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

. >> thanks, ali. >> the ceo of transcanada. >> monmouth university poll asked america how much weight do members of congress give their campaign donors when voting on legislation? 42% said a great deal of weight. some said30% said some weight. 15% said number much, and 8% said not at all. stay with us with the state of the union address with john seigenthaler. that's it from me, john? >> tough challenges for president obama. republicans now in control of congress, and the gop trying to set the agenda as he tries to secure his legacy. tonight, the 26th state of the union address. from the state of the globe to the recovering u.s. economy and the ongoing debate over race and the police. the issues touching every american life. our special report, state of the union 2015.

out of your mind. the president is expected to renew his veto threat. transcanada russ girling is wondering if why he's pushing this off the table. if he goes through with this, despite the february 2nd deadline where all those eight agencies have some stake in this issue their respective reports and still says it's not worth it. what will you do? >> i think it's -- as i said many times before, is as long as our customers continue to want a pipeline to move production from canada and to the gulf coast. we'll find a way to make it happen. neil: do those customers still want it or look at the cheap prices and say we're okay with the way things are. >> it's the exact opposite. production is up in canada. up 2 million barrels a day in the u.s. have to get that 3 million barrels to market. they want to get it off rail and to an environmentally friendly pipeline. >> i've wondered whether canada takes this and runs it. and to hell with the united states. we'll just do our own. >> as long as our customers still want to move this product to market, that probably won't happen. it's a series

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

, 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

calgary, canada, and he is about to talk to the ceo of transcanada. the dow down by 233 points. you say 233 points. however, we were well over 300 to the down side earlier on today. as i say, we're pairing the losses. we'll see how much we can do that towards the end of trading. stick around. n line and you'll see just how much it has to offer, especially if you're thinking of moving an old 401(k) to a fidelity ira. it gives you a wide range of investment options... and the free help you need to make sure your investments fit your goals -- and what you're really investing for. tap into the full power of your fidelity green line. call today and we'll make it easy to move that old 401(k) to a fidelity rollover ira. >>> welcome back to street signs. we've been down most of the day, but not for the last couple of minutes. big rapid spike in the price of oil. in fact, crude oil up about 3% in just a matter of five to ten minutes heading into the close at about $47.40. kind of an odd spike in oil. the cnbc team is going to dig into that and try to figure out more about why we're seeing this b

down yesterday with the ceo of transcanada, they're the parent company of the keystone pipeline. and one of the big criticisms that hey, none of the oil used by america is going to come from here and go to the gulf coast to be exported. and i asked ross gerling, if that is a fair criticism. oh well there was supposed to be a sound bite there. basically what he says guys is this, that is not a fair criticism because basically the oil that's going to be pumped down to the gulf coast is going to be bought by exxon, valero conocophillips and others. they're going to refine that oil. and yeah they may export some of refined gasoline. but basically, americans will guy that oil and profit from it as well. i also asked had him if he was surprised by the outrage over the keystone pipeline. he said actually yeah. that was one of the main things. he said it's kind of weird that you could either buy oil from venezuela or buy oil from canada. if you had your choice guys which one would you choose. so we did a long interview with the head of transcanada. all day on cnbc. we're going to be tal

veto. transcanada has been waiting for six years for clearance to build the pipeline. transcanada ceo is with us this morning from calgary. you must be feeling better about your prospects. you had it favorable ruling in a nebraska court. you have had the house passed the keystone bill yet again, and now it seems as though the senate -- controlled by the republican party, is going to pass a bill of its own. are the chances of keystone going forward today better than 50%? >> for sure. keystone, in my view, is going to happen. it's just a matter of when. you need to build a pipeline from growing production sources in canada and united states to those markets in the gulf coast. we have a clear environmental report that says it has no impact on the environment. it's time to get on with the decision. >> why do we need keystone? it seems like there is a glut of oil. >> that exactly is the issue. production in canada has grown about one million barrels a day since we made our application. production in the u.s. has grown by 2 million barrels a day. all of that oil is moving by rail to mar

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.

