Member, Congressman Steve Daines, an 

at-large from Montana, one of the States that this pipeline will go 

through. So that is our first panel. 

And now, Senator Hoeven, I recognize you for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

THE U.S. SENATE FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; 

HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; HON. TED POE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS; AND HON. 

STEVE DAINES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF MONTANA 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HOEVEN 

Senator HOEVEN. I would like to thank Chairman Terry for inviting me and also acknowledge Chairman Upton for being here. I appreciate their comments. I also appreciate the opportunity to respond to some of the comments made by the minority members of 

the committee. 

I think it is remarkable that we are sitting here for this 5th anniversary. You know, usually when you have a birthday or an anniversary, it is a good thing, but here we are, the 5th anniversary 

of no decision. Is there anybody in this room that would want us 

talking about them saying for 5 years they couldn’t make a decision 

or wouldn’t make a decision? What is going on? And the Administration has not made a decision for 5 years. We elect presidents to 

make decisions, and here we sit on the 5th anniversary on a project 

that will produce more energy for this country, it will create jobs, 

economic growth, and help us with national security. 

In a recent Harris poll conducted this summer, 82 percent of 

Americans support the project. Tell me one other thing you can get 

82 percent of Americans to agree on? Eighty-two percent of Americans in a recent Harris poll support this project. Just some other 

stats from that poll, 85 percent of the people agree that Keystone 

XL would strengthen America’s economic security; 81 percent of the 

people agree Keystone would help strengthen America’s energy security; 77 percent agree it would help strengthen America’s national security; 75 percent agree it would benefit the U.S. military 

by increasing access to oil from Canada. 

Look, it is not just about Canadian oil. I represent the State of 

North Dakota. We now produce almost a million barrels of oil a 

day, second only to Texas. We need to move our oil to market. Day 

one will put 100,000 barrels a day of oil into this pipeline, the 

lightest, sweetest crude there is. You talk about safety; this oil, 

whether it is our oil or whether it is oil from the oil sands is moving by truck, train, and if we don’t take it, tanker to China. What 

11 

is safer than the latest, greatest pipeline technology when we have 

millions of pipelines already, some of them very old, and this would 

be new, state-of-the-art? 

Some of the other comments that came up talk about environmental impacts. After 5 years and something like four environmental impact statements, the State Department has determined 

no significant environmental impact. No significant environmental 

impact. And in fact it produces less emissions than the crude we 

get from California or Venezuela. What, we would rather get it 

from Venezuela? Or how about the Middle East with what is going 

on in Syria and Iran and the instability there, I know, let’s continue to depend on the Middle East. That is what Americans want 

rather than working with our closest friend and ally, Canada, to 

get the oil? What is going on? I mean it is just unbelievable. 

Some of the other comments that came up, the benefit. So here 

is a pipeline. I think to build the U.S. portion is something like 

$5.3 billion. We don’t spend one single taxpayer dollar but we get 

hundreds of millions in tax revenue and the State Department, as 

Chairman Upton said, by its own admissions, this thing creates 

40,000 jobs. Well, what is wrong with that? You know, when you 

look at the facts it is hard to understand. 

And then this idea that the oil won’t be produced if we don’t 

build the Keystone XL pipeline, come on. It is being produced right 

now and that volume is increasing. It is moving by truck and train, 

creating dangerous issues, which you know about. You have heard 

about some of the problems that it creates like Megantic in Quebec, 

OK, instead of moving it more safely by a pipeline. 

And so in a final analysis if the United States doesn’t take this 

oil and we don’t build this needed infrastructure which States like 

mine need, it is going to China. So this oil goes to China on tankers 

and it is refined over there. 

One other point, this idea that this pipeline is being built for export, the Department of Energy, the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy says otherwise. Check out their June 2011 report that says that the oil will be used in the United States and 

we need more and it will help lower prices. 

So let’s deal with the facts. Believe me, after 5 years we know 

what they are. And, you know, today, we are calling attention to 

this anniversary but it is not the right kind of anniversary, the 5th 

year anniversary of no decision. And this project really represents 

a significant problem that we have in this country right now, and 

that is that the regulatory burden is hurting our economy and Keystone XL pipeline is a clear case in point. 

Thank you so much for inviting me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoeven follows:] 

12 


87910.001
13 


87910.002
14 


87910.003
15 


87910.004
16 


87910.005
17 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Senator. 

I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt, for 

your 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RUSH HOLT 

Mr. HOLT. I thank the chair. It is good to be with you, Chairman 

Terry and Representative Sarbanes, other members of the committee. 

As ranking member of the Natural Resource Subcommittee on 

Energy and Mineral Resources, I have had the opportunity to take 

part in extensive debate on the merits of the Keystone XL pipeline 

project. 

We are talking about a pipeline with the capacity to transport 

830,000 barrels per day of tar sands product, one of the dirtiest energy sources on the planet, from the despoiled Boreal Forests of 

Canada through the central United States over one of this country’s most valuable aquifers to the Gulf Coast refineries where 

much of the oil and refined product will be exported to overseas 

markets. 

The tar sands substance—and I call it substance rather than 

oil—is unbelievably not oil for the purposes of paying into the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund, meaning that the Canadian tar sands 

get a free ride through U.S. pipelines. I have made efforts to correct this loophole by proposing amendments to Keystone XL legislation, but unfortunately, those attempts have been rejected by the 

majority. 

Meanwhile, the Government Accountability Office has already 

warned us that the Oil Spill Trust Fund is at risk of running out 

of money because of the cost of recent tar sands cleanup efforts following spills in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, the Yellowstone 

River in Montana, and suburban streets of Mayflower, Arkansas, 

where the cleanup continues. Yes, the tar sands is providing jobs 

in the United States, cleanup jobs, not what we would like to see. 

If we are going to ask the United States to bear all of the environmental risk of transporting this dirty oil, we should at least ensure that the American people see some benefit. However, 60 percent of the gasoline, 42 percent of the diesel produced in the Gulf 

Coast Texas refineries was exported last year. And we talk about 

promoting energy security. When I have proposed amendments to 

guarantee that the oil stays in the United States, they have been 

rejected by the majority. Now, granted, a significant number of jobs 

over the couple of years of construction, but the papers filed by the 

proponents of this bill show that over the long term after the bump 

of construction jobs, there will be about 30 to 40 permanent jobs 

in the United States, not 30 or 40,000, 30 or 40 over the long-term. 

Now, let’s take a look at what has happened over the last 5 

years. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million, a level never seen before 

by humans. The U.S. has experienced drought, flood, fire, barges 

aground, tornadoes costing American’s lives and dollars. Glaciers 

are shrinking, sea level is rising, the Earth’s temperature is increasing unmistakably. 

The United States doesn’t need this dirty energy because the fact 

is we are developing domestic oil, natural gas resources at a record 

18 

pace. In the last 5 years U.S. production has steadily increased 

while per capita construction continues to decline. Combined with 

increases in renewable energy, we are well on our way to energy 

independence. 

Now, we have heard that the XL pipeline will help us develop 

our domestic energy resources. As my friend from North Carolina 

could tell us, we don’t need an international pipeline like the Keystone XL to move those resources to market. In this country hundreds of miles of pipeline are already under construction, and as 

we speak, in the southern portion from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the 

Gulf Coast, we have pipeline that does not require presidential permit 

Now, the chairman spoke about the Golden Date Bridge and the 

Lewis and Clark expedition. Yes, we should be creating jobs, $2 

trillion of infrastructure backlog that we need to be investing in to 

put to work engineers and the pipe trades and the laborers and 

other workers. We should be investing in energy produced and used 

here in the United States, clean, sustainable energy. 

The President has wisely said that he will not approve the pipeline if it leads significantly to worse climate change, and that is 

clearly the case. 

Now, at the end of the day we know pipelines will leak and oil 

will spill. Nationwide, about 3.2 million gallons of oil spill every 

year. We don’t want jobs created cleaning up that mess. All risk, 

no benefit. 

Now, one option to mitigate the CO2 emissions is carbon capture 

and sequestration. I would like to propose an alternative. Leave the 

carbon in the ground. Don’t cut the forests of Alberta. Don’t mine 

and refine the tar sands. Don’t burn that refined product. That will 

offset trillions of dollars of damage that we are facing over the next 

thousands of years because of climate change. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:] 

19 


87910.006
20 


87910.007
21 


87910.008
22 


87910.009
23 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Holt. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TED POE 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks for 

inviting me to testify today. 

Today is a sad anniversary. It is the anniversary of bureaucracy, 

red tape, and delay, delay, delay, delay, delay—I think that is five 

delays—with the permitting process. The Keystone XL pipeline was 

originally proposed in 2008, and the permit was applied for by 

TransCanada on September the 19th, 2008. But we wait 5 years 

later for a decision. 

As the chairman has pointed out, 5 years we went to war in 

World War II on two fronts and won World War II in less than 5 

years. Hoover Dam was built in less than 5 years. And we are not 

talking about building anything. We are talking about a signature 

on a permit on the dotted line. And it is the American people that 

pay the price for this inaction by government. 

There are 11.3 million unemployed Americans today, and some 

models say the Keystone XL pipeline project is expected to directly 

create 15,000 manufacturing jobs, $118,000 spinoff jobs that could 

help surely put Americans back to work. And some of these jobs 

will be in my State of Texas. 

The unemployment rate in Port Arthur, Texas, where this pipeline is to end, is 15.7 percent. Many of those unemployed are minority young adults. The pipeline will help some of them get back 

to work in high-paying and good jobs. And on top of that, the pipeline is expected to bring $2.3 billion just to the Texas economy. 

There are currently 13,000 refinery workers in Texas and this will 

help keep those people employed and create more jobs. 

It is also important to remember this is not all about just crude 

oil. In addition to the 22 gallons of gasoline that a barrel of oil produces, a barrel also produces 12 cylinders of propane, a quart of 

motor oil, and most importantly, petrochemicals that are used in 

all kinds of pharmaceuticals, plastics, cosmetics, and foodstuffs. 

All of the industries that line the Houston ship channel use oil 

to make these different products. These industries need a constant, 

reliable source of crude. And over 50 percent of the exports out of 

the Houston ship channel are in some way involved with the energy industry. So why would we not want to expand these domestic 

industries to have a clean, safe, and reliable source of crude from 

North America? And pipelines are the safest way to move crude oil. 

It has to be moved some way and a pipeline historically is the best 

and safest way. 

Now, how much oil are we talking about? How will it change the 

equation, especially the foreign-policy equation in the United 

States? Keystone would move about 830,000 barrels of oil a day. 

This represents about half of the daily amount that the United 

States imports from the Middle East, almost as much as we get 

daily from Saudi Arabia. With the current instability in the Middle 

East, approval of the Keystone pipeline is an issue of national security. 

24 

Mr. Chairman, we can help make Middle Eastern oil, turmoil, 

and politics irrelevant if we take care of ourselves and approve this 

pipeline. Canada is already the largest supplier of energy to the 

United States meeting 12 percent of current U.S. petroleum consumption needs and 18 percent of U.S. petroleum imports. Canada’s 175 billion barrels of oil reserves is second only to Saudi Arabia. 

Canada is going to build and sell this oil to somebody. We cannot 

stop production of oil in Canada even in the tar sands. How would 

we rather this pipeline be built and sent West to our good buddies 

the Chinese and all float on their tankers? I think not. Inaction is 

detrimental to national security. 

