MSNBC "The Ed Show" - Transcript: Keystone XL Pipeline

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Senator Ed Markey`s a Democrat from Massachusetts. He voted against the Keystone legislation. And Senator John Hoeven`s a Republican from North Carolina. (sic) He`s the co-sponsor of the legislation -- North Dakota.

Let me ask you, Senator Hoeven, since I got the state wrong, let`s start with you. You`re a co-sponsor of this bill. Why is it so important to the country that we have this pipeline completed?

SEN. JOHN HOEVEN (R), NORTH DAKOTA: It`s about energy. It`s about jobs. It`s about economic growth and it`s about building an energy plan for this country, which is a national security issue. The American people overwhelmingly support this project. Every time it`s polled, somewhere between 60 percent and 70 percent of the American public says, Build the Keystone XL pipeline.

MATTHEWS: How many permanent jobs?

HOEVEN: The State Department, in the environmental impact statement, says about 42,000 jobs, and...

MATTHEWS: No, permanent jobs. Permanent jobs. Not building the pipeline, but after it`s built.

HOEVEN: Yes, it`s 42,000 to construction, direct and indirect. Unions across the country are supporting this project because they want those jobs.

MATTHEWS: I hear it`s just 35 jobs after the pipeline is completed. Is that accurate? Permanent jobs.

HOEVEN: If you`re talking about just jobs monitoring the pipeline, that may be. But there are other jobs on direct and indirect basis. And the other thing about it is you`re talking about the energy industry, which is foundational to our other industry sectors. Low-cost, dependable energy that we produce here makes all of our other industry sectors stronger and our economy stronger in a global economy.

MATTHEWS: Where`s the oil going to go that goes down through the pipeline through the United States? Where will it go to as its ultimate market after it comes from Canada?

HOEVEN: According to Department of Energy report, it will go -- it will be used here in our country. And that`s not me saying it, that`s the Obama administration`s Department of Energy.

MATTHEWS: OK, let me go to Senator Markey. Senator Markey, just for those who haven`t been following this very hot debate within the Senate, why is it important not to build the pipeline?

SEN. ED MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Well, first of all, it`s the dirtiest oil in the world in the tar sands of Canada. And then Canada wants to build a pipeline through the United States of America down into the Gulf Coast. where their intention is to export that oil right out of our country.

How do I know that? Because I asked the Canadian government and I asked the oil industry if they would accept the Markey amendment to keep all the oil in the United States, and they said they would absolutely oppose it. I brought that to vote twice on the floor of the Congress. And both times, I was opposed by the oil industry, and I lost.

So if we`re going to be exporting young men and women over to the Middle East in order to escort tankers of oil coming back from Arab nations, the least that we should do if we`re going to have a pipeline that comes through our country, a pipeline that`s going to have the dirtiest oil in the world, is that that oil should stay in the United States of America.

And at the same time, we should also have the tax breaks for wind and for solar and for biomass and geothermal...

MATTHEWS: OK...

MARKEY: ... for energy efficiency, and the Republicans are killing the kind of incentives for alternative energy, while supporting a pipeline out of our country for the dirtiest oil in the world.

MATTHEWS: Here`s Speaker Boehner today talking about this. He really ripped into your side, Senator Markey, and the president for his threat to veto the legislation if it is passed tonight. It wasn`t passed, but he`s still going to veto it if it does pass next year. Here he is, John Boehner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: A Keystone pipeline veto would send the signal that this president has no interest in listening to the American people. Vetoing an overwhelmingly popular bill would be an indication that he doesn`t care about the American people`s priorities. It would be equivalent of calling the American people stupid.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, do you make that -- do you think that`s true, Senator Hoeven, that the president`s calling the American people stupid for believing in the pipeline? I don`t even get this. I mean, it seems me 60 percent want the pipeline. A much higher percentage want gun control, and yet Congress doesn`t support gun control.

What`s this idea that if you don`t agree with somebody, they`re stupid?

HOEVEN: Look, the American public, 60 to 70 percent in poll after poll, says that they want the project approved. And they want it approved because it`s a no-brainer! It really is about getting energy that we produce here in our country and working with our closest friend and ally Canada.

Remember, the oil in this pipeline is not only from Canada, it`s from states like North Dakota, which now produces 1.2 million barrels a day, and we`re having to move it in rail cars. This -- this pipeline will replace 1,400 rail cards a day that are now clogging up our railroads so that we can`t move ag products, and it displaces oil that we`re now bringing in from places like Venezuela, which has the same carbon footprint or higher than this oil. Even the heavy crudes in California have the same greenhouse gas emissions. And it makes sure that we don`t have to depend on the Middle East for our oil. That`s why the American public supports it, and that`s why we should pass it!

MATTHEWS: You know, it`s more complicated, and I Jut think -- both senators, there -- you know, the speaker says the president is calling the people stupid and you just called the opponents of the pipeline no- brainers. I mean, is...

HOEVEN: No, no, no, no, no! I said approving it is a no-brainer.

(CROSSTALK)

HOEVEN: I`m not saying anybody`s a no-brainer. I`m not calling anybody stupid.

MATTHEWS: OK.

