trust the private sector to make those sorts of decisions and transcanada is prepared to make it we had a similar argument in north carolina will we pass legislation for hydraulic fracturing. we'll be droll anytime soon? because the positives are far less than others. risk prove -- profile it is high now but but this country will do everything it can and from the environmentally sound way it's been expose to would oppose it to now make sense. >> you said you were all of the above provided is now you have but then to put more energy to have the solar farms would of the largest in the country now giving of tobacco in this state land we're getting it appear in washington and also talking about the pursuit of offshore oil drilling has sent a i worked on the amendment that i hope will go forward from the international continental shelf but north carolina has a tremendous opportunity in terms of drilling. but by a lot of would-be 30 miles off the coast will beyond the site horizon. but the governor specifically requested from their coalition to move forward because they didn't feel they w

project from north america and that is important and it would be important enough that transcanada announced that three years ago. so this is not just something that they decided oh, in order to facilitate this, we are going to save 75%. no, they made this the while ago. so we have passed this act and bad act specifically is applied to projects that are federally funded. but keep in mind when we are talking about the keystone xl that this is a private project they get no subsidy is they receive no taxpayer dollars it will be built to the government specifications and we have seen that when we look to that final were the additional mitigation measures that are required once the permit is approved it will be built to the specifications. but i do not think that the government should decide what it is actually the web. we are going to decide the parameters in terms of mitigation but again, this is a private project that receives no federal funds and so it would be somewhat precedent-setting. so i asked them to see, can you identify for me any other projects where the congress has got t

head of the pipeline for transcanada in a hearing with the house of representatives would you accept an amendment to keep all of the oil here in the united states of america? and he said no. by the way i asked the same question of the head of the american petroleum institute. he said no. so there's a lot of false advertising going on here. on the one hand they say this is great for american energy independence and on the other hand they say let's keep the keystone in the united states and we will have an amendment on the floor of the senate that will accomplish that goal they say oh no absolutely opposed to that. that is why logically you have to reach the conclusion that the goal was to get the extra $1700 -- $17 per barrel if they can get it by selling to china or selling it to latin america or other parts of the world. that's the plan. no two ways about it and by the way that should be their plan. that should be their plan. that is what their responsibility is. it's through the shareholders of their companies. but what is the strategy for the american driver? we have a responsibil

, and reexported, and we no what transcanada's plan is because i asked him at a congressional hearing, asked a senior transcanada official whether he would commit his company to keeping the oil and refined products from keystone in the united states of america and he said no. why the oil companies want to export this canadian persons will? because they can get a higher price and make more profit. tar sands crude and candidate trees with $13 less than the us group benchmark. could benchmark. the international prices of $3 higher than our purses. if we do all of this build this pipeline we send this world of foreign countries and have turned uncle sam into uncle sucker because make no mistake about this bill it we will not do anything to help at the pump pump up profits for oil companies. we should not export oil, even as we are forced to send young men and women to defend oil interest in the most dangerous parts of the world. let us have that debate. as we import oil from the middle east coming into the middle east on tankers this proposal that we are debating next week will ac

about the proposal by transcanada corporation and the fact that, obviously, there are some here that want to give an expedited approval to that and usurp the president, who needs to review this project in detail and to make sure that we understand the interests of various people, property rights owners, people affected by the pipeline, and as one particular issue in this debate about why congress should be hurrying to give a special interest permit going ahead while the president still has issues to address and so do the local communities i know many of my cheetion are going my completion colleagues are going to come here to talk about the issues of energy efficiency and property rights and climate change and a whole host of things. but i'm here today talk about something that i think is particularly important that we close a loophole on and that is the fact that the tar sands has loophole it doesn't pay into the liability trust fund. both of my colleagues, senator markey and wyden are going to be putting forward an amendment to close this loop loophole. the principle behind that is

before the law. in their view, the process was set up to benefit the transcanada corporation. on three separate occasions the nebraska legislature passed carveouts to circumvent the role of the public service commission to approve the keystone pipeline. if this was such a great deal, why can't it go through the normal process like in every other state of a transportation and utilities commission on siting? why do you have to take the public interest out of it? the first carve included a major oil pipeline siting act of 2011. so this bill laid out the rules that the public service commission determined whether a new pupilline project was in the public's interest. so in making this decision, the legislature required that the commission consider a criteria. -- eight criteria. among them the environmental impact of water and vegetation the economic and social impacts, the alternative routes the impacts to future development and the pipeline's proposal, and the views of counties and cities. okay, that all sounds great, right? that's what the legislature said that they should be considering.