With greater use of Canadian oil along with all-of-the-above energy policy, it is possible the United States could be really energy 

independent in 10 years. Imagine how our foreign policy could 

change if that were the case? The United States should work more 

with Canada not less and also with our partner-neighbor Mexico to 

form an economic energy security zone in North America, all for 

the United States, Mexico, and for Canada. 

Mr. Chairman, in my days as a judge if I heard a criminal case 

and heard all the evidence and after the evidence was in I told the 

defendant, oh, I will get back with you in 5 years and let you know 

whether you are going to jail or not, that would be incompetence. 

We have got the evidence. The evidence is in, and the overwhelming evidence is it is good for the country overall to build and 

approve this pipeline. Let’s get it done. 

And I yield back. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Poe follows:] 

25 


87910.010
26 


87910.011
27 


87910.012
28 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Poe. 

And I now recognize the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Daines. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE DAINES 

Mr. DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today about the importance of the Keystone 

XL pipeline and the importance to my home State of Montana. 

As the lone Representative from the State of Montana, I was just 

elected last year. Prior to coming to Congress, I spent 28 years in 

the private sector. I have a degree in chemical engineering and 

worked in business for 28 years. I was elected last fall. 

I have seen a lot of things in Washington that shocked me since 

I have been elected, but the fact that we are sitting here 5 years 

after an approval process was initiated for the construction of this 

pipeline is astounding. This is a prime example of everything that 

is wrong with Washington. It took Canada 7 months for the leadership of their government to get it approved. President Obama and 

the Washington bureaucrats have taken 5 years and we don’t have 

an answer. If we did that in the business world, we would be out 

of business. I am here today to tell you that the Montanans are 

tired of the gridlock and ready for this pipeline to be approved. 

I would love to see some of my colleagues from the States that 

are thousands of miles away from Montana and North Dakota to 

come out and spend some time with the families that are dependent for their economic futures here on this pipeline. 

The President’s inaction and the bureaucratic delays have created uncertainty about whether or not my State will get to reap the 

benefits of this pipeline. And let me tell you, the benefits are plentiful in Montana. 

Over the past few years, small towns in the eastern part of Montana have been revitalized by the exploration and production of oil 

in the Bakken. Energy development means better opportunities for 

employment. It means more revenue flowing into state and local 

government coffers for schools and for roads and economic growth 

and jobs for our communities. 

Now, I want to remind you the Keystone pipeline starts its journey as it goes from Canada; the first State it enters is the State 

of Montana. We kind of have the outset alpha and omega in here 

I think with myself and the honorable judge from Texas. Montana 

shares a 500-mile northern border with Canada. Our State is 

known for its abundance of natural resources. If you have seen the 

movie a ‘‘River Runs through It,’’ that is Montana. And we cannot 

think of a better place for the Keystone to initiate its route than 

into the State of Montana. 

It crosses initially in Phillips County. It is going to cross through 

five other counties in my State. And more than 800 good-paying 

jobs in Montana will be created by that, with thousands more 

across the Nation. 

Now, let me set a fact straight here that has actually been misquoted in this hearing so far. We talk about the 830,000 barrels of 

oil per day being transported, and the Senator from North Dakota 

mentioned this as well. Remember, 100,000 barrels a day of the 

830 is Montana and North Dakota oil. So please, as we talk about 

this, it is not just about Canadian oil. It is about transporting MonVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:27 Feb 04, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-85 CHRIS
29 

tana and North Dakota oil in the most efficient and environmentally safe way across this country. And remember, that is 

about half of the amount of oil that is currently imported today 

from the Middle East. 

Thirty days ago I was standing on the border between Israel and 

Syria looking into Syria. Remember what happened back in 1973 

in the war of Yom Kippur when oil prices spiked four times in a 

short period of time and created a shockwave in this economy? It 

is imperative that we move as quickly as possible to creating North 

American energy independence, and this moves us a long way 

down that path. 

It also means cheaper energy costs for the people in Montana. 

Let me tell you something. Again, I would love to have you come 

out and spend some time with working moms and dads in Montana 

who are going to be dependent on this pipeline. I spent time with 

the NorVal electric co-op. They supply electricity for thousands of 

Montanans. They told me that if the Keystone pipeline is approved, 

that their utility rates will be held constant for the next 10 years 

because of the additional load. They are going to supply electricity 

to a pump station of the Keystone pipeline. Without the Keystone 

pipeline, rates are predicted to go up 40 percent. That is right on 

the backs of hardworking Montana families, many where moms 

and dads are having to try to work every day to make ends meet. 

In fact, it amounts to $480 per year additional expense for these 

families out there that, I tell you what, they are working hard living month-to-month. 

The pipeline has undergone four environmental reviews with one 

more finalization of review yet to come. Believe me, in Montana we 

understand the importance of protecting the environment. I am an 

avid outdoorsman. I love to fish, I love to hunt, I love to back pack, 

I love to climb mountains. But we can have both, and this is the 

most environmentally safe way to transport oil yet invented. In 

fact, when compared to any other means of transportation, it is the 

most environmentally safe way to do it. 

These days in Washington it is hard to find any measures that 

Republicans and Democrats agree on, but let me tell you what, my 

two Senators from Montana, both Democrats, Max Baucus and Jon 

Tester, they support the pipeline’s construction. This is common 

sense. Montanans support the construction of the Keystone pipeline. Again, I would invite those Members who are opposed to this, 

come out and drive around in my Ford truck and spend some time 

with the Montana families right now that live month-to-month on 

their paychecks. Why are we still waiting? 

[The prepared statement of Steve Daines follows:] 

30 


87910.013
31 


87910.014
32 


87910.015
33 


87910.016
34 


87910.017
35 

Mr. DAINES. Finally, my constituents would like to enter the 

statement of support for the pipeline’s approval. The group includes 

the Montana Electric Co-op Association, Phillips County Commissioners, Eastern Plaines Economic Development Corporation, and 

the Montana Petroleum Association. I ask unanimous consent for 

these comments to be added to the record. 

Mr. TERRY. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

And thank you for your testimony. I thank all of you for taking 

your time out of your busy schedules to join us today. Your input 

is greatly appreciated. 

We will now get ready for our second panel. 

First, we have David Delie, President, Welspun Tubular; the 

next, Hon. Karen Harbert, President and CEO of Institute for 21st 

Century Energy and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Dennis Houston, President and CEO of the Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce; Ron Kaminski, Business Manager, Laborers Local 1140; 

Lucian Pugliaresi, Energy Policy Research Foundation. Welcome 

back. Jane Kleeb, Executive Director of Bold Nebraska making an 

entry; Anthony Swift, Attorney, International Program, NRDC. 

And welcome back as well. Thank you. 

That is our second panel, and we will start with you, Mr. Delie. 

You are now recognized for your 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF DAVID DELIE, PRESIDENT, WELSPUN TUBULAR, LLC; KAREN HARBERT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INSTITUTE FOR 21ST CENTURY ENERGY, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; DENNIS HOUSTON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NORFOLK 

AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; RON KAMINSKI, BUSINESS 

MANAGER, LABORERS LOCAL 1140; LUCIAN PUGLIARESI, 

PRESIDENT, ENERGY POLICY RESEARCH FOUNDATION; 

JANE FLEMING KLEEB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOLD NEBRASKA; AND ANTHONY SWIFT, ATTORNEY, INTERNATIONAL 

PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

STATEMENT OF DAVID DELIE 

Mr. DELIE. Good morning, Chairman Terry and members of the 

committee. For the record, my name is David Delie and I am the 

president of Welspun Tubular, LLC, in Little Rock, Arkansas. I 

have approximately 35 years of experience in the steel industry 

and I have been president of Welspun for the past 2–1⁄2 years. 

Welspun invested over $290 million installing two pipe mills, two 

coating lines, and auxiliary equipment in Little Rock enabling us 

to produce line pipe for pipelines in sizes ranging from 6 inches to 

60 inches in outside diameter. At our peak, we have had more than 

800 employees in our operation, making us one of the largest employers in the city of Little Rock. 

Approximately 4 years ago, Welspun was chosen as the largest 

U.S. supplier for the U.S. portion of the Keystone XL pipeline by 

TransCanada. In all, we have produced over 330,000 tons or 700 

miles of 36-inch API grade X70 pipe for TransCanada on this 

project. We produced this pipe in Little Rock and we coated this 

pipe in Little Rock. This project so far has generated over 600 jobs 

for over 1 1⁄2 years at Welspun alone. This is not counting any of 

our indirect supporting jobs that are required to operate our plant 

36 

on a daily bases. Welspun has also infused over $108 million into 

the local economy from this project so far. 

Given the delays in the approval process, TransCanada has 

asked Welspun to store some of the pipe in Little Rock and asked 

us to apply protective coating so that the pipe can be stored outside 

without harming the epoxy coating applied to the pipe that is intended to protect the pipe while it is in the ground. I have attached 

to my testimony a picture of over 180,000 tons or 373 miles of pipe 

in this storage yard. 

Some of the pipe purchased by TransCanada has been installed 

in a section of the line from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Houston, 

Texas. That part of the line did not require presidential approval. 

However, the vast majority of the Keystone will be laid between 

the Canadian border and Cushing, Oklahoma. 

TransCanada has made it clear that if KXL is not approved, outlook changes fairly significant as pipe for the Keystone XL will be 

redeployed to other TransCanada projects or re-sold to other companies, reducing the pipe production levels in 2014 and beyond. 

Thus, TransCanada can almost overnight be transformed from our 

biggest customer to our biggest competitor. 

The sale of this pipe to the open market would result in the direct losses of approximately 1,500 jobs in the line pipe industry, 

thousands more in the steel industry, and will also have massively 

depressing effects on the prices of line pipe in the U.S. market. 

In a recent hearing before the International Trade Commission 

concerning a sunset review of anti-dumping duty order on large diameter line pipe from Japan, a commissioner asked expert economists hired by the industry to assess the job impact of the Keystone XL pipeline. That economist, Dr. Robert Scott, using information available to the public and in part on research provided by the 

Congressional Budget Office, found that approximately 80,000 job 

years over 2 years of construction in the installation of the Keystone pipeline would be created. 

In addition to the direct impact of the jobs caused by the 5-year 

delay in the approval of the Keystone pipeline, there has been very 

significant indirect adverse effects on pipeline construction within 

the United States. In spite of both the discovery of production of 

large new quantities of oil and natural gas from new shale fields, 

pipeline companies are not installing pipelines to bring these products out from the shale areas to the market. 

For example, in the Bakken in the Dakotas, one of the most prolific and largest oil production areas in the U.S. at the present 

time, more than 3⁄4 of that oil production is leaving the region on 

rail cars. There is little doubt that transportation of oil through 

pipelines is safer than by rail or tanker trucks. However, the pipeline companies see what has happened to Keystone XL and are 

foregoing the massive amounts of time and effort necessary in 

order to get pipelines approved. Thus, in spite of increases of more 

than 25 percent in overall U.S. oil production over the past 5 years, 

much of it in new oilfields that require pipeline connections to the 

marketplace, we are seeing significantly less pipeline construction 

and demand than we were prior to this increase in oil production. 

This has a negative impact on the pipeline industry, the domestic 

steel industry, and U.S. jobs. 

37 

The construction of the KXL pipeline will provide more opportunities as the infrastructure grows in support of the development of 

oil sands in Canada and the Bakken in the United States. The end 

result is Keystone XL will enable growth which will support ongoing production and jobs in Little Rock. Denying the project will reduce ongoing employment. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee and 

hope you are able to pass legislation to require the approval of the 

Keystone XL pipeline and to remove the bottlenecks on pipeline 

construction in the United States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Delie follows:] 

38 


87910.018
39 


87910.019
40 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

Now, Ms. Harbert, you are now recognized for your 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN HARBERT 

Ms. HARBERT. Thank you, Chairman Terry, Congressman Sarbanes, and members of the committee. I am Karen Harbert, President and CEO of the Institute for 21st Century Energy at the 

Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business Federation. 