HOEVEN: I`m being very careful to make sure I don`t.

MATTHEWS: It just seems so simple. To you guys, it`s so simple. My question is...

(CROSSTALK)

MARKEY: Here`s where we are, Chris...

MATTHEWS: Let`s go to the question. Will the president -- it seems like the president`s veto will hold next year because I look to the numbers, there`s only four switchers right now of Senate seats that have gone to the pro-pipeline position. And then it seems to me that that means they won`t get the 67. They`re certainly not going to get the 290 members in the House to vote for override. It looks like the president`s now going to call this.

Do you think he should veto next year?

MARKEY: Yes I do, until we discuss this issue rationally. The last 355 months of temperatures on the planet have been warmer than the average, meaning that if you`re 29 years old in the United States of America, you`ve never known a month where global warming was not intensifying.

And so this is a big debate. It`s not just about climate change.

It`s also jobs in the United States, keeping energy in the United States here and not allowing the Canadians to export it. It`s about our national security. We`re still importing today just about the same amount as we did 40 years ago, when we put the ban on crude oil exports on the books.

So we need a big debate here, and it has to include wind and solar, energy efficiency, all the things that the Republicans in this Congress have blocked from going through. If you`re going to have a debate, it can`t be just about oil above all. It`s got to be about all of the above. You have to have every energy issue out there.

MATTHEWS: OK...

MARKEY: The Republicans just want to do the business of the fossil fuel industry. If you`re the Koch brothers, you`re out there in Kansas, you look out at the prairies and you see the destruction of your business model because wind power is coming. So they want to kill it and keep us addicted to coal and other fossil fuels.

We need a big debate. The next generation, the younger generation demands that we have this debate for their children and their grandchildren.

MATTHEWS: It sounds like we`re hearing from "The New York Times" (INAUDIBLE) Senator Markey there the need for some kind of deal here. Is there going to be some kind of larger energy issue? You`re the co-sponsor of this bill, Senator. You`ve got a key role in here. Is there a deal to be made here if the president can`t have his veto override next year and you`re stuck with no pipeline?

HOEVEN: Chris, we`re absolutely going to bring this up next year. We`re going to have more than 60 votes, and we may get to even 67 votes...

MATTHEWS: But you need 290 in the House, as well, don`t you?

HOEVEN: Well, no, but understand, there`s a number of options here. We could very well combine it with other energy legislation or even work with an appropriations measure. So we`re going to get there. Again, we`re picking up more...

MATTHEWS: What are you giving up to get it? What will you give up to get the 290 in the House for an override and 67 in the Senate? You know you`re going to have to negotiate to get more votes. You don`t have the 67 in your own body.

HOEVEN: No, no. There`s people on both sides of the aisle that are talking about working with us on legislation, which we may combine with this bill to get to the 67-vote threshold.

I want to respond to something that Senator Markey just said, and that is if you want an "all of the above" energy plan, really, you`ve got to build the infrastructure to do it. That means pipeline, that means rail, that means road. And I would invite him to come to my state, where we not only do oil and gas and coal, but we do wind and we do biofuels and we do biomass and renewables, as well as fossil fuels. But you`ve got to have the infrastructure to get it done...

MARKEY: Chris...

HOEVEN: ... and to move that energy around.

MARKEY: Chris, if you want all of the above, you got to bring the wind in off the prairies. You got to bring it in off of the coastline. You have to be deploying solar panels all across this country.

What the Republicans are doing right now is holding up the extension of the wind tax credit, which has led to the creation of 80,000 jobs in this country in the production of new wind turbines. We right now have 142,000 people in the solar industry in America. There are only 70,000 coal miners, 142,000 in solar, 80,000 in wind. And yet these tax breaks could be dead on December 31st of this year.

So that`s really what this debate is all about. It`s not all of the
above.

MATTHEWS: OK...

MARKEY: It`s about oil above all. So everything that Senator Hoeven just mentioned all goes to infrastructure...

MATTHEWS: OK...

MARKEY: ... for the fossil fuel industry. You never hear them saying, Let`s pass the tax breaks...

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask him -- let`s not -- let`s not...

MARKEY: ... for the renewable energy industry.

MATTHEWS: Let`s let him respond. Senator Hoeven, I know that North Dakota is very lucky in fuel and oil. It`s very lucky in wind, too. You got a lot of wind up there. Why wouldn`t you support this kind of measure that Senator Markey`s for, given you`re from North Dakota?

HOEVEN: I think it`s very likely that that will be included as part of the tax extender package. I believe we need to get a tax extender package done before the end of the year. And so again, what we believe in as Republicans is that you produce all of the above by encouraging investment, not holding up permits for six years so that the industry can`t invest...

MATTHEWS: OK...

HOEVEN: ... billions of dollars to put the latest, greatest technology out there...

MATTHEWS: OK...

HOEVEN: ... not only to produce more energy but do it with better environmental stewardship.

MARKEY: Chris...

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much...

(CROSSTALK)

MARKEY: Building a pipeline to send oil out of the United States...

MATTHEWS: OK...

MARKEY: ... just makes no sense, as it warms the planet dangerously. And that is just the bottom line on this debate.

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source