and regulations required, it has 59 additional requirements that the company transcanada agreed to impose on the pipeline. when you talk about a deal __ i think this comes more in the realm of what is good for the united states. we are seeing and american energy renaissance that we've never seen. it is an opportunity for us to become energy secure. we are the world's number one natural gas producer. we are close to becoming the world's number one oil producer, passing saudia arabia. we will hopefully continue to benefit consumers __ as we see today with the drop in a gasoline prices. host: you say this will bring us one step closer to energy independence __ guest: energy security. host: explain a bit more. guest: if you look at energy history of our country __ let's go back three or four decades. our resources in the united states are limited. we need to act accordingly with public policy. what we've seen recently, in the past five or six years, is increased innovation. we're rich in abundance with oil and natural gas here in our own country. we have the opportunity to rely a lot l

requirements that the company transcanada agreed to impose on the pipeline. when you talk about a deal __ i think this comes more in the realm of what is good for the united states. we are seeing and american energy renaissance that we've never seen. it is an opportunity for us to become energy secure. we are the world's number one natural gas producer. we are close to becoming the world's number one oil producer, passing saudia arabia. we will hopefully continue to benefit consumers __ as we see today with the drop in a gasoline prices. host: you say this will bring us one step closer to energy independence __ guest: energy security. host: explain a bit more. guest: if you look at energy history of our country __ let's go back three or four decades. our resources in the united states are limited. we need to act accordingly with public policy. what we've seen recently, in the past five or six years, is increased innovation. we're rich in abundance with oil and natural gas here in our own country. we have the opportunity to rely a lot less on outside sources just last week, the trade nu

. i would like to put in the record a letter from transcanada. we have blacked out the name of the recipient of the letter. but it is a true copy of a letter to a person who will have their private property taken by eminent domain by a foreign corporation. and the foreign corporation informs them that they will begin this month, i guess, because of the anticipated public inaction, to take their private property away. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. defazio: thank you. now, that's a bit ironic, again on the day we read the constitution, and also of the party of individual rights for property owners. so that is also of concern. yes, there will be construction jobs. and i'm the first to admit we need more jobs in america. in fact, i voted against the president's so-called stimulus bill because it didn't invest enough in building frturethisoury insteadt d a wleunch of stupid tax cuts because of lay summers, you know, a highly acclaimed hack economist. and we didn't put a lot of people back to work. 7% went to infrastructure. that created jobs. 42% went to tax cuts. didn

whether it's to transcanada or to others. it does not authorize a single taxpayer dollar for any purpose. it doesn't create any new tax credits, it doesn't reduce current tax rate. the bill is simply about approving the keystone xl pipeline. it's that simple. it's that simple. and those that would doubt i encourage you to read it. it's pretty brief. another thing that we heard yesterday in committee was, why the urgency? why the push right now? we are just in the first week of the 114th congress. why are we pushing so quickly to advance this? well for new members, such as the occupant of the chair the presiding officer here today, this is the first opportunity that you will have had to weigh in on the senate floor on this very important legislation, but for many of us who were here in the 113th congress, we recall that it was just about six or seven weeks ago that this same measure, in fact, the same language of this bill, is what we had on this floor just before we departed at the end of the 113th congress. we fell short -- fell one vote short of closure. we had 59 supporters in the sen

united states so that transcanada can sell its dirty tar sands oil to the highest bidder, namely china, is not in the american people's best interests. we take risk to our lands, the american people face threats to their health, and transcanada gets to reap the rewards. that's not a winning formula for our country or the economy. in fact, it's a sham. yet the keystone x.l. pipeline continues to be sold to the american people. on blatantly false pretenses. we are told by proponents this is a panacea for job creation. yet not a single independent analysis supports these claims. the burden of proof is on the g.o.p. they pull fantastic claims out of thin air and yet refuse to back them up. instead we are told to take those assertions at face value. here's what we actually know. these are the facts that actually can be substaniated. the state department found in a supplemental environmental impact study of keystone pipeline it will generate less than 2,000 jobs a year for two years. and only during the period of construction. once the pipeline is built, these jobs will have disappeared leav

to put in the record a letter from transcanada. we have blacked out the name of the recipient of the letter. but it is a true copy of a letter to a person who will have their private property taken by eminent domain by a foreign corporation. and the foreign corporation informs them that they will begin this month, i guess, because of the anticipated public inaction, to take their private property away. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. defazio: thank you. now, that's a bit ironic, again on the day we read the constitution, and also of the party of individual rights for property owners. so that is also of concern. yes, there will be construction jobs. and i'm the first to admit we need more jobs in america. in fact, i voted against the president's so-called stimulus bill because it didn't invest enough in building frturethisoury insteadt d a wleunch of stupid tax cuts because of lay summers, you know, a highly acclaimed hack economist. and we didn't put a lot of people back to work. 7% went to infrastructure. that created jobs. 42% went to tax cuts. didn't create job