The mission of the Institute is to unify policymakers, regulators, 

business leaders, and the public behind commonsense energy strategies. 

Today marks the 5-year anniversary of the government’s review 

of TransCanada’s application to construct the Keystone XL pipeline. The Energy Institute is convinced Keystone is in our Nation’s 

best interest; 15,000 pages of government reviews prove it, and 

over 80 percent of American citizens support it. 

You have already heard numerous reasons why KXL is important. It would create thousands of jobs, generate millions of dollars 

in tax revenue, and allow America to import less oil from unfriendly nations. 

But unfortunately, the issue in front of us is much greater now 

than Keystone. The failure of the Federal Government after 5 years 

to grant a construction permit for the Keystone pipeline exemplifies 

perhaps better than anything else the challenges of building energy 

infrastructure in the United States. This failure has not only denied Americans the benefit of the economic shot in the arm this 

project would provide; it has tarnished America’s image as a cando country open to investment, a failure that can be hard to shake 

from investors’ minds. 

And this failure comes at a critical time. The U.S. is moving from 

energy resource scarcity to one marked by abundance. Indeed, the 

core underlying assumption of our energy policy, scarcity is no 

longer valid. We now know that North America has the largest fossil fuel resource in the world, yet our policy is still based on the 

assumption that we are an energy-poor nation subject to the whims 

of the world’s largest and unfriendly energy exporters. In short, our 

energy policy has not caught up with our energy reality, and now, 

we are either not caught up or ignoring this remarkable paradigm 

shift. The first is solvable; the latter is damaging. 

The rapid change in our fortunes of energy has caught many analysts and policymakers by surprise, but now, many experts believe 

the energy self-reliance for North America if not for the United 

States is actually within reach. Simply put, the world’s energy center of gravity is shifting from the Middle East to North America if 

we let it. 

In 2002, North America accounted for about 5 percent of the 

world’s total oil reserves. In 2003, with the addition of Canada’s oil 

sands, those reserves increased to 18 percent. And now, a decade 

later in 2013, technically recoverable resources from unproved conventional and shale oil resources could be as high as 600 billion 

barrels, triple the 2003 estimate. When we combine that with the 

2 trillion barrels of oil shale in the middle part of our country, 

North America’s crude oil resource is greater than the amount of 

proved conditional resources and the entire rest of the world. 

41 

But the question before us is are we prepared to capitalize on it? 

The Hoover Dam was built in 5 years, the Empire State building 

in 1, the New Jersey Turnpike in 4, and now it takes an average 

of over 3 years merely to complete an environmental impact statement, let alone build anything. So the answer is no, we are not prepared to capitalize on this fundamental and huge opportunity. 

Our energy infrastructure today is increasingly inadequate to 

currently meet our energy-growing demand. Providing energy is a 

long, capital-intensive undertaking and they require long lead 

times and massive amounts of new capital. Some of that investment and some of those jobs will never happened or they will go 

elsewhere if the regulatory environment under which companies 

operate is too burdensome or unreliable. 

Unfortunately, our energy sector does suffer from a lengthy, unpredictable, and needlessly complex regulatory maze that delays or 

halts the construction of new energy infrastructure. We see federal 

and state environmental statutes, state siting, permitting, frivolous 

litigation, and a ‘‘build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything’’ 

BANANA syndrome routinely used to stop and block every expansion of transmission lines to power plants to pipelines to green energy projects. 

As a Nation, a continent, we have been blessed with new abundant natural resources, but fulfilling that economic energy potential requires strategic thinking underpinned by durable policy. But 

unfortunately, we now have conflicting, contradictory, and myopic 

energy policies. These extraordinary opportunities created by energy today have come about despite government policy, not because 

of it, and that has to change if we are to energize our economy, put 

people back to work, and get the energy infrastructure we need like 

the Keystone pipeline. If done right, it can drive our nation’s economic recovery and it can change our energy future fundamentally, 

or we can choose to cede those advantages to other countries. 

So let’s unleash the power of the market, approve the KXL pipeline, and show that we believe getting our oil from our trusted ally 

Canada is better than sending more of our hard-earned money to 

unfriendly or unreliable countries. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harbert follows:] 

42 


87910.020
43 


87910.021
44 


87910.022
45 


87910.023
46 


87910.024
47 


87910.025
48 


87910.026
49 


87910.027
50 


87910.028
51 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

I now recognize Mr. Houston from Nebraska. You are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS HOUSTON 

Mr. HOUSTON. Chairman Terry, Congressman Sarbanes, and distinguished members of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Manufacturing, and Trade, my name is Dennis Houston. I am the 

President and CEO of the Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce in 

Norfolk, Nebraska, the 2013 National Chamber of the Year. The 

Norfolk area in northeast Nebraska is home to the original TransCanada Keystone Pipeline route built in 2009. Norfolk is also the 

proud boyhood home of our favorite native son Johnny Carson. 

On behalf of the Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce and its 

more than 675 member firms, the 15,000 area residents our members employ, and the 125,000 people in the Norfolk trade area, I 

would like to share our positive experience with TransCanada and 

the Keystone Pipeline in our area of northeast Nebraska. 

The original TransCanada Keystone Pipeline has had an amazing impact on ‘‘Main Street’’ in Norfolk, Nebraska. It would be pretentious for us to say what is best for our friends west of us in Nebraska, but we are very qualified to share our story of what actually happened with the initial Keystone Pipeline in northeast Nebraska. 

In June 2009, the Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce established the Pipeline Task Force. We did this with one mission in 

mind: we wanted to proactively recruit TransCanada and the Keystone Pipeline to bring their base camp to Norfolk and the Madison 

County area that summer. Our experience with their organization 

and their employees was extremely positive. They entered our community as great corporate citizens and quickly became tremendous 

community partners for Norfolk and all of the neighboring towns 

in our area. 

Our Pipeline Task Force established a pipe liner Web site to welcome them to Norfolk. We hosted a community-wide family welcome BBQ with hundreds of people in attendance. We created a 

Pipe Liner Partner Discount Card to be used at area businesses to 

grow the local economy. Every marquee in our community had special messages to welcome our new friends to our community. 

The spouses of the pipe liners, who by their own name quickly 

became known as the ‘‘Pipeline Ladies,’’ completed a renovation of 

a crisis center for abused children. This was done with a total donation of time, talent, and dollars. After a 12-hour day on the job, 

pipe liners then brought in heavy equipment to build and landscape children’s playgrounds. They also volunteered their personal 

time at Bright Horizons and the Orphan Grain Train, both of 

which are nonprofits. This intense level of community involvement 

was not simply a goodwill gesture for a weekend project but rather 

a way of life that took place over a period of 5 months. 

The positive economic impact of the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline in Norfolk, a vibrant rural community of nearly 25,000 people, 

was nothing short of amazing. They brought 750 new jobs into the 

area. TransCanada became our third largest employer in our area 

for the 5 months their team was working on the project. We believe 

52 

that our partnership and positive experience with TransCanada 

and the Keystone Pipeline helped us to lead northeast Nebraska in 

economic success over the past few years. At the end of the day, 

we experienced a $10 million economic impact in Norfolk and the 

Madison County area. Please keep in mind that this was all happening at a time when most areas of the country were experiencing 

the peak of the recession. 

In recent years, CNN and Money Magazine designated Norfolk 

and Madison County as ‘‘The Second-Best Place for Jobs in America’’ and Norfolk is one of the ‘‘Top 100 Best Places to Live in 

America.’’ We are very proud of those accolades, but we certainly 

do not take them lightly. We strive each and every day to make 

them a reality, and more importantly, we will not do anything to 

risk our success, the future of our community, or our environment. 

The positive social and economic development impact from projects 

like the Keystone Pipeline helped us achieve these accolades and 

will help our community carry this torch forward for a long time. 

For the citizens of Norfolk and all of Madison County, the Keystone Pipeline was not just about bringing 750 workers into our 

community for 5 months. It was about building a rural economic 

development success story in northeast Nebraska. It was about 

new job creation in our part of Nebraska. 

Not only was the TransCanada Keystone pipeline a positive experience for the people of Norfolk, Nebraska, during the construction phase in 2009, the pipeline continues to contribute greatly to 

our future economic development success for years to come. Our 

community has been developing a new industrial highway around 

a current industrial park as we expand the park itself. This new 

industrial highway will help Norfolk create and attract additional 

new jobs. It was funded by Madison County, the City of Norfolk, 

and Stanton County. One million dollars was invested in our economic development infrastructure for this project by Stanton County as a direct result of real estate tax dollars collected by the county for the TransCanada Keystone pumping stations and pipeline 

just down the road. 

Rural Nebraska, like many rural areas in America, is not looking 

for a handout from the Federal Government. We are simply asking 

for the opportunity to take care of ourselves as we create new jobs, 

attract more industry, and bring new people to town as a result of 

projects like this. This would not have been possible without the 

original TransCanada Keystone pipeline running through the Norfolk area. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Houston follows:] 

53 


87910.029
54 


87910.030
55 


87910.031
56 


87910.032
57 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. Kaminski, you are now recognized for your 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RON KAMINSKI 

Mr. KAMINSKI. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the 500,000 members 

of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) 

and the 500 plus members of Local 1140, I would like to thank you 

and acting Member Sarbanes and the members of the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. 

The Laborers strongly support the construction of the Keystone 

XL pipeline, which will move oil from deposits in Canada to existing refineries in Texas and Oklahoma. LIUNA has been involved 

with this project for more than 4 years now, which, frankly, is entirely too long for what should have been a routine pipeline permitting process. This project will create millions of work hours for the 

members of our unions, with good wages and benefits. These delays 

cost construction workers’ jobs during one of the worst economic periods in our Nation’s history. 

The construction sector was hit particularly hard by the economic 

recession. The unemployment rate in the construction industry 

reached over 27 percent in 2010, and joblessness in construction remains higher than virtually any industry or sector, with nearly one 

million construction workers currently unemployed in the United 

States. Too many hardworking Americans are out of work, and the 

Keystone XL pipeline will change that dire situation for thousands 

of them. 

TransCanada has executed a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) 

with LIUNA, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the 

United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, the International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the International Brotherhood of 

Electrical Workers that will cover the construction of the Keystone 

XL pipeline. Other aspects of construction, including pump stations, will be performed by other unions within the Omaha and 

Southwest Iowa Building and Construction Trades and the Omaha 

Federation of Labor. 

It is indisputable that jobs will be created and supported in the 

extraction and refining of the oil, as well as in the manufacturing 

and service sectors. It is also clear that the construction and maintenance of the Keystone XL will have a ripple effect of consumer 

spending that will have a positive impact on the States and communities where the pipeline will be located. 

Unfortunately, some of the pipeline’s opponents have resorted to 

attacking the nature of work that our members do and have chosen 

as careers. They have imposed a value judgment that holds construction jobs to be of a lesser value because, eventually, every construction project has a completion date. They call these jobs ‘‘temporary’’ in an effort to diminish their importance to the men and 

women who have chosen a career in the construction sector. The 

undeniable truth is that, while opponents of the pipeline have successfully delayed the construction of the Keystone XL, members of 

my union have lost homes, their healthcare and other benefits. 

Construction workers deserve more respect. 

