but not to rush it. we can still do this properly and address all the concerns that have been mentioned by the two witnesses. rally at the white house. you have and daryl hannah i got arrested, a lot of radical i believe that it will be to energy security. laverne list said do not approve the keystone pipeline if we do this, the total and threatened his re-election. production out of canada and three days after this rally, the the united states will exceed president reversed his course and said we will push the decision on keystone until after the election. production. that is energy security. inlso believe it'll result more jobs in america on the construction site. this is a representation that is made by members of this committee that this is at the he is the one who gave the arbitrary date, not because of environmental reasons, because of political reasons. the radical environmentalist did not want this thing approved. canada said, we cannot wait this long. china wants to do something. benefit of the american they want to participate with us. consumer and lower gasoline instead, the president said no, we don't want the job, let china get that oil. then we go to the statement by prices. the prime minister of canada who said they are profoundly that is not going to happen. the sooner they acknowledge that it is a world market and the leading export of the united states according to a story that. in the associated press was fuel. disappointed with this decision. >> we are down to three minutes because we have votes on the as a result, market forces and floor and we are running out of time. >> we have been repeatedly told that we need to get over the concerns about pollution and the environment because the oil selling it to the highest bidder means the american public coming through this pipeline would enable us to reduce over dependence on oil imported from unfairly middle eastern nations. is not going to be paying less the transcanada application states that the pipeline will for fuel. serve the national interest of the nine states by providing a secure and reliable source of canadian crude oil to meet the we need to continue to growing demands of refineries and markets in the united states. however, citing plans by gulf emphasize alternative means in fuels and hybrids and more coast refineries with whom transcanada had entered into long-term sales contracts to re-export diesel and other efficiency and conservation. fuels based on the keystone crude to latin america, europe, and beyond. the only reservation i have is that placing all our eggs in nearly all of these refineries one basket is a distraction where the keystone crew will be sent are located in port arthur, texas, which is designated as a from pursuing more responsible foreign trade zone. energy policies that will lead to energy independence in the this means that these refineries -- they would not even have to pay u.s. taxes on these exports. country in a way that is safe and cheaper to the american people. this is part of it. there has not been made any earlier this month, the canadian prime minister said that when you look at the iranians final determination on the threatened to block the straits of hormuz, i think that just application. illustrate how critical it is that supply for the united states to be not american. but in december when i asked the president of transcanada whether is it clear from your testimony he would agree to ensure that that the reason it has not been the oil and refined products they hear in this country approved is that you have not instead of a three exporting it, he said no, sitting right at been given sufficient time? this table. >> that is the reason. >> you are not new to your job. i asked my staff to look into your background. he had been years since the inception. >> in 1979 i began. in other words, if the permit for the pipeline is legislatively mandated by this >> your testimony today is that bill, the u.s. may just become the middleman for shipping products made from some of the what we are attempting to do is dirty as crude oil on earth to foreign markets around the world. secretary john, does the process the administration is following to determine whether keystone xl was in the national interest, whether the project to circumvents or introduce a would reduce dependence on middle eastern oil? new process would not be >> that is one of the workable in the current form. considerations. >> if the republicans had not force the administration to deny the permit because it was not >> my testimony is based upon given enough time to review it, my experience with the natural the administration could have gas pipelines. issued a permit the required the keystone oil to be sold only in the united states. they are trying to extrapolate to oil pipelines. isn't that right? it does not appear there be enough time for procedures to be followed to a public notice and the time allowed to do on the opprobrious studies. >> i am not sure of the facts. we would have to study that. i don't think we can restrict exports. >> that could be in the national interest. is that correct? to keep the oil here? >> this is not the first sign >> we would have to study it in that congress was not happy. regard to exports. we tried to transfer it to another. to the other department is telling us it still will not hurt. >> could it be in the national interest to keep the oil here? >> it would certainly be a i hope we are listening and consideration. that we can all be on one page. >> we never got a chance to look if we do this correctly, it that. the republican legislation will be beneficial to those. provide explicit authority to let's give them the time that is necessary. >> i recognize the gentleman issue permits -- does it contain that provision? from illinois. >> i did not see that. >> thank you. >> i do not see that there. so many questions, so little >> make no mistake, i think time. this is a pipeline -- >> [unintelligible] last night the president used a great phrase that was really we are going to have to go down claimed by republicans a couple to 2 minutes, because we have four minutes left on the floor and 312 people have still not of years ago. voted and i want everyone to have an opportunity to say we did in all the above energy something. >> i will be quick. strategy. we all know the benefits of the a sitting with my friend on the keystone xl pipeline. other side of the aisle. 