put in the record a letter from transcanada. we have blacked out the name of the recipient of the letter. but it is a true copy of a letter to a person who will have their private property taken by eminent domain by a foreign corporation. and the foreign corporation informs them that they will begin this month, i guess, because of the anticipated public inaction, to take their private property away. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. defazio: thank you. now, that's a bit ironic, again on the day we read the constitution, and also of the party of individual rights for property owners. so that is also of concern. yes, there will be construction jobs. and i'm the first to admit we need more jobs in america. in fact, i voted against the president's so-called stimulus bill because it didn't invest enough in building frturethisoury insteadt d a wleunch of stupid tax cuts because of lay summers, you know, a highly acclaimed hack economist. and we didn't put a lot of people back to work. 7% went to infrastructure. that created jobs. 42% went to tax cuts. didn't create jobs. b

going to fight for that, too. i agree with that 100%. but i'm not sure the transcanada idea of building a route through the united states is the right thing. what about the spills? is transcanada going to pay for the spills? these are all very serious questions, and i'm going to keep asking. host: employment numbers are up for december. the unemployment rate dropped to 5.6%. the economy added 252,000 jobs in december. what does the president have to do to keep that number growing or shrinking in the case of unemployment? guest: i want to apply the numbers. it is good news. i think we need to make sure we seek increases in wages. people are working more, but what are they making? in many cases, they are not making more. we did see some slight upticks in wages late last year, but this remains a concern of mine. i think this labor market has tightened. we will see wages go up. this is not going to be inflationary, because american workers are more productive than ever. if we have higher productivity we can increase wages and not have inflation. i think we need to do infrastructure

should prematurely intervene in the pipeline setting process for a special business interest, transcanada corporation. the keystone xl proposal has changed substantively over the years and has an updated route through nebraska. this has been much debated as a topic here in this committee and a much debated topic in local governments, state commissions and now state ports. i think it has been much debated for good reason. if a u.s. company tried to find a pipeline, it would have to go through local laws and environmental regulations. so a foreign business should do the same. all of the discussion started to happen when transcanada's first proposal went through a lot of local interest in the state of nebraska and it objected. the pipeline travels through 875 miles of america's agricultural heartland's, including sensitive areas like the sand hill region of nebraska. this is some of the richest agricultural lands in the country and has a fresh drinking water and supplies eight states and provides the groundwater for irrigation. this is why transcanada corporation had to revise its original r

beneficiary. transcanada keystone pipeline lp may construct, connect, operate and maintain the pipeline. i thought i was running for the united states senate, not the united states building planning board. this is a construction permit being issued to a private company and a foreign one at that. i just find that a very strange procedure for the congress to do. we're supposed to be establishing policy here, not issuing building permits to individual companies, you know why not write a bill to give money to apple computer. and let's talk about what this bill really does. there's a lot of talk about well, the tar sands are going to be extracted anyway. it's going to happen anyway. well, i'm not so sure about that. particularly because the way the world has changed in the last six months in terms of the price of oil. the drastic fall in the price of oil raises questions about the economic viability of the extraction of this particular oil. and this bill is a $17 to $20 subsidy to the extraction of tar sands oil. that's how much cheaper it will make it to get that oil to market as opposed to ot

does not address the fact that this keystone pipeline, transcanada does not have to contribute to the oil spill liability trust fund. so if there's any spill it's paid for by others. it is subsidized by others. and that's just not right. again, there will be another bill to dismantle a.c.a. and we'll sustain the president's veto on that to change the -- it will increase the ranks of the uninsured up to half a million people. that's not right. so we see a blueprint for where we go forward. we want to build infrastructure, significant infrastructure. that's always been bipartisan. in fact, nonpartisan. and that's why we have that as one of our priorities and we want to do so in a way that increases, makes patriots your -- paychecks bigger in our country, to address the growing disparity of income in our country and that's really important. i share with my colleagues a christmas greeting that i received from a friend that really just said that we have to recognizes that in the christmas season, what puts merry into christmas is the consumer economy, that people have the opportunity to bu

and 30% of ground water for irrigation. that's why transcanada corporation had to revise its original route. this knew route through nebraska is now also being challenged because the nebraska legislature gave their governor the authority to cite the pipeline over the. you interest regulatory commission in the state, the nebraska public service corporation. so that is the state agency. that is dedicated to protecting the public interest. not special interests. the public interest, on issues of safety environment and imminent domain. so now the nebraska supreme court is set for decide whether this currently proposed route through nebraska will stand depending on their interpretation of whether the legislature and the governor acted according to their constitution. so. we want to place the blame today about a slow process we should start thinking right away about transcanada's conversation and what their proposal should have been in the first place. if congress had tried to prematurely decided what is at stake in the pipeline which is what congress would have done before, then w