To further attack the project, they have called these jobs ‘‘dangerous’’ and ‘‘dirty.’’ The fact of the matter is construction is in fact 

58 

a dangerous occupation and when not performed by trained workers can lead to unacceptable environmental harm. However, when 

construction is performed by well-trained union workers, these 

risks can be minimized. I can assure you my members, as well as 

those workers who are part of the Project Labor Agreement with 

TransCanada, are the best trained in the world, and will build the 

safest pipeline in the world. And you don’t have to take my word 

for it. We just finished building the first Keystone pipeline in 2009 

in Nebraska and over the Ogallala Aquifer, and it has been operating safely since. 

Construction of this pipeline will also help produce needed government revenue at the federal, state, and local levels that can be 

used to protect communities from harmful budget cuts that have 

led to layoffs and the elimination of much-needed services. 

Many of the pipeline opponents hide behind unfounded and unrealistic expectations that if the project is not built, the development 

of oil shale deposits will cease. According to the U.S. State Department’s very first Environmental Impact Statement, ‘‘the proposed 

Project is not likely to impact the amount of crude oil produced 

from oil sands.’’ With or without the Keystone XL Pipeline, there 

will likely be little or no effect on the production of oil sands from 

western Canada. 

To be clear, the refineries in the Gulf Coast will continue to seek 

supplies of heavy crude oil. If they don’t get it from our friend and 

ally Canada, they will simply continue to rely on oil from foreign 

regimes where environmental and human rights regulations scarcely exist and oil profits are often used to oppose the United States’ 

economic and security interests. 

The Keystone XL pipeline will be the safest pipeline in the world. 

The 57 special conditions developed by the Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration and the State Department, and 

voluntarily agreed to by TransCanada, have a degree of safety 

greater than any typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system 

under current regulation. 

Additionally, in order to address environmental concerns about 

the Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala Aquifer, TransCanada rerouted 195 miles of the pipeline. After a special session of our Nebraska legislature unanimously addressed the routing issue, including a final resolution that was agreed to by environmental 

groups, and our own Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality conducted a rigorous and transparent examination of the environmental impact of the project. Our Governor, Dave Heineman, 

once an opponent of the pipeline because of environmental concerns, has sent a letter to President Obama approving 

TransCanada’s new 195-mile reroute. 

It is also important to note that public opinion surveys in Nebraska over the past 2 years have shown overwhelming support for 

the project. The elected representatives ofNebraskans and the people of Nebraska have spoken. We want this pipeline—5 years, over 

17,000 pages of environmental studies all confirming this project 

will be safe and is in our national interest. It is time to stop moving the goal posts and approve this project. 

Opponents are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts. Stopping the Keystone XL Pipeline will 

59 

not stop the development of Canadian oil. Denial of a presidential 

permit only increases the likelihood that American markets will 

miss this opportunity to secure long-term commitments for this 

North American resource. 

If the opponents of American jobs succeed in preventing the Keystone XL Pipeline from being built, the socioeconomic benefits of 

this project will not be realized. No local, state, and federal revenue 

will be generated by the construction and operation of the pipeline. 

There will be no additional income to property owners and businesses along the pipeline route. And critically important to our 

unions, the jobs that will be created by the massive private investment will be lost. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaminski follows:] 

60 


87910.033
61 


87910.034
62 


87910.035
63 


87910.036
64 


87910.037
65 


87910.038
66 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Kaminski. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Pugliaresi, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF LUCIAN PUGLIARESI 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. Chairman Terry, Ranking Member Sarbanes, 

thank you so much for this opportunity to talk on this very important topic. 

EPRINC has been around a long time, since 1944. We study the 

relationship between petroleum economics and public policy. So 

let’s go with the first slide. 

[Slide shown.] 

As you can see by this slide, the vertical axis shows production 

in 1,000 barrels a day. Actually, in the 1980s you can see we produced 10 million barrels a day together with Canada. Today, we 

are exceeding that number. It is very important. This additional 

production is extremely important. Had we not had this production, 

there would be no excess capacity in the world market today, the 

price of oil would be $20 to $40 higher than it is today, 50 cents 

to $1 a gallon more, and instead of anemic economic growth, we 

would still be in a recession. This is critically important. As a platform, a stable new production in North America is a godsend not 

just for North America but for the world oil market. 

And additionally, every time we produce a barrel of oil and North 

America, the real resource cost of that oil is substantially less than 

the claims on our resources from imports. So we produce a barrel 

of oil, a real resource cost may be $50. The difference between $50 

and $100, that is revenue to state, local, federal governments, return on capital, profits of course, and also return on labor. So this 

is very important. This is a very cost-effective import substitution. 

Next slide. 

[Slide shown.] 

Now, this is our outlook on the future. This is very detailed from 

well-based data. The U.S. and Canada can move up to 14 million 

barrels a day by 2020. This doesn’t even include natural gas liquids, which would add another 4 million barrels a day. This is an 

enormous engine of economic growth for the United States. It 

makes our manufacturing more competitive and requires a very effective network, a very cost-effective network to move this production, much of it out of the northern tier, through the coast refineries. And I will talk about that in a minute. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide shown.] 

If you look at this slide, the vertical axis shows the percentage 

of U.S. GMP, that is how much our import bill as a percentage of 

our GMP. And if you look at, you can see that out to 2019, 2020, 

the progress looks quite good. Oil imports as a percentage of GMP 

continue to decline. Now, exports/imports are not a very cost-effective way to think about energy security, but the notion of North 

America as a platform for stable new production is. And you can 

see here that when we look at it as a North American lens, which 

is really important, the U.S. and Canada together take the imports 

down to less than half-a-percent of GMP. The North American lens 

is the right way to look at this. 

67 

Once again, as many of the other speakers of pointed out, production of Canadian oil and the purchase of it by American consumers comes back to the United States in the purchases of capital 

and consumer goods by over 90 percent. 

Next slide. 

[Slide shown.] 

This shows the congestion, what we call sort of the congestion of 

the network. If you think about the United States, we produced our 

oil in the Gulf Coast. We imported our oil in our parts in the Gulf 

Coast, and we moved it up. But all of a sudden, we have this surge 

of production out of the northern tier, North Dakota, Montana, 

Canada. We need to take that production now and move it to the 

coast refineries. And it is this congestion here which is causing 

enormous problems throughout the producing regions of the United 

States. In fact, if we could get XL built, we believe that it will probably lift well head values throughout North America by $3 a barrel. 

A lot of that money shows up in local, state, and federal revenues. 

Next slide. 

[Slide shown.] 

I think it is very important to understand what is going on. The 

middle of the United States today no longer uses any non-US or 

non-Canadian oil. As you can see by this chart up here, imports are 

in the green, so if you produce more oil in Canada or more oil in 

North Dakota, you have to move that oil to a coastal refining center. The midcontinent of the United States is now using only U.S. 

and Canadian crude. And so if we don’t have an effective transportation system to move this crude to the coastal refining centers, we 

are not going to embrace the huge benefits that the North American petroleum renaissance is presenting the country. And this actually is a serious problem because when we can’t pull the trigger 

on something as simple as XL, we are sending a message to OPEC, 

to investors around the world that we are incapable of even embracing the simplest measures that will enhance the petroleum 

renaissance, our energy security. 

Finally, the last slide. 

[Slide shown.] 

I think there are a couple of issues on expectations I would like 

to talk about. As we have spoken already, if you look from Cushing 

to the Gulf Coast, that project is almost done, so it is the missing 

piece on XL. But what has happened from this decision process in 

terms of expectations? The first thing that has happened is no Canadian company today or U.S. company will consider a cross-border 

pipeline. We know this because we have spoken to some and suggested some areas where they could do it, and they have said you 

guys are crazy. We are not going to go through the torture chamber 

of the U.S. decision process. It is not good for our company, it is 

not good for the process, and it is too unpredictable. 

The second issue that is really important is that TransCanada— 

and many people may not know this—TransCanada purchased $2 

billion worth of pipe 2 years ahead of schedule under the expectation that President Obama, like every other American President, 

would not deny a cross-border pipeline with Canada. That is now 

sitting in the ground. That loss of expectations is a serious problem. 

68 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pugliaresi follows:] 

69 


87910.039
70 


87910.040
71 


87910.041
72 


87910.042
73 


87910.043
74 


87910.044
75 


87910.045
76 


87910.046
77 


87910.047
78 


87910.048
79 


87910.049
80 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

Ms. Kleeb, you are now recognized for your 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JANE FLEMING KLEEB 

Ms. KLEEB. Thank you, Representative Terry and members of 

the committee, and thank you to all the pipeline fighters and landowners watching at home. I am Jane Kleeb, the Executive Director 

of Bold Nebraska. 

As a great Republican President once said, ‘‘no man may poison 

the people for his private profit.’’ I believe President Teddy Roosevelt was absolutely right. And in Nebraska, we are fighting to 

keep the Keystone XL away from the delicate Sandhills, which it 

still crosses, and our precious Ogallala Aquifer. 

When Keystone I was built in our State, Nebraskans actually 

didn’t know much about oil pipelines. We are an ag State; we are 

not an oil State, and we certainly didn’t know anything about tar 

sands. As a State, when that pipeline was built, we did not see a 

huge economic boom, and as a nation, we did not see a huge employment boom. The $1.8 billion dollars that TransCanada promises our counties must have been paid in Monopoly money because 

in fact when Keystone I was built, the counties that that pipeline 

crossed, their tax revenue went down. 

Looking at job records on Keystone I and TransCanada’s Gulf 

Coast Segment, you see about 8 to 900 folks that come in from out 

of state that are employed for about 6 months to a year and about 

100 local folks good jobs for about the same time period. While 

those are good jobs and those are good people, it is nowhere near 

TransCanada’s promise of 20, 40, or a million jobs that we have 

sometimes heard on the Hill. 

In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon platform exploded into the 

Gulf of Mexico claiming 11 lives and releasing over 5 million gallons of oil. Within 10 days of capping the BP well, Enbridge’s tar 

sands pipeline ruptured into the Kalamazoo River, and with it lots 

of cancer-causing chemicals in tar sands. 

In 2013, tar sands literally ran down the streets in a town in Arkansas. It was then that our State and our nation were now focused on not the economic benefits of Keystone XL but the economic risk. Our State’s economic backbone is based in agriculture 

not oil pipelines. Our farmers’ and ranchers’ livelihoods rely on 

clean and abundant water from the aquifer. We are the number 

one State in the Nation when it comes to irrigated acres, and it is 

only because we sit on this vast resource. 

There has never been a worst-case water risk analysis done by 

the State Department or by the Nebraska DEQ and TransCanada 

admits their pipeline could rupture up to 1.3 million gallons of tar 

sands and benzene into our water supply, and that is obviously a 

very eye-catching number because it is about the same amount of 

tar sands and chemicals that were spilled into the Kalamazoo 

River. Three years later and over $1 billion in cleanup, that tar 

sands is clinging to the edges of that riverbank and is on the bottom of the river. The EPA admits we simply don’t know how to 

clean it up, and I am sure Chairman Upton knows this risk that 

faces his State and his community. 

81 

We are deeply worried that our rivers—the Platte, the Niobrara, 

and the Ogallala aquifer—will be the next Kalamazoo River, will 

be the next Mayflower, Arkansas, or will be the next Gulf Coast 

of Mexico. 

America’s national interest is not served by a project that lines 

the pockets of the few—and I would say foreign—while risking the 

livelihoods and lives of many Americans. Our families live in rural 

America for a reason. We like our way of life. We can actually see 

the stars there. We can drink from the water directly from the aquifer. We gather by the river every year to see the annual migration of the Sandhills cranes, which I proudly wear on my boots. The 

Department of Interior says that all of that is literally at risk with 

this project. 