20,000 jobs, energy for canada, he said he should have credited national security and energy you for that. security. as a formal naval -- former all of the above means all of naval aviator, we flew through the above. we applaud him for that the straits of hormuz. statement. i have a new perspective on iran. we all know that iran was threatening to close the strait. we had members -- i want to stopping 30% of the world supply of oil from getting to market. continue this debate. i cannot expand upon this enough, but that is a very real threat. this is not a partisan debate by house representatives. when the first keystone bill passed, 37 democrats joined us. the vote was 279-147. this was not a debate against the streets are narrow, about 9 business versus labor. miles wide in some places and they are shallow. if a vessel would sink in the we had a strong group of middle of the straits, it would friends from organized labor into the operating engineers. be blocked for months, if not years. in fact, three of our 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers have been deployed to the region because our commander in chief sees the threat as real. they supported job creation. last night in the speaker's box we have the manufacturer the state department has a of pipe has built 600 miles of history of approving new pipelines in the interest of national security because of political tensions. but it -- most recent example is the problem in the midwest part of the united states. pipe which creation. people are putting the pipe in the ground. he failed to mention the people that build the pipe. let me read you a section from nor do you consider the people the record of decision for the alberta klipper pipeline. who created the alleging the prostate has determined review of the alberta clipper generator for the pumping project an application that the alberta clyburn project would stations. serve the national interest. a time of political tension and other work major oil-producing region of the country by providing additional access to -- electric generators. approximate stable and secure supply of crude oil with minimal transportation requirements from a rival allied it means 20,000 jobs because we trading partner of the united build pipelines. we build pipelines. states which we had free trade you know how many people it takes. agreements that further augment he multiplied by 1700. the security of the energy supply. -- multiplied by 1700. 1660, i think is the mileage. scientist to figure out the statistics. that is what organized labor is -- that is why organized labor why is the situation now republican side. different? yes or no, mrs. jones, is the situation now more dire than it -- who was not usually friendly was when you approve the alberta klipper pipeline? yes or no? >> energy security is still a to the republican side, very major priority for this country and this administration. supportive of this piece of however, we did not reject this legislation. project on the merits. it was an issue that we did not have time. on the record --another issue is those considerations to raise that i had to refinery managers. would be considered if we had the entire it theater had time to conduct a process we feel the american people need to have for this pipeline. >> your time has expired. ray brooks from the refinery in >> with all due respect, you illinois, hundreds of jobs. changed your mind. they are already using oilcans >> to some quick questions and perhaps you could just respond in writing to us rather than take time. -- oil pipeline. could you submit to us in chronological order the process when it began in september of 2008. oil sandswe have done research on moving oil through pipelines. we are already doing it. also in attendance was mr. j. church hill, the company in wood river. why in god's name it would take a three-point five years? private-sector firms would be fired for taking that long to go through process. can you get back to us as to they had a $2 billion mansion. whether the railroads in montana and north dakota and oklahoma, are those captive -- for the past three years, railroads? they had a $2 billion expansion i don't know whether they are to be able to refine and crack or not. do you understand the term? this new crude-oil. thousands of members of >> we will have to get an answer organized labor were on the back to you. ground during the worst economic times. that is why i am proud. you talk about energy security. it creates better high-paying >> i am asking if for the record if you would get back to us on jobs. that, whether or not these are captive railroads. can you also respond to the editorial that was in the investment business daily that on november 16, in which the it is not give the credit it editorial board there is trying to -- suggesting that there could be a link between the deserves. railroad systems and this decision, especially given that it is a political decision. i guess i should ask a question. we all know that. did you know that the wall street journal sold 40% of their oils, do you know to which country that china. do you know why? they will now have a controlling interest of the oil field so they can develop it. anyone who posts on this until what is profoundly after the election is already crying out this is a political decision. disappointment mean in state since they are linking get to two major individuals, global figures, i would like to department