. transcanada keystone pipeline lp may construct, connect, operate and maintain the pipeline. i thought i was running for the united states senate, not the united states building planning board. this is a construction permit being issued to a private company and a foreign one at that. i just find that a very strange procedure for the congress to do. we're supposed to be establishing policy here not issuing building permits to individual companies you know why not write a bill to give money to apple computer. and let's talk about what this bill really does. there's a lot of talk about well, the tar sands are going to be extracted anyway. it's going to happen anyway. well, i'm not so sure about that. particularly because the way the world has changed in the last six months in terms of the price of oil. the drastic fall in the price of oil raises questions about the economic viability of the extraction of this particular oil. and this bill is a $17 to $20 subsidy to the extraction of tar sands oil. that's how much cheaper it will make it to get that oil to market as opposed to other means,

to its own documents transcanada expects the pipeline to increase gas prices in the northwest up to 15 cents per gallon. currently a surplus of gas in the region means that our prices stay stable. if the pipeline is built, oil companies will be able to send their product to the gulf coast for export which will reduce the surplus and drive up costs for midwestern consumers. that's the truth. on top of all this let's not forget, transcan if a da is the same company that operates the tsh-transcanada is the same company that operates the existing keystone pipe lin which spilled a dozen times in the first year of operation. the 12th spill released 21,000 gallons of oil in north dakota, contaminating the oil and water. across the country, about 3.2 million gallons of oil spilled from pipelines every year. these spills pose a great threat to american drinking water especially when you consider the proposed project route would cross 1,073 surface water bodies and effect 383 acres of wetland. most americans understand that oil spills in the past have had severe environmental impacts, but any

going through. i suggested a much more politically palateable route to transcanada but they chose a shorter one. that said i think the supreme court will determine whether that route is appropriate or not but they'll find a route either through nebraska or around nebraska i suppose at some point. but the presidential permit is not based on any individual state's routing. the presidential permit is simply determines that you can cross the international border. and there's no argument over where would cross the international border. >> well, i understand that you're north dakota. >> yes, ma'am. >> that because of the fracking and drilling there that you can actually see your state from space. that's a new wrinkle i suppose that you weren't planning on? >> well i will tell you that you raise a very important point and another very strong reason why we need even more pipeline construction. what you are seeing from space is the flaring of natural gas which is a secondary product from the oil. the hold-up especially on public and tribal games in permitting lines for that is the very unfor

official numbers. transcanada was not forthcoming. most people have figured out that pipelines run themselves. on the other side, all this extra oil is moving around the country on rails now. we've seen at least one town in quÉbec go up in flames, and tens of people killed in that. so the environmental argument, oil, is hard to transport. are rails more dangerous dangerous than pipelines, etc. >> that's where environmentalists have to be careful. if they stop at the pipeline as you mentioned, the obama administration has not been able to do a good job convincing congress to tighten the regulations on shipping and transportation. if canada wants to send it somewhere, they have an alternative, and that's where environmentals will have a tough time. >> thank you for a good job. most of us are celebrating lower oil prices. cheap for fill up the car, cheaper to heat up the home. but there is a down side, and we'll bring that you story next. >> lower oil prices >> sinking oil prices are amounting to a surprise tax break for drivers. the steep drop in gas prices saved american consumers

investors that are in transcanada. and it's kind of ironic that they're never talked about. the who they are. they're not all canadians. some of them are american. and i'm not grudgeful of folk who had great genetic accidents and abilities as a result thereof but the fact of the matter is, that some people that are involved in transcanada, they are givers to canadian parliamentarians under their particular structure and givers to some of us as well. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> just by way of information and i probably should double check but i'm almost certain transcanada is actually an american company, actually based in the united states. >> uh-huh. and investor, i'm -- >> as my friend know, there's considerable cross-border investment between canada and the united states. >> sure. and i stay away from pointing out, i've read the articles as to who ovenes, you know, and i'm not uptight about that. i do have abiding concerns, for example, the national security argument, i could slip it, if we were in other areas, for example, putin just shut down one he was getting ready to

administration, the executives of transcanada, which is i believe a canadian company, not an american company. >> i recently read a report and i vvent seen this disputed that shows that the majority of the tar sands, about 90% of it require a price of $95 a barrel and the other 10% require a price of about $75 per barrel. given that the price of oil is lower than that, is there any evidence that this would even move forward as a construction project even if the president or congress were to i approve it? >> first of all, that's not germane to this bill. obviously because it's not our decision to make whether they build it or don't build it. our decision is whether it's in the nation's interest should they build it, or if it's not in the nation's interest, they shouldn't build it. the reality is, investors will make that decision. but there's nothing that precludes this going forward based on the financing of the -- the dwhofmente crude oil. -- the development of the crude oil. >> there's plenty of theoretical projects out there but i hope we wouldn't waste congress' time with a project that i