When you know this is an export pipeline—every one of you 

knows it; TransCanada knows it, too—and you know it is going to 

get refined by countries that you all say you hate—Saudi Arabia 

and Venezuela—and it is made with foreign steel—Welspun knows 

that. This is not made-in-the-USA steel. It is rolled and coated in 

Arkansas. When you know that and you know that TransCanada 

threatens eminent domain from day one when talking with landowners, you should be ashamed of yourselves for supporting this 

project. 

TransCanada is asking landowners to take on a lifetime of risk, 

and so we are asking you to intervene. We want you to see their 

massive lobby and P.R. campaign and all of the millions of dollars 

of lobby dollars as it is, and it is simply a Hail Mary pass. They 

are landlocked. They need to get their product to the export market, and when it does, it will open the floodgates to the tar sands 

pipelines or, as the person who spoke before me, other pipeline 

companies will then not want to cross the border because they 

know that they will be facing Nebraska ranchers and farmers. 

A risk to our agriculture production in Nebraska or other Midwestern states that rely on the aquifer can easily turn into a catastrophic economic risk. Last weekend, just in a tiny town of Benedict, Nebraska, a group of landowners and concerned citizens like 

these two folks right here, we started to build a solar-powered barn 

with wind directly inside the route of the Keystone pipeline. With 

the drills and hammers, with sturdy backs and a lot of will, we are 

building our own clean and reliable energy. And the fact of the 

matter is is that little barn, that little clean energy project will put 

more energy on Nebraska’s power grid than the TransCanada Keystone pipeline ever will. 

And so we ask you to stand with us, farmers and ranchers, stand 

against eminent domain, stand against foreign oil, and help us get 

this pipeline denied. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kleeb follows:] 

82 


87910.050
83 


87910.051
84 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. Swift, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY SWIFT 

Mr. SWIFT. Thank you, Chairman Terry, Ranking Member Sarbanes, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for today’s 

opportunity to testify on the economic and environmental issues associated with the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. My name is Anthony Swift. I am a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. 

When TransCanada first proposed to build Keystone XL, the controversial project generated public outcry for good reason. The proposed pipeline would have transported 830,000 barrels of tar sands 

crude—the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive crude in the world— 

across America’s farms, communities, and through some of the Nation’s most sensitive water resources. The intervening years of public scrutiny and environmental review have only bolstered the argument that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in the Nation’s interest and should be rejected. 

In the period since TransCanada filed its initial application, we 

have learned through tragic experience of the dangers of tar sands 

spills. In spills in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Mayflower, Arkansas, 

we have seen communities destroyed and learned that tar sands is 

far more difficult to contain and clean than conventional crude. We 

watched as TransCanada put two new pipelines, Keystone I and 

Bison, into service. Both had special safety conditions, and yet in 

its first year, Keystone I spilled 14 times and had to be shut down 

by federal regulators while the Bison pipeline exploded. 

We have learned that the Keystone XL’s supporters have dramatically exaggerated many of the benefits of this project. We were 

told the Keystone XL was critical to U.S. energy security. We now 

know that over half of the tar sands from Keystone XL will be exported after it is refined in the Gulf. Rather than a pipeline to the 

United States, Keystone XL is an export pipeline through it. 

While supporters of the pipeline continue to pitch the project as 

a national jobs creator, the reality is quite different. The State Department’s review indicates that the construction of Keystone XL 

has a job creation potential on par with building a shopping mall, 

and it will support far fewer jobs after it is built. In fact, it will 

employ just 50 permanent workers in both the United States and 

Canada after construction. That is simply not the national jobs 

plan that its boosters claim. 

And we have seen climate change imposing increasing costs on 

the American people. We just finished last year, the hottest year 

on record across the continental United States. We spent over $140 

billion to cover crop losses. We saw wildfires that burned 9.3 million acres of our forests and fields and witnessed storms like Hurricane Sandy—which left 130 Americans dead—do more than $80 

billion of damage. Climate-related spending by the government cost 

the average American taxpayer $1,100 last year alone. 

We have long known that tar sands is incredibly carbon-intensive 

to produce. Not only are the well-to-tank emissions from gasoline 

produced from tar sands over 80 percent higher than that from 

85 

conventional crude, we now know that a barrel of tar sands produces greater quantities of carbon-intensive byproducts like petroleum coke. Replacing conventional crude at the Gulf with tar sands 

from Keystone XL would generate annual emissions equivalent to 

those of over 5 million vehicles. To put that in perspective, Americans would have to drive 60 billion fewer miles every year to make 

up for the increased carbon emissions from Keystone XL. 

We also learned that Keystone XL is the linchpin for the tar 

sands industry’s expansion plans. Goldman Sachs, Standard & 

Poor’s, and other market observers have noted that the current 

pace of tar sands expansion cannot continue if Keystone XL is rejected. We have heard confirming evidence of that today. The efforts of Keystone XL supporters to secure the approval underlying 

the importance of this pipeline to the tar sands industry expansion 

plan and the carbon emissions associated with that plan. Even in 

the unlikely scenario that every other proposed tar sands transportation project moved ahead, the tar sands industry would still not 

have sufficient transport capacity to meet its expansion plans without Keystone XL. There is simply no credible way to divorce Keystone XL with the tar sands expansion and the carbon pollution associated with it. 

There is a better path forward, one which involves expanding a 

clean economy that already puts millions of Americans to work 

today. In recent years, we have watched clean energy become one 

of the fastest-growing sectors in the U.S. economy creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. In fact, just in the second 

quarter of this year, 58 new projects in clean energy and clean 

transportation were announced, which will create over 38,000 jobs. 

Our choice is clear: Either we will begin on our watch to reduce 

the dangerous carbon pollution that is driving global climate 

change or our children will inherit climate chaos tomorrow. Years 

of public scrutiny have given us a myriad of reasons to reject this 

tar sands project. Keystone XL is not in the Nation’s interest. 

NRDC thanks you for the opportunity to present its views and 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swift follows:] 

86 


87910.052
87 


87910.053
88 


87910.054
89 


87910.055
90 


87910.056
91 


87910.057
92 


87910.058
93 


87910.059
94 


87910.060
95 


87910.061
96 


87910.062
97 


87910.063
98 


87910.064
99 


87910.065
100 


87910.066
101 


87910.067
102 


87910.068
103 


87910.069
104 


87910.070
105 


87910.071
106 


87910.072
107 


87910.073
108 


87910.074
109 


87910.075
110 


87910.076
111 


87910.077
112 


87910.078
113 


87910.079
114 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Swift. 

And that concludes the testimony of our witnesses and now begins our question-and-answer period. Each Member has 5 minutes 

to ask questions. I am going to start as the chairman. 

So, Mr. Kaminski, an accusation was laid that the jobs have been 

overstated. Your labor hall has a contract, as I understand, with 

TransCanada to supply labor. 

Mr. KAMINSKI. That is correct. We constructed the first Keystone 

line with TransCanada. TransCanada was a great partner. They 

wanted the best workers building that pipeline. That is why we believe they signed the Project Labor Agreement to ensure union 

members were put to work. 

I find it quite amusing that all these studies that have so-called 

taken place about jobs numbers, no one has ever contacted me 

about a survey or a study on how many jobs were created on the 

first Keystone line, nor on the second one. The ideas that these are 

temporary jobs, every job in construction is temporary. We construct wind turbines, we construct ethanol plants, biodiesel plants, 

and we build those wind turbines. We can build 120 wind turbines 

in about a quarter of the time that we would build this pipeline. 

So to say that because it is an alternative source of energy or a 

type of energy it is not a temporary job is just pretty funny to me. 

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Houston, you had testified that there was a positive economic impact from the employees and from property taxes generated from the pipeline. Was there a decrease in tax revenues during the construction of the pipeline? 

Mr. HOUSTON. Just the opposite for us. When I mentioned the industrial road around our industrial part, that million dollars is 

coming from those tax dollars that are coming in from Stanton 

County and from the pipeline pumping stations and in those areas. 

It is money that is coming in that is paying for those roads. It is 

allowing us to grow our community. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. And so they are paying taxes? 

Mr. HOUSTON. Yes. 

Mr. TERRY. And during the time of the construction, was there 

an increase in tax revenues or a decrease? 

Mr. HOUSTON. A dramatic increase. When you look at where the 

national economy was, you know, at the height of the Great Recession in the summer of 2009, to have 750 additional workers who 

are away from home that are out there, you know, working hard 

day in and day out on these 12- and 14-hour days building the 

pipeline, they all spend their money in our community and all the 

neighboring communities. It had an economic impact of more than 

$10 million, and that is a very conservative number. Even from trying to accommodate that many people in a rural community, I 

mean we had people that did a 2-week time period that built additional RV parks working literally 24 hours a day around the clock 

to build RV parks just so people would have a place to live during 

that time period. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. 

Mr. HOUSTON. Because in that rural community of 25,000 you 

don’t have 750 extra apartments or homes available when people 

move into the area. 

115 

Mr. TERRY. Well, I appreciate that. 

Mr. Pugliaresi, as I understand, from the oil sands in Alberta 

there is to the west a pipeline that is under construction and been 

approved for the Kinder Morgan pipeline to the west. So let’s make 

an assumption that there is no Keystone pipeline and the oil sands 

are moved to the east and west in Canada not through the United 

States. Is there an economic impact to the United States? 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. Yes. Once again, it is important to look upon 

this as a network issue. We really want the whole North American 

network to be as efficient as possible to move crude to the coastal 

refining centers that are most adept and who add the most value 

in processing those crudes. So for Canada to move it east and west 

it is a second-best solution. It is a solution I believe they will pursue. But the most efficient solution is to move the oil sands production to the Gulf of Mexico where the existing technology, the 

cokers, and the refineries are there to process it. The light, sweet 

crude should be moving to California and to the PADD 1. 

So when we impose this restriction by prohibiting it from moving, all we are doing is imposing an economic cost on both countries. That economic cost is going to show up not just in lower profits but lower revenues for state, federal, and local governments. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. Thank you. My time—— 

Ms. KLEEB. Mr. Chairman, just the—— 

Mr. TERRY. No. 

Ms. KLEEB. OK. Well, there is—— 

Mr. TERRY. My time is up, and by the way, the rules of this are 

that you will be asked questions. You don’t get to blurt out. 

And now Mr. Sarbanes will help you. You are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Kleeb, do you want to finish your thought? 

Ms. KLEEB. Mr. Terry had said that there was an east and west 

pipeline. Neither is under construction, neither has a permit, and 

both are facing fierce opposition both from First Nation tribes, as 

well as farmers and ranchers and other folks in Canada who are 

opposed to tar sands just as much as we are. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

A couple things: first off, I find the testimony about the job creation around this project compelling. However, I don’t accept the 

notion that there aren’t other tremendous opportunities to create 

jobs, construction jobs, through infrastructure investment that will 

be more environmentally sound than this one. And I don’t want to 

get trapped into the notion that if we don’t pursue this particular 

project we have abandoned the imperative of trying to create good, 

strong jobs and do that within the construction industry. 

Now, Mr. Swift, I wanted to talk a little bit about this issue of 

whether the construction of this pipeline is in fact critical to the 

future of the tar sands industry because this is an important point. 

You know, we have looked at the environmental issue from these 

two sides. Some people are focusing pretty exclusively on whether 

it is safe to transport it through the pipeline and we have heard 

testimony about the 57 points of safety that have been developed. 