interrelation speak? understand your response back to that, or perhaps even the >> it usually means exactly what it says. person that made the ultimate decision to cancel this project, because it was not based on the >> they are very angry. time frame, we understand that. i think the american public is going to come to understand that. if you would get back to us in writing, i would appreciate it. >> is job creation the number the canadians are allies. one national interest? yes or no. >> yes. the chinese are profoundly please. >> of like to recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you. >> does this pipeline create i'm glad to know my colleague jobs? from illinois is now going to a yes or no question -- does represent to refineries. refineries up on me. this pipeline create jobs? -- u. >> i'm going to work for more. you recommend not moving forward with the pipeline? flea acted at odds with the >> i know you traditionally come from a coal area. number one national interest. >> we were reviewing the job situation and the economic issue is part of the process. i welcome you to the national gas and oil caucus. >> i want to go back to this final internal impact statement i am a strong supporter of the keystone pipeline and have been from august 111. among the other alternatives, it from the beginning. considered a no action alternative. yes or no. >> yes. we need this product. >> expressly -- >> there's more to that. >> the part of state does not regard the no action alternative to be preferable to the proposed project. i would hate to think by the reason you concluded that, stopping production,we are preventing the future production. all things considered, transporting the oil in a state the violent and safety concerns -- the environment and safety of the art pipeline is better concerns that need to be dealt with. than shipping it by rail, without this product will truck, and cargo ships, better continue to feed money into than shipping it from the countries that status. middle east. -- that hate us. having said that, i do not think we should be rewriting an yes or no. outstanding process. if we delay this, if the white house delays it, we run the risk of no pipeline at all. i do have some questions about your delays run the risk of no the process. pipeline. i'll use my time to address it. he said jobs are the no. 1 the executive branch offered national interest, and yet you authority. literally since the executive said to the white house, we order in 1968. with executive order from don't want to do this. >> we have to work with the president bush, they amended pipeline where we have the route. >> you just said no to this. these delays risk of the killing that authority to see the of this pipeline, so you end up with no pipeline, which is not review that did not alter the in the preferred interest as the the parlous state has already said. exercise of that authority with the delegation. is that correct a? >> that is correct. >> how many permits have been issued since 1968? >> i know of three at this time. if you do this, you are going to have none of the jobs. you will kill the jobs. you have none of the energy, and china wins. >> i have one question, miss i am not sure that is accurate. jones, are you liking any information that you were constrained for time about how this impacted a particular private company? >> most of our pipelines come from mexico instead of canada. it seem like there would be a number of them that cross international borders between mexico and the united states. are you interested in how this might or might not affect any private company, relevant to what is the average time these permits have taken? your decision at all customer >> no, sir. the issue is running through nebraska. >> the issue of how any private company would be impacted is irrelevant to your decision. other pipelines have been granted permits between 18-24 >> we are looking at the routing as explained. months. >> it suggested they must have a >> the state department issued financial interest in this transaction. an environmental impact statement in august. then they held several public this notion that they have an hearings. interest there has been shredded. there are many intervenors. i appreciate the state the alberta federation of labor, department granted my request the communication energy and for a hearing in eastern harris paper workers of canada. county and east of houston. this is a silly concept and i want to make sure the record it was right across the street reflects it. from my district. we can have our constituents talk about it. you held those hearings. it makes no indication of whether any company has an when you announce in november interest in this pipeline at the year delaying the decision, all. with that i yield back my time. they were showing this about is standing hill. >> i am sitting here curious. --sand hills. the state department keeps talking about studies in nebraska, but isn't your job my question centers on a language that allows for supposed to determine what the transcanada to continue to work on the routes. impact is because it is international on the international relationship with our friends in canada? i understand the president's frustration with having to decide in a 60-day timeframe butgiven the favorable eis, >> because we have the authority they have language allowing for for the permitting -- the issue to be dealt with. >> i understand you have the why are you not able to make a decision in 60 days? authority for the permit, but you got all this done by the the average time is 18 to 24 agency that would normally do months. that. this has been well over three years. it is your job as the state why wasn't enough time? department to focus on the relationships with our foreign friends and not interfere in internal decisions made by other >> we did not have the agencies. >> our job in this situation is to look at the entire pipeline information