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

directly to america's energy security. it's been over 2,500 since transcanada filed its permit application. congress passed a bill that unanimously that the president signed that said he has 60 days to approve the keystone pipeline unless he can state and demonstrate that it's not in the nation's best interest. i believe it's in the nation's best interest. there are real jobs. the time is now. it's now more than ever to get the keystone pipeline bill done. we are going to pass it and i hope the president will sign it into law. >> yesterday, as i raised my right hand to get sworn in in my second term, i thanked the citizens of south and central illinois to serve in this great institution. and yesterday, we had the opportunity, because of this republican leadership team, putting bipartisan bills first in this new congress, to show the american people that we were here to govern. we don't always have the best ideas, but the ideas don't come from us, they come from our constituents and hire more heroes act that passed unanimously yesterday that will hire more businesses and heroes,

knowing my canadian friends that there are private investors that are in transcanada. and it's kind of ironic that they're never talked about. the who they are, they're not all canadian. some of them are american. and i'm not grudgeful of folk who had great genetic accidents and abilities as a result thereof. but the fact of the matter is that some people that are involved in transcanada, they are givers to canadian parliamentarians under their structure and givers to some of us, as well. >> does the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> just by way of information, and i probably should double check, but i'm almost certain transcanada is an american company. it's based in the united states. >> mm-hmm. and investors, and -- >> well, as my friend knows, there's considerable cross-border investment between canada and the united states. >> sure. and i stay away from pointing out. i've read the articles as to who owns, you know. and i'm not uptight about that. i do have abiding concerns, for example, the national security argument, i could flip it. if we were in other areas for example, putin just sh

montana in support of this process, 2301 days ago, with transcanada, was at least 100,000 barrels per day of capacity would be reserved for back and crude. we now move 71% of back and crude by rail. all seen the challenges with rail. safe city a major one but 71% clogs a transportation system that is equipped and frankly required to move food to hungry people commodities to markets, around the world. so that 100,000 barrels per day of capacity freed up off of our railroads is ten trains a week of moving food rather than oil. i'm for trains, all the above transportation is important, but 71% is an inappropriate i think, imbalance. and so for those reasons, 2301 days is long enough for both -- for the president and congress, we know plenty about this issue and i appreciate the opportunity and encourage a good rule that moves the pill forward expeditious labor day gets it passed hopefully at this week. >> mr. cramer, thank you very much. look, we are all products of our environment, where we're from or our background. i remember when i was in high school and we had the 1973 oil empark go. we

to build this pipeline and for the canadians, for transcanada to sell soil overseas and build a pipeline here that they could build in canada, because the canadians have said they don't want it going across their country. >> what's wrong with exporting stuff in we sell all kinds of stuff. >> we're not exporting it. the canadians are exporting it. we're just the risk acceptor for the pipeline of the dirty oil. by the way we've had 5,000 blowouts of pipeline of this sort over the last 20 years -- >> i want to get to the politics. brief it would it be more worth it if we were getting the oil? >> no because it's not going to have an impact on oil prices or access to oil. it's a global commodity. this wouldn't have an impact for us. >> what do you make of the white house putting down the veto they today? >> the president has been saying that we have to look at the national interests. this is clearly not in the national interests. it's a huge risk to us. there's over 100,000 ranchers and farmers who live and worked in that area where the pipeline would go through, 1,000 rivers lakes a

transcanada should have no say in approving their own project on american soil of course they cash-whipped a lot of people along the way. senator chuck schumer says democrats may over amendments on the keystone xl pipeline. >> our republican colleagues say this is a jobs bill but really not true at all. so democrats are dubious, but we're going to introduce amendments to make it more of a jobs bill we'll introduce an amendment to say that the steel should be made in america, creating american jobs. we're going to introduce an amendment that says that the oil that's used in the pipeline should be used in america. imagine, building a pipeline that ships canadian oil across america to be exported to other countries from texas? that makes no sense at all in terms of american working people's interests. so we're going to say that the oil should stay here. finally we're going to introduce an amendment for add clean energy jobs. if you do things for wind an solar energy you create tens of thousands more jobs using clean energy. >> kind of good but not good enough. no democrat as i see it should fal