I am not convinced that there aren’t still significant risks, and 

when tar sands is involved, I think those risks are even greater. 

116 

But most of the people that are focusing on that are not talking 

about the first instance of the environmental impact, which is the 

extraction and reduction of it, which makes it the dirtiest source 

of transportation fuel out there. 

So those of us who are very concerned about that, how it contributes to climate change and do kind of focus on that piece of it, it 

would be somewhat dispositive of our view of this thing if we were 

convinced that it is going to happen anyway, right, that even if we 

don’t do Keystone, they are going to continue to find the opportunity to develop this source of energy. And so the climate change 

impact is going to be there anyhow. 

But I think you have a different perspective. I would like you to 

maybe expand on that. I mean the State Department made a statement that they thought it was unlikely to impact the rate of development in the oil sands, but there are financial and industry experts who have a different view, and if you could speak to that, 

again, I think it is really important that we try to nail this down 

as best we can. 

Mr. SWIFT. Thank you so much. And that is a critical question. 

Wall Street generally believes that Keystone XL is critical to enable tar sands expansion, and the reason for that, one thing that 

is important to understand is that new tar sands projects have very 

high breakeven rates. In order to simply break even, many of these 

projects require anywhere from $80 to $100 a barrel to be profitable. And because of those high costs, many companies are on the 

fence right now about moving forward with tar sands production 

projects, new ones. 

The difference between moving tar sands by pipeline and by rails 

appears to be fairly substantial. Pipelines offer the cheapest transportation option for companies to move tar sands from northern Alberta to the Gulf. And it is becoming relatively clear that many 

new projects are at a critical juncture as far as their profitability, 

and without a clear indication that numerous new pipelines are 

going to be moved forward with, they are not going to pull the trigger on that production. And this is an opinion that is shared by 

groups like Goldman Sachs as well. 

So the folks that are really invested in identifying which way 

production is going to go and what the impact of the Keystone XL 

decision will be on tar sands expansion indicate that the decision 

to permit the pipeline would enable significant tar sands expansion. 

Mr. SARBANES. Well, I appreciate that. I mean those of us who 

are very focused on the climate change impact of a project like this 

need to understand that this if this project doesn’t go forward, it 

really could have a significant impact in reducing those CO2 emissions. And we have heard a lot of statistics, comparative statistics, 

about how large that impact would be. 

So I appreciate your testimony and I thank the panel. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes. 

And now we recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee. 

Mr. Lance, you are recognized. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 

morning to you all. 

117 

Not to make a decision is in effect making a decision, and I have 

been listening to the testimony and I respect the testimony of all 

of those on the panel. However, it is my position that a decision 

should be rendered by the Administration, yea or nay, and then we 

in Congress can react to that once that occurs. 

To each member of the panel, do you believe the Administration 

should render a decision and when do you believe the Administration should render a decision? 

Mr. DELIE. I believe the decision should have been rendered 

years ago, not today, but, you know, every day we wait it is costing 

us jobs. 

Mr. LANCE. You favor a decision today? 

Mr. DELIE. Yes. I could give you one quick example. There is a 

55,000-ton order that TransCanada is going to build in Canada 

needing pipe, and I just came to the understanding that that would 

be 3 months’ work for my employees that they are going to use pipe 

from KXL to build that project and not produce new pipe for that. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Ms. HARBERT. Yes, it is past due and there is, contrary to what 

Jane said, an existing pipeline that they will be reversing on the 

oil sands to go to the east coast that is under consideration right 

now with the government’s full backing. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Mr. Houston? 

Mr. HOUSTON. My answer, yes, and my time frame would be yesterday. 

Mr. LANCE. So that means by definition today? 

Mr. HOUSTON. Yes. 

Mr. KAMINSKI. I believe that in our organization, like I said, we 

care deeply about the environment. I believe that the process does 

have to take time. Do I think 5 years is too long? I do. So I think 

that decision has to be made as soon as possible. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. Yes, it should be made immediately. 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. Ms. Kleeb? 

Ms. KLEEB. I stand with the President. As he said, when all the 

proper studies are done—— 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Including—— 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. A worst-case scenario spill on our 

water—— 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. And what would your time frame be? 

Ms. KLEEB. When the proper studies are done. 

Mr. LANCE. Well, can you estimate for the panel when your time 

frame would be? 

Ms. KLEEB. If the State Department can do that study in 2 

months, 6 months, it depends on when that study can be done. I 

will also make sure that the panel knows I am not sure if Representative Terry told you, but the Nebraska route is actually in 

question. It is in court, has been in court for over a year. We have 

our lawsuit trial on September 27. That could throw out the Nebraska route and force TransCanada to go through—— 

Mr. LANCE. So what would your time frame be? Could you estimate for us when you think would be an appropriate—— 

118 

Ms. KLEEB. We feel confident that the President would deny the 

pipeline today, and so if he makes the decision today, that is fine 

with me. We have been confident from day one. 

Mr. LANCE. And do you favor the President making a decision 

today? 

Ms. KLEEB. I favor the President making the decision when he 

thinks that all the studies have been done. 

Mr. LANCE. And do you agree that not making a decision is in 

effect making a decision? 

Ms. KLEEB. I think by him waiting until all the studies are and 

has provided the evidence that we need to prove that this pipeline 

is not in our national interest. 

Mr. LANCE. And do you believe 5 years is too long? 

Ms. KLEEB. No, because we still don’t have a water risk analysis. 

Mr. LANCE. No. So you do not believe 5 years is too long? 

Ms. KLEEB. No, we still don’t have a water risk analysis. It was 

TransCanada’s—— 

Mr. LANCE. Would 6—— 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Own fault and arrogance of why we are 

in this position right now. They should have never tried to cross 

the Sandhills or the aquifer to begin with. 

Mr. LANCE. Would 6 years be too long? 

Ms. KLEEB. If we still don’t have the proper water study, then 

it is not long enough. 

Mr. LANCE. Six years is not long enough in your opinion? 

Ms. KLEEB. If we don’t have the proper water risk analysis, yes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Mr. Swift? 

Mr. SWIFT. I think a decision should be made. This current application is dated from 2012, and I do believe that, given the State 

Department has a million comments to go through, it is critical 

that they get the process right and that they get the best information—— 

Mr. LANCE. And do you believe a decision should be made? 

Mr. SWIFT. I do believe that a decision—— 

Mr. LANCE. And perhaps you and I might disagree as to what 

that decision should be; I respect that. And you believe a decision 

should be made now? 

Mr. SWIFT. I believe that a decision should be made once the best 

information is evaluated based on the best information available. 

We have to remember this pipeline, TransCanada intends to use it 

as a perpetual resource that is rated for—— 

Mr. LANCE. And what would your time frame be, Mr. Swift? 

Mr. SWIFT. It is based on content of the information—— 

Mr. LANCE. Yes, I have 27 seconds. 

Mr. SWIFT. As soon as possible. 

Mr. LANCE. As soon as possible. I agree with that. And I think 

5 years is too long. And let me repeat I believe not making a decision is making a decision. And you and I might disagree as to what 

the decision would be, and I respect your position and your organization has done distinguished work in the United States, but you 

and I agree that a decision should be made as soon as possible? 

Mr. SWIFT. No sooner than possible. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

119 

Mr. TERRY. I recognize the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on the Keystone XL pipeline. 

I am a supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline. I believe its approval is long overdue. It will increase our access to North American energy production and that will better protect families here at 

home from the effects of energy market uncertainty caused by political and economic troubles in other parts of the world. And let’s 

project that construction of the pipeline will create at least 13,000 

new construction jobs and an additional 7,000 manufacturing jobs. 

These are highly skilled jobs that folks all across the country are 

looking for. 

When the Keystone XL pipeline is complete, it will move an estimated 840,000 barrels of oil per day. That amounts to 10 percent 

of America’s net daily oil imports, enough to displace the oil we import every day from Venezuela. When the folks in my district in 

Georgia look at this project, they realize that it won’t increase our 

dependence on oil as our primary source for transportation energy 

as we are already totally dependent on oil for our transportation 

energy. But it will make us less dependent on hostile rivals and 

more reliant upon friendly allies for our transportation energy. 

I also understand that it will not harm the environment because 

this oil energy is going to be reduced and refined and consumed by 

somebody. The only real question is whether we get first dibs on 

it or whether we have to get to the back of the line behind countries like India and China for our own North American oil. For all 

of these reasons, I urge all parties involved to work together to 

make the Keystone XL pipeline a reality. 

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

At this time I recognize Mr. Olson from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair and I would like to start my comments with a quote about the southern leg of the Keystone XL 

pipeline, and here is the quote: ‘‘Moving oil from the Midwest to 

the world-class, state-of-the-art refineries on the Gulf Coast will 

modernize our infrastructure, create jobs, and encourage American 

energy production.’’ That quote did not come from Chairman Terry. 

It didn’t come from a Texan like me. It came from President 

Obama’s head spokesman, James Carney, earlier this year. Create 

jobs, modernize our infrastructure, encourage American energy production. 

I would like to follow up on Mr. Kaminski’s spot-on comments 

about we all have our own opinions but not our own facts. I would 

like to offer every panelist a little multiple-choice question about 

transporting liquids, whether it is milk or oil. And so starting at 

the end there with you, Mr. Delie—is that pronounced correctly? 

Mr. DELIE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OLSON. What is the safest way to transport liquids? Is it 

train, truck, ocean liner, or pipeline? 

Mr. DELIE. Pipelines. 

Mr. OLSON. Pipeline. 

Ms. HARBERT. Domestic pipelines, but we are going to need more 

than just pipelines as well with this abundance. 

120 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, ma’am, just the safest one statistically. Yes, I 

agree completely. 

Mr. Houston? Great last name, by the way. 

Mr. HOUSTON. Thank you. Pipeline. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Kaminski? 

Mr. KAMINSKI. No question, pipelines. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Pugliaresi? 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. Yes, long-term data show pipelines have the 

lowest risk. 

Mr. OLSON. Ms. Kleeb? 

Ms. KLEEB. It actually depends on what stats you are looking at, 

which Mr. Swift, I am sure, can talk about. But as President 

Obama said, we have enough pipelines to wrap around the world. 

We don’t need another one, especially a foreign oil one. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. You dodged the question. And Mr. Swift? 

Mr. SWIFT. There is some question in this—— 

Mr. OLSON. Truck, ocean liner, trailer, or pipeline, four choices. 

We are in real world here. 

Mr. SWIFT. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Just stay in real world. Those are our four choices, 

liquid, milk. 

Mr. SWIFT. It is unclear. We found there are some issues with 

both forms actually, all four. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. And one final point about the Ogallala aquifer, 

it is not just under Nebraska. 

Ms. KLEEB. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. It is under Wyoming and South Dakota and Colorado 

and Kansas and New Mexico and Oklahoma, in my home State of 

Texas. Right now, there are at least 25,000 miles of pipeline over 

the aquifer in all those States, 2,000 over Nebraska. And again 

start at the end, does that sound right, accurate, yes or no? And 

it is with you, Mr. Delie, 25,000 over the aquifer and 2,000 over 

Nebraska? 

Mr. DELIE. That sounds correct. 

Ms. HARBERT. We have a tremendous amount of pipeline infrastructure and we need a lot more to move these molecules around 

for the benefit of our economy. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Houston, I love saying that last name, sir. 

Mr. HOUSTON. Keep saying it. I would agree. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Kaminski? 