we needed. for the impact it would have on the country. >> so everything these people did was worthless. >> no sir, that is important analytical information. >> well then, why do you have to redo it all? related to alternative routes. since we did not have that, that is a significant portion of the i really believe this was a pipeline. political decision. it was an arbitrary time line. you are not supposed to comment we knew it would take more time. on that, and i understand that. i believe the president had to delay until after the election. >> previous parliaments had i believe that is what the taken 24 months. evidence shows. -- permits have taken 18-24 months. others. i am not asking for comment. it means more jobs in the u.s., more profits to the u.s., more -- this is a longer pipeline than others. taxes paid to the u.s. and more the one in indiana spacei know u.s. supply available. it is much shorter. all those things are good things, and because you are from the state department, i it seems like 3.5 years is would say that we have damaged our relationship with a good ally and a close neighbor and plenty of time to give someone friend. to me that seems counter to the purpose of the state department 60 days and say you have done and all this would indicate these environmental studies any that everything you all are need to make a decision. they may have a different doing is counter to the interest opinion. there are pipelines crossing it. of the united states of america. i yield back. --sand hills >> that concludes today's >> we did not see any oil hearing. pipeline spirit guides there are i want to thank the two witnesses for being with us six pipelines. today and the record will remain open for 10 days for additional >> there are six pipelines. documents. it to be in that easement that some questions were submitted is already used. to you all and i would appreciate you getting that information back to us. that is the frustration. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] buy him out of time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] -- i am almost out of time. i do not know if you will have am out of time. -- i am out time. i do not know if you have is that it around. >> i recognize the gentleman from oregon. >> thank you very much. we welcome our witnesses. >> on november 12, 1973, led the house of representatives under democrat-controlled six similar action in approving the trans alaska pipeline. the senate to get up and approved it on a 40-49 -- 49-49 >> no. couple of live events on c- tie. span3 today. the direction of national intelligence on information sharing among intelligence the pipeline continued. agencies. he is speaking at the center for that was 800 miles. strategic and international studies the in washington. it was about that time that also on c-span3, the government president nixon said we need to affairs committee hearing on do something about using commodity trading by mutual america's energy reserves. funds. the committee is looking at whether irs regulations encourage funds to use offshore it was approved by congress. shell corporations to get around limits on commodities speculation. coming up next, washington this is not an unheard of act. journal live from the auto show. then at 10:30 a.m. eastern, a as someone who represents the district as 55% of federal senate budget committing hearing lands, if there were circumstances involving on the economic outlook for the forestry were people seem to u.s. and the rest of the world. have been sufficiently and chief this afternoon, defense in a clean up down in texas secretary leon panetta releases after a windstorm. the pentagon's proposed budget for fiscal year 2013. i think even in south dakota after a fire. it is not unheard of. they think it'll reduce spending congress has done it before. by $265 billion over five years i want to get on the issue of jobs. and reduce soldiers by 80,000. it says that there is $7 billion to construct the w proposed project. do you have any disagreement on that number? $7 billion. then we talk about the number of jobs. it talks about hiring of 5600 workers over the three-year construction. the related income benefits would be substantial. these are the words of the fdis. it to generate $349.4 million in total wages. if the maximum work force for 6000 people, $419.2 million in wages would be found. these numbers are only relate it to the actual construction of the pipeline, correct? >> yes. >> a shrine to find other tables to get into the more rigid i was trying to find other tables to get more into it -- i was trying to get some other tables to get more into it. >> i did i get to speak to the indirect jobs. correct i would give you that chance. that's a company an organ is building the pumps for the keystone xl pipeline. where would -- tell me what the fdis says relative to the total number of jobs? >> we were in the process of analyzing the indirect jobs. there are multiple models that people use. we did not complete that. because of the timeline we were candid. >> it is not in a final statement? >> we have the direct job numbers but not the indirect. weaver looking at that through the natural interest determination. -- we were looking at that through the natural interest determination. we have some rough estimates. -->> what would those be? >> i think it is approximately 35,000 per year. >> how many years? >> that is another discussion. one was extraordinarily long. there has been confusion about using person years or particular jobs. >> in the executive summary, it would also result in long-term to permanent impacts resulting from long term hires. revenues would be generated. >> some of that is in there. that is only one piece of the analysis. we did not finish the rest of it. we recognize the economic impact is an important consideration. we did not have the complete route of the pipeline. >> i want to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you. i think the discussion over this keystone pipeline, the back- and-forth, has been unfortunate. it mirrors the discussions we have on policies in general. people talk about having an all the above strategy. each year that said a lot when in -- you hear that a lot so when in reality there seems to be more. been a few are for call for oil kava sydney cannot be for solar and wind. away do need to do all of this a fair plan to have energy this. we need to pay attention to these energies that are going to start to replace fossil fuels to take itside what place tomorrow of fiber tenures turnout. someif we did not start making investments now, we're going to be in trouble down the road. the need to do that also. -- we need to do that also. it is in our interest to develop domestic supply and continue their relationship we have with canada. this pipeline is a small piece of the puzzle. let's not delude ourselves. this is a silver bullet, it will not lower peoples gas prices. of this pipeline cannot have you no no longer buy oil. there is 800,000 tons of steel pipe in this project. i wish i could say that is coming from the united states. transcanada's contract is with and indian and rushing company to manufacture the pipes. -- and a russian company to manufacture the pipes. i would feel better about this project of one drop of u.s. steel was being made in this pipeline. it is unfortunate that it is not. to the president's head and said he had to make this decision in 60 days. it is pure and election-year politicking. i agree with faster gun dollars. after the -- with mr. gonzalez. after the review and we have a route that is environmentally safe, this project should move forward but not until we do that. i do not think we are there yet. this legislation in front of us once again imposes this artificial deadline of 30 days and take this out of the hands of the state department's to an agency that does not do oil pipelines. it is a misguided effort. with the time i have left, i want to ask a couple of questions. i know we planned earlier to have the nebraska deq with us. i know that his testimony lays out a timeline for his state to follow this new route through nebraska and complete any necessarily environmental reviews. he said that if this were done on an aggressive schedule, a new route could be approved by october of 2012 at the earliest. does the state department believe the 60 day time line has allowed for a complete recommendation from the state and nebraska? >> we feel that we do need the time that he had put out. we had talked about the environmental quality as well as the applicant. the estimate that came in from all of this was run the same. >> has the state department recommended a pipeline without having the entire proposal before it? >> no. >> was there any question that would be able to complete a modified proposal by the deadline? >> no. that is why we felt we cannot go forward. quite as much time has expired. what i'm trying to get their everybody. we will not be able to come back. -- >> i am trying to get through everybody. we will not be able to come back. >> i have respect for my friend from pittsburgh. it is about 60-65% of the steel is u.s. steel. the reason why he is not here is because our state objected to him being on the panel because it was beneath them to have a state official. that is why he is not here. >> will my friend deal for one second? >> there is an e-mail chain verifying this. i may have put a little editorial to its. i am profoundly disappointed that the state department objected to him being on the panel. therefore, he is not. for the record, i would like to introduce a media note from the state department. april 15, in conclusion the u.s. department expects to make a decision whether to grant or deny the mets before the end of 2011. another comment the executive office of the management of budget saying the same thing. they are working the state department. all are working diligently and will have all of the information they need. there will be able to make their decision by december 31. -- they will be able to make their decision by december 31, 2011. we are using the state and nebraska as the excuse to delay the decision until after the election. it is not in a coincidence that -- any coincidence that they feel like they would be in a position to make a decision within 60 days of the election. they said in the first quarter of 2013. it flies in the face of all their previous statements. i read a quote from an environmental news service. it is after the nebraska legislature met. "i am confident that the departments and nebraska authorities will be able to work together in preparing any documents necessary to examine the alternative route to the state of nebraska to satisfy any state laws." they were all set and ready to go with the state and nebraska. if he would have been allowed to participate in this hearing today but for the objections of the state department, i think he would have said on december 1, 2011 we contacted the state department to explore the process of entering into an mou between agencies that would outline responsibilities. we received a first draft of the agreement from the state departments within the next two weeks and exchanged comments for what we consider to be an executable document which we submitted to the state department december 2011. i think it is odd or interesting that the state department's in the middle of december 2011 decided that they were not going to work on this project anymore and then come here and said they did not have time. you cannot be the one delaying it and an object to the delays. mack also submit the actual language of -- may i also submit the actual language that was signed into law. let me wait for just a second on that one. as i understand that from reading your report you are objecting not because of the enactments, the president shall grant a commit under executive