Mr. KAMINSKI. I would agree and I don’t think that this argument is about the Sandhills or the aquifer. If it was about the 

Sandhills, the environmental groups in Nebraska would not agree 

to the resolution we came up with and that all—— 

Ms. KLEEB. Which environmental groups—— 

Mr. KAMINSKI [continuing]. Super majority of the State Senators 

and the Governor approved. I don’t think this is about the aquifer 

or the Sandhills. I think that is an excuse. 

Mr. OLSON. Right. It is pipelines. 

Mr. KAMINSKI. Yes. 

Ms. KLEEB. There are not 2,000 miles of tar sand pipelines—— 

Mr. OLSON. Not tar sands, pipeline. 

Ms. KLEEB. Yes, there are—— 

Mr. OLSON. Pipeline, pipeline, pipeline. 

121 

Ms. KLEEB. There are things like water pipelines, fertilizer pipelines—— 

Mr. OLSON. And also—— 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Things that produce the agriculture—— 

Mr. OLSON [continuing]. Still it is also petroleum products, not 

just—— 

Ms. KLEEB. So—— 

Mr. OLSON [continuing]. Keystone is not unique. Yes, ma’am, 

I—— 

Ms. KLEEB. The only tar sands pipeline that crosses our State 

right now is Keystone I, and when it went in the ground, people 

have actually thought it was a water or natural gas pipeline, so 

that is only one tar sands pipeline. And I will say that this pipeline 

still crosses the Sandhills. No environmental group signed off on a 

crooked map that TransCanada and our government—— 

Mr. OLSON. I am out of time, ma’am. Mr. Swift—— 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Tried to force down our throats. 

Mr. OLSON [continuing]. You are up, sir. Does that sound about 

right, sir, 25,000 over the aquifer, 2,000 over Nebraska? 

Mr. SWIFT. Well, I come from West Texas where most of those 

pipelines are, and I can tell you that most of that pipeline mileage 

is in the West Texas part of the aquifer. Most of the aquifer’s water 

is actually in Nebraska, the vast majority of it and not the overlying other States. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. I would just like to talk briefly about the 

jobs. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit a letter for 

the record from Hudson Products Operation, a corporation in my 

district. I went down and visited them during the work period, 

drove down U.S. 59, soon to be I–69, and they are a small business 

which makes fans that are being used in the pipeline up there in 

the tar sands in Canada and they will be used to export LNG to 

other countries. So again this is real jobs in Beasley, Texas. This 

pipeline is necessary. It is safe. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

It has been 5 years. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. And without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Harper, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each of you 

for being here on what is continuing to be a very important topic. 

And if I could ask Mr. Pugliaresi some questions here. You know, 

as has been stated, much of the Canadian crude is now being 

transported by truck or rail and barge, so what would you say to 

folks as to why we need the pipeline? 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. So once again, we have this problem. We produced and shipped our crude oil and products from the south up 

to the northern tier. We have large-scale production now coming 

out of the northern tier. It needs to be moved efficiently in order 

to set a set of expectations that we can continue to produce this 

oil. This oil has huge net value. This is something I don’t think we 

really understand. You can say you don’t want to build Keystone 

XL, you can say you don’t want to drill offshore, but you can’t say 

it is free. We are going to give up that value. And if we give up 

122 

that value, at least we ought to be honest about what we are losing 

out on because the numbers are very, very big. 

Mr. HARPER. You know, we of course on this side of the aisle are 

very supportive of this project moving forward and the need to do 

that. So if you are telling someone and you are rating the efficiency 

and cost of the various methods, where does the pipeline stack up 

with the transportation methods on cost and efficiency? 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. I would say that when you have a long-lived resource like the Canadian oil sands, it is at least three times more 

efficient because you can amortize the cost of the pipeline over 20 

years and everything can be built out efficiently. 

Mr. HARPER. As has been stated, we have other pipelines, many 

pipelines crossing our borders. How does the Keystone XL compare 

to these other cross-border pipelines in terms of the scope of the 

review and the timeline for approval, as others have seen? 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. As I said, there has never been a cross-border 

pipeline turned down by an American President. So historically, we 

have treated the North American trade relationship with Canada 

as an open border, highly integrated economic conditions, highly integrated ownership patterns and this is the first time, and it has 

become more a symbolic fight than an actual fight. If you look at 

the data, you take it through all the way, it is not something that 

should have created all this furor. 

Mr. HARPER. And this President has approved a cross-border 

pipeline in the past, has he not? 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. Absolutely. 

Mr. HARPER. All right. Here is one thing we look at is we look 

around the world in the global economy that we are in and we look 

at the private sector, how would the private sector here in the 

United States and around the world be viewing us as we go 

through this process on Keystone XL? 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. Yes, I think the real danger of this is we look 

incompetent. We have this enormous value, this transformation of 

North America that is before us and we can’t do the simplest thing 

to embrace it. I really think the fight over this is not about whether we build the pipeline or not; it is about the fact that the breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, the in situ 

production in Canada suggests that we are no longer living in an 

era of limitations and scarcity. We can restore growth. We can enhance our strategic outlook. And this is a kind of ideological fight 

because a lot of people don’t—that was not the world they wanted 

to see. 

Mr. HARPER. And if I could, Mr. Kaminski, this is obviously very 

important to your members as a project, and again, give the numbers that you would say would be employed if this moves through? 

Mr. KAMINSKI. Within our organization locally, we are talking 

hundreds and hundreds of jobs, but we are only one piece of unions 

that are actually going to construct this pipeline and the pump stations. 

Mr. HARPER. Total among those that you would say were union 

members, how many jobs are we talking about across—— 

Mr. KAMINSKI. I would think with the northern segment probably 

9,000, 10,000 jobs. And that is trades that I spoke about earlier. 

National AFL–CIO is in support of this, state AFL–CIO, Building 

123 

and Trades, every labor organization that deals with construction 

is in support of this project. 

Mr. HARPER. Ms. Kleeb, don’t you think those jobs are important? 

Ms. KLEEB. I think union jobs are very important. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. 

Ms. KLEEB. In fact, I worked with Ron on trying to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, and so there is no question—— 

Mr. HARPER. OK. 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. About union support—— 

Mr. HARPER. OK. 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. But those job figures just simply don’t 

pan out. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Well, what if it is—— 

Ms. KLEEB. When you look at the job records on Keystone I, it 

clearly says that about 8 to 900 workers—— 

Mr. HARPER. OK. 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. For about 6 months to a year—— 

Mr. HARPER. Fine. 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Worked on that line in that State. 

Mr. HARPER. Let’s say—— 

Ms. KLEEB. And they build man camps for 900, not 9,000. 

Mr. HARPER. Let’s say it is 8 to 900. 

Ms. KLEEB. Sure. 

Mr. HARPER. Are those homes and lives and jobs and families, 

are they not important, too? Those are—— 

Ms. KLEEB. They are critically important—— 

Mr. HARPER [continuing]. Important, are they not? 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. So are the families—— 

Mr. HARPER. Well, then let’s get them—— 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. And generations of farmers and ranchers—— 

Mr. HARPER. Let’s get them to work. 

Ms. KLEEB. Nobody is—— 

Mr. HARPER. This has been dragged on—— 

Ms. KLEEB. Yes, let’s put them to work. 

Mr. HARPER [continuing]. For way too long. 

Ms. KLEEB. You don’t have to wait 5 years for this project. Put 

them to work on the backlog—— 

Mr. HARPER. This—— 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Of infrastructure jobs that you guys continue to block—— 

Mr. HARPER. This project—— 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Because of the Republican party. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Look, this job is important. It is important to 

America. It is important to our national security and energy security and it puts people to work. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson, you are recognized. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Kleeb, the CV that you submitted to the committee lists 

some work you did from 2008 to 2010 for the SEIU as Nebraska 

State Director. 

124 

Ms. KLEEB. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Your CV goes on to state that you currently run 

a group called Bold Nebraska. 

Ms. KLEEB. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is the SEIU one of the groups you are working 

with in your role at Bold Nebraska? 

Ms. KLEEB. No, SEIU was just—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. That is all I need. 

Ms. KLEEB. OK. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So if the SEIU, a group that you claim to have 

worked for at roughly the same time that you started Bold isn’t 

funding you, then who is? 

Ms. KLEEB. So we actually have a list of donors. You can see if 

you go on rally.org/build. Thanks for the plug. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How about you provide them to this committee? 

How about you do that? 

Ms. KLEEB. I would be more than—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Happy to—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you have any other jobs besides your activities 

at Bold? 

Ms. KLEEB. Will you ask Ron Kaminski that same question? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. No. 

Ms. KLEEB. OK. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am asking the questions. 

Ms. KLEEB. He started a front group, so—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am asking the questions—— 

Ms. KLEEB. OK. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Ms. Kleeb. 

Ms. KLEEB. OK. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK? Let me explain how this process works. You 

are testifying before the American people. That means I ask the 

questions and you answer. 

Ms. KLEEB. And I am a citizen—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK? 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Paying your salary. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Hey, that is not what this meeting is about. You 

get to vote back in Nebraska. That is who your elected representatives are. I am in power right now to ask questions on behalf of 

the American people, so don’t start filibustering me. 

Ms. KLEEB. I am in power—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you have any other jobs besides your activities 

at Bold? 

Ms. KLEEB. I work for Bold Nebraska. I am the executive director. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. I understand that your husband is the CEO 

of a woman-owned business called Energy Pioneer Solutions, which 

received an $800,000 grant from the Department of Energy in late 

2010. 

Ms. KLEEB. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you the woman referred to in the grant application? 

Ms. KLEEB. No, I am not. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, good. 

125 

Ms. KLEEB. That is hilarious, though. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you have a financial stake in this company? 

Ms. KLEEB. No. Because my husband—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me remind the committee that the jobs, development, economic stimulus, and the tax revenue that will come if 

we build Keystone at no cost to the taxpayers. Meanwhile, we have 

activists that are trying to game the system to benefit their own 

financial interests and then turn around and take taxpayer dollars 

to boot. 

Ms. KLEEB. That is completely inappropriate. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Ms. Kleeb, you have made a number of extreme 

statements about Keystone and climate change over the years. 

Upon review, I have some of those quotes from prominent scientists—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Experts who have engaged in this debate. 

Ms. KLEEB. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. David Keith, a Canadian climate scientist with a 

Ph.D. from MIT, currently serving professor of applied physics at 

Harvard. He says, ‘‘the extreme statements that this is game over 

for the planet are clearly not intellectually true.’’ Do you agree with 

Mr. Keith, yes or no? 

Ms. KLEEB. When—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes or no? 

Ms. KLEEB. No, I don’t because—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, good. 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. When that statement—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Ken Caldeira—— 

Ms. KLEEB. Are you going to let me answer or are you just going 

to continue to yell at me? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Ken Caldeira, a climate researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science and a professor in Stanford’s Environmental Earth Systems Sciences Department with a master’s degree 

and a Ph.D. from NYU says, ‘‘I don’t believe that whether the pipeline is built or not will have any detectable climate affect.’’ Do you 

agree with Mr. Caldeira’s—— 

Ms. KLEEB. Clearly, I don’t—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Yes or no? 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Or I wouldn’t have dedicated the last 4 

years—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. No. Michael Levi—— 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Of my life to try to beat this pipeline—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Senior fellow for Energy and Environment at the Council on Foreign Relations who has also served as 

director of the Federation of American Scientists Strategic Security 

Project and holds an M.A. in physics from Princeton and a Ph.D. 

from the University of London. He says this: ‘‘And despite fears by 

climate change activists that increased oil sands production has 

profoundly negative consequences to global warming, Alberta’s 

massive reserve base contributes relatively little to the problem at 

a global scale.’’ Do you agree with Mr. Levi, yes or no? 