order. you said that many times. it is that 60 day requirements, the absurdity -- damn. darn. [laughter] that does not run and sell all of the reports are done and certified by the governor -- darn, i yield. >> sorry, we're going to have some votes. >> thank you. according to some information that i have, october 15, 2010, she says she was inclined to approve a permit. on october 31, 2011, the white house secretary stated the fact is this is a decision that will be made by the state department or is has been the state department. the next day president obama said the decision will rest with him. he said he had expected the state department's recommendation to do so. can you tell the committee to it was made the call and made the decision to reject the keystone xl permit? >> based on the act, they had specific language. this is through the secretary to the president. he recommended to the president that this decision be taken and the president decides. >> the the white house exert any influence? >> no. >> it seems to me there is an individual that is missing from this hearing today that perhaps we should ask if we could cement some questions to that individual. we all know what is going on. i was in iraq in august. although our military presence there has a well in doubt, there is still a big state department footprints. in bosra, there is one of the largest a department operations. my understanding is that is where they narrowed down going to the golf upon and all the oil flowing down will go through basra and they felt they needed a large presence there. i do not get it. why do we have to have? there are jobs there. i would rather have the pipeline through taxes. we are not nearly hard to deal with as people in the middle east. as food for thought. let's build it where regionwide make it hard? i would like to yields to mr. pompeio are you good? >> generally. i will yield back to you. >> thank you for 5 minutes. my understanding is there is a potential to some of the product that would flow through to this proposed pipeline. it could be consumed by other countries rather than by consumers in the united states. under this bill, with united states government be able to assess the impact of that of consumer prices? >> i assume you mean the proposal. >> i cannot answer that. that was one of the considerations in the interest determination that we read in the process of doing. >> my understanding is this is used by american consumers. other people are from the world will be bidding on it. they will be bidding against it for the gasoline domestically. i think this has the potential to affect the price we pay at the pump. we are competing with the same product. i do not know the answer to that question. would the u.s. government assess that as part of the decisionmaking process? >> i would say as part of the analysis and overall national interest. it is something that would be assessed. >> thank you. >> has the gentleman yield back this time? >> we have a vote on the floor. we will not be able to come back. but i will give everyone three minutes in an effort to try to get their everybody. you're recognized for three minutes. >> what is your experience on these cross border issues? how to been working on it? >> some of us have more than a passing interest. this is a 1,700 mile pipeline. we have 2,000,300 miles. how much jurisdiction did they have over the two million-plus? >> they are involved only in permits that cross there. >> it obviously looks at the no, project option. what are the emissions that would be created? what is the ability of nasa to bring treks across the border? >> a do nothing i can answer that question. >> it is pretty unrestricted. >> yes. >> what is the total emissions annually if we went that option? >> i do know in the final impact statement there was some analysis done that it was likely that other modes of transportation would pick up and continue to move. theouldn't you consider fact that it would be put down? those are diesel emissions that have been categorized above and beyond. trucks are 87 times more dangerous. did you consider the fact that the no, project option for the delay would end up having more emissions totalled? >> the denial was based on the fact that we do not have the time to do all the analysis. the'm happy to see president approved across the border. just because the gentleman who is financing it is a billionaire from chicago, i'm not going to attack that agreement. when you get this agreement, would you consider the increased global impact of the operation that operates at the border? >> the ahead and finish. >> out is not involved it that. >> year recognized for three minutes. -- you are recognized for three minutes. >> what concerns about me it's getting it back on track. the presence made a political decision and to hurt our relationship. >> canada is a strong friend, maybe one of the best friends of america in the world. canada had been trying to get this project done for over three years. is it true that canada submitted their application for this keystone xl pipeline back in september 2008? >> the trans canada company submitted it. >> the president said this time and time again, he did not have enough time. he had 20 months. if you look at their original keystone pipeline, it was approved back in 2008 after less than two years of review. it does not take 40 months to review project like this. at some point in time have to
Related Keywords
Canada , Montana , United States , Texas , Iran , Alaska , China , Illinois , Indiana , Oregon , Russia , Harris County , Washington , District Of Columbia , Mexico , Oklahoma , Iraq , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia , South Dakota , Nebraska , Pennsylvania , Houston , Wood River , Port Arthur , North Dakota , Chicago , America , Canadians , Canadian , Chinese , Russian , American , Iranians , Daryl Hannah , Alberta Clyburn ,
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.