Ms. KLEEB. I agree—— 

126 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you agree with Mr. Levi? 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Providing—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not interested in the picture—— 

Ms. KLEEB. I think—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. That you have got there. 

Ms. KLEEB. Well—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am interested in your answering my questions. 

Ms. KLEEB. These are the generations that we are fighting for 

and you are continuing—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, would you instruct her to answer 

the questions? 

Mr. TERRY. I will instruct both. Give her a little bit of time—— 

Ms. KLEEB. No, I don’t agree with any of your questions—— 

Mr. TERRY. Ms. Jane Kleeb, I am—all right. Continue with your 

questions. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, I will quote from President Obama’s own 

State Department from its draft 2013 assessment which found that 

‘‘Canada will develop its oil sands with or without the project. Approval or denial of the proposed project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands or on 

the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.’’ Do 

you agree with the President’s Administration, specifically the Department of State, yes or no? 

Ms. KLEEB. Representative Johnson, I do not agree with the 

State Department’s analysis, which is widely known because it was 

written by—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good. 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. A TransCanada—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have got three experts with numerous advanced degrees from the world’s most prestigious universities and 

the President’s own Department of State saying that the environmental impact of the Keystone pipeline would be nonexistent. What 

qualifies you other than your activist title to dispute the assertions 

made by so many aforementioned experts? 

Ms. KLEEB. Because the—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you hold a graduate-level degree in any relevant field? 

Ms. KLEEB. Because I—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you hold a graduate degree in any relevant 

field? 

Ms. KLEEB. I have a—— 

Mr. TERRY. Let her answer the question. 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Graduate degree in international training and education. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Did you ever take a chemistry course? 

Ms. KLEEB. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Did you ever take a physics course? 

Ms. KLEEB. Have you ever worked on a farm or ranch? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, absolutely. I am a two-wheel, wagon-rutting 

mule farmer. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you want to hear my mule stories? 

Mr. TERRY. Your time is expired for both. 

127 

And now we have the ranking member, Ms. Schakowsky, who 

has 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, when I attempted to intervene 

at what I believe was an inappropriate harangue, which included 

suggesting that people including, I guess, Ms. Kleeb—he is gone 

now—that somehow she brought it on herself, I would like to say 

that in this committee I would hope that we treat witnesses who 

have come here a bit better than that, and nobody deserves to be 

harangued in the manner that she was. And I take great exception. 

And what I would like to do right now is give Ms. Kleeb an opportunity to respond in any way you would like to the questions to 

which you were not given appropriate time to answer. 

Ms. KLEEB. Thank you, Representative. 

I mean I am quite certain that even Representative Terry would 

know that I am in this fight for very clear reasons. My husband’s 

family homesteaded in the Sandhills. We have a long line of ranchers and farmers in our family. There is one reason why we are 

fighting this pipeline and it is because we don’t believe that American farmers and ranchers should have to take on the risks of a foreign tar sands export pipeline. It is pretty simple. And people can 

kind of lob and he is not even here to look at me in the eye to continue. I guess he didn’t have the courage to stand here and 

wouldn’t allow me to fully answer. So I am willing to debate anyone, anytime on this pipeline. I don’t have to have a chemistry degree to know that this pipeline is all risk and no reward. It is simply that easy. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And let me just say, too, the pipeline itself we 

can argue about jobs or whatever, but the issue of unleashing the 

dirtiest source of energy, the tar sands in Canada, is a dangerous 

and unnecessary way in my view to proceed right now. I don’t 

think that this is—and I have talked to my friends in labor who 

made it very clear there are a lot of jobs fixing pipes right now that 

need to be done. We see one after another of leaks that are erupting. I support that. We need to do infrastructure. Those are real 

jobs. Those are real jobs. 

And, you know, I am not saying these pipeline jobs aren’t but to 

do something that I think not even in the long run but in the short 

run exacerbates what many of my colleagues on the other side of 

the aisle want to simply deny that climate change is real and detrimental and that we are contributing to it. 

I wondered, Mr. Swift, as one of our other witnesses, I wondered 

if you wanted to contribute to this? 

Mr. SWIFT. Well, I would just add with regard to the importance 

of tar sands is an emitter of carbon, increasing emissions from tar 

sands are why Canada is on track to miss its climate obligations, 

its 2020 climate obligations. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, and it also withdrew from the Kyoto 

Treaty, right? 

Mr. SWIFT. That is exactly right. They withdrew in 2011 from 

Kyoto. They committed to reduce their carbon emissions by 17 percent in 2020 and almost entirely because of increasing tar sands 

emissions, they are going to miss that goal by quite a bit. 

And beyond 2020, the plans to triple tar sands production from, 

you know, 2010 to 2030 would have a very large impact on carbon. 

128 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, could you comment on whether or not 

this is going to happen anyway? My understanding if the United 

States does not agree to this, that this is not necessarily going to 

happen anyway. 

Mr. SWIFT. That is exactly right, and that is why the tar sands 

industry is so committed to try to get this pipeline through because 

it is a lifeline to their expansion plans. Even if every other transportation project went through that they proposed, they wouldn’t 

have enough transport potential to supply their expansion plans, 

and most of those other projects have serious issues. Most of them 

are not going to go through. Keystone XL is one of the largest and 

the most immediate projects available to them. A rejection of Keystone XL would send a significant signal to the investment community that tar sands are simply too carbon-intensive. There is no social license for developing them. They are too high-cost to put 

money into. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, I want to thank you for that. You know, 

rather than spending its time trying to defund and stop any kind 

of clean energy project whatsoever in this country, which is a fact 

time after time after time on the other side of the aisle, I have suggested and will suggest again that my friends on the Republican 

side of the aisle ought to get their heads out of the tar sands. 

Thank you. 

Mr. TERRY. I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. 

Long, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the introduction. 

I want to thank you all for being here today, number one, and, 

Ms. Kleeb, you have had a lot of questions asked of you today and 

you would be what I call fairly combative and I will give you a little tip on dealing with me. If you don’t answer my questions, just 

get really, really loud and really, really animated, because the 

louder you get, the more I am going to lower my voice, and pretty 

soon, I won’t be talking at all. So—OK. 

Do you know the average age, Ms. Kleeb, of those pipelines that 

we have enough of to wrap around the world that President Obama 

referred to? 

Ms. KLEEB. Yes, and my mom would call it assertive or independent. 

But we have an aging pipeline infrastructure. PHMSA has talked 

about this actually more recently. They talked about how they actually don’t have enough staff to really be monitoring the pipelines 

in a safe manner and that they wish that more States like Nebraska would actually take on a state review process. 

Mr. LONG. You are going into a lot of detail. I have only got 5 

minutes. I am just asking about do you know the average age of 

them? 

Ms. KLEEB. I think it is somewhere between 40 and 50 if I am 

correct. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Common sense would dictate to me—because that 

is kind of what I have been saying out there when I am talking 

about Keystone XL—but common sense would dictate to me that 

pipelines that are 40, 50, 60, some 70 years old and better would 

129 

probably not be nearly as safe as a new state-of-the-art pipeline 

that we could build today. 

You have, Ms. Kleeb, what did you say your mom said? It is assertive? 

Ms. KLEEB. Yes, independent, assertive—— 

Mr. LONG. All right. 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Yes. 

Mr. LONG. I was going to say that you have attacked people, but 

I am going to change that. I am going to say that you have been 

assertive with people, as your mother would say, who support Keystone XL as extreme, reckless, desperate—those three things come 

to mind. And I am not here to judge your opinion, but given those 

remarks which are out there in the public domain, I want to put 

them in a little bit of context. 

So let’s look at a record of the Democratic-controlled United 

States Senate. We have people such as—this is the one time that 

Keystone XL was voted on—was allowed a vote. It passed 62 to 37; 

17 Democrats voted in favor. One, which I am assuming either 

Senator Chris Coons was extreme, reckless, or desperate, and I will 

let you pick which one of those he was, but he is a Democrat from 

Delaware and someone with a lifetime voting record of 96 percent 

with the League of Conservation Voters, which I am sure you are 

well aware of is a pretty liberal environmental group. He voted for 

it. 

Senator Carper, Democrat from Delaware, with a lifetime League 

of Conservation Voters rating of 80 percent, voted for Keystone XL. 

Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat from Colorado, with a League 

of Conservation Voters lifetime rating of 90 percent, voted for Keystone XL. Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, with 

a lifetime League of Conservation Voters record of 93 percent, 

voted for Keystone XL. Senator Kay Hagan, lifetime League of Conservation Voters, 84 percent, voted yes; and Senator Jon Tester, 

Democrat from Montana, with an 84 percent record with the 

League of Conservation Voters. 

So, again, being one of the most liberal environmental groups, if 

they think the Senators are just great most of the time on most 

issues, are you really calling them reckless, extreme, and desperate? 

Ms. KLEEB. I think that the vote was wrong, and honestly, the 

only folks that I care about and take direction from are the farmers 

and ranchers in our State on this particular project and—— 

Mr. LONG. So I will take that as a yes, you are calling those 

Democrat Senators—— 

Ms. KLEEB. Well, I never said that, Mr. Long, but if you want 

to put words in my mouth, feel free. 

Mr. LONG. I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I am just 

saying that—— 

Ms. KLEEB. I said their vote was wrong. And I am sure I have 

written many letters to their offices saying as much and so have 

farmers and ranchers and other citizens have. 

Mr. LONG. And when you are confrontational with people that 

support Keystone XL as extreme, reckless, and desperate, I just 

want to put it in some context. 

130 

It was brought up and you laughed it off, but just for the record, 

in your husband’s woman-owned business, who is that woman? 

Ms. KLEEB. He has many female investors, and so if you want 

to ask my husband about his business, which I am not sure that 

you asked any other panelist about their spouses’ business—— 

Mr. LONG. Well, you can be sure of that—— 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Which I find completely sexist—— 

Mr. LONG [continuing]. Because I haven’t asked any other—— 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. Mr. Long. 

Mr. LONG [continuing]. Panelists anything. 

Ms. KLEEB. So if you would like to bring my husband in to talk 

about his business, which is very successful, which employs more 

individuals than—— 

Mr. LONG. Can you provide us—— 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline—— 

Mr. LONG [continuing]. With a name of the—— 

Ms. KLEEB. No, Mr. Long. I won’t—— 

Mr. LONG. You can’t provide the committee with that name? 

Ms. KLEEB. No, I won’t do that, but if you want to ask my husband to come and visit about his business, I am sure he would be 

happy to. 

Mr. LONG. I will leave that up to the chairman. That is not at 

my discretion. 

Ms. KLEEB. OK. 

Mr. LONG. But I would think that you would know who owned 

your husband’s business so—— 

Ms. KLEEB. I do. I never said—— 

Mr. LONG. With that, I yield back. 

Ms. KLEEB [continuing]. That I didn’t. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. The gentleman yields back. 

And having no further Members to ask questions, that concludes 

our hearing. 

To the panelists that are here, thank you for being here. We appreciate your testimony. The Members have the right to send it 

written questions within 10 days to you. If you receive written 

questions, we would appreciate a prompt reply. Prompt would be 

a couple weeks, just not several months. 

So with that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

131 


87910.080
132 


87910.081
133 


87910.082
134 


87910.083
135 


87910.084
136 


87910.085
137 


87910.086
138 


87910.087
139 


87910.088
140 


87910.089
141 


87910.091
142 


87910.092
143 


87910.097
144 


87910.094
145 


87910.095
146 

Æ 


87910.096