although this is being challenged under competition rules what assurances can the premise to give at the landing slots at heathrow and other regional airports will be protected if this is allowed to go ahead of? >> the honorable gentleman makes an important point so i'm sure it's important his constituents as well. i will look into this issue about landing slots. i know how important this issue is a regional airports and i will get back to him. >> can ask the prime minister why he wants in a just hospitals to hand over over half of the beds to private patient's? [shouting] >> that is not what the reforms do at all. [shouting] what the reforms do is ensure that you can have some private sector and voluntary sector activity going on within the nhs. and before, before -- why doesn't he dashed across the leading opposition should quiet down for a second and listen to what his own health secretary

said. is health secretary said this. the private sector puts its capacity into the nhs for the benefit of nhs patients, which having most people in this country would celebrate. again, that is what he said in government, but since they got into opposition they have taken opposition of just supporting the producer interest, totally a responsibility, total short-termism. i stand by what you said in 2007, pdq couldn't stick by it but, of course, it's not my obligations to stick by any of these matters. >> the prime minister would aware of the brutal murder last year of my constituents in germany. the murder trial is set to star in march this year. it's going to last a couple of months but will the premise to make sure the government will do everything possible -- i back increasing cost she now faces to be justice for her son's? >> my honorable friend is actually right to raise this

case but first i'll cannot offer my sincere condolences to she and her friend phoned the tragic death of her son last year but i know what a distressing time to sell before them as they travel for the trial in germany. the foreign office will do everything he can to support maria and her gun. i have to say i have been quite impressed with the foreign office has done in cases like these. i think they do show the sympathy and understanding and i will make sure this is the character in this case as well. >> 25% of our constituents suffer diseases. [inaudible] we could get better outcomes for these people on lower costs if a clinical director was appointed to coordinate things in national health service corps the prime is to agree to speak with me in the future of? >> i will look carefully at the case the honorable gentleman makes. one of the points of the nhs reform to adding perhaps is not

yet fully understood is the idea of having the public health budget properly funded with properly employed directors of public health in each area which will be able to help with many of these areas. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituency would entirely agree with the big governments imposed benefited cat. they believe that nobody should earn more in benefits that hard-working families. does the prime minister not agree with me that it is a damned disgrace that the labour party -- [shouting] and i try to wreck this important measure? >> order. moderation. in use of parliamentary language and engages in parliamentary languages. the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i think but honorable friend makes a very important point. this is an important decision that the house of commons has got to make it we were told that the labour party would support a cap on benefits. they have said that repeatedly,

and yet when the challenge comes the dr. chavez, they refuse to support the cat. they will have another chance when the legislation comes back this house but it's no good shaking his head. it's no good shaking his head. his own peers voted against the cap in the lord. the people in this country won't understand why they're taking that position. >> order. point of order. >> thank you, mr. speaker. at this meeting is to the backbench business committee decided to amend the basis for tomorrow very slightly to include a pre-e.u. council days at the beginning of the day. unfortunately, this has met with had to postpone the presentation of a report by the chair of the public administration select committee. mr. speaker, can you give me some advice, since the backbench business committee is unable to make an emergency business statement to inform the house with a change of business on

such short notice, how do i best go about doing business? [laughter] >> as i would have expected them the honorable lady has provided her own salvation. the information is on the record and the house is grateful to the chair of the backbench business committee. point of order. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this morning the government lost its appealed against the high court ruling that payments are legally flawed but the government has spent at least 66,000 pounds, cut social housing, and create even more uncertainty putting thousands of jobs at risk. can you tell me, mr. speaker, what he had received any indication at all from ministers and department of energy and climate change that they intend to come to this house and make statement explained how they plan to clear up the mess they created? >> the short answer is i have received no such indication or communication on the deputy minister. but i just have a sense, i don't

know what, perhaps his mind or 15 years the house -- >> here on c-span t. really the british house of commons now as they move onto other legislative business. you have been watching trimesters question time aired live wednesdays at 7 a.m. eastern while parliament is in session. you can see this weeks questions on again sunday night at 9 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org and click on c-span series for prime minister's questions, plus links to international news media and legislatures around the world. you can watch recently do including programs dealing with other international issues.

>> i do believe that the west, for all of its historical shortcomings, and unscathed in my book in discussing these shortcomings, because they have to be admitted. for all of these shortcomings, the west still today represents the most acceptable and workable universally workable local culture back in 1981 the united states was the only global superpower. today how to restore its status

in the world from former national security advisor zbigniew brzezinski on his strategic vision saturday night at 10 on afterwards. also, europeans no longer believe in anything other than their own personal economic security. saturday at 11 p.m. and sunday night at 10, the new privacy is no privacy. laurie anderson on how your rights are being eroded by social network. booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> now, governor butch otter of idaho, his state of the state address is a little more than half an hour. we will show you as much as we can until our live event at 8 a.m. eastern. [applause]

[applause]beh governor, on behalf of joint session we welcome to the house chambers, and we look forward to hearing your address and lookfoo forward to working with you this session. he hou the houses have both agreed thid would be a very short session. [laughter]sounds

>> sounds promising already. >> the podium is yours.ready. >> ninety. thank you. we don't need this.mresident, mr. president, mr. speaker,eake, honorable justices, my fellow constitutional officers, istinguished legislators and and my cabinet, as well as my friends and my family, and especially my first lady.. [applause] my fellow idahoans, i'm here feo today to report on my view of to our state, and to provide youroy with recommendations for this comingmm year. it is my pleasure to report that

idaho, having been tested by the great recession, now is emergin. leaner, stronger, more resilien, and better prepared to compete,r prepar prosper and prevail in the years to come.the thank you. thank you for your leadershipk y nnd for your partnership in prt guiding idaho through a trying i time for the people we serve,the and for your civic virtue in w staying true to our idahotha values. i'm also proud and humbled to report today the successful andt honorable homecoming of the mene and women of the idaho national guard's 116th cavalry brigaden h combat team. co [applause]

we also recently welcomed home about 100 idahoans who were h deployed to iraq with the armyio reserve's 391st engineeraq with company. but it is my solemn duty toolemu report that two of ou lives defm during 2011 in a country half a world away. i ask that you remember and speech debate could teach the specialist nicholas and their loved one in your prayers and thoughts as we begin our work.

along with staff sergeant jason who was wounded and received the purple heart, they were among the more than 1500 idaho members of the 116 who put their lives on line for us and they were not alone. specialist robert at the first infantry division and the 82nd airborne and corporal ryan shore of the infantry division each gave a measure of devotion in the defense of liberty during 2011. they were our sons, our fathers, our brothers, our teachers, our students and friends. they will be sorely missed. now that most of our soldiers are home and once again helping make idaho the best place in the world to live and raise a family unfortunately that isn't true of

hanly who remains in captivity of the taliban supported terrorist network in afghanistan. i know you will join me in continuing to pray for his safe return home. [applause] among those troops who have returned home grateful for their freedom far too many did so without a job. that will change. it must change. i believe that we can all agree that these men and women have faced too much hardship fighting abroad for us to ask to face more hardship home. i'm pleased to report the department of labor and of the veterans services the department of commerce, the department of education and all the agencies are joined in the task of addressing that challenge. ladies and gentlemen, to hire one is more than the right thing

to do. it is our responsibility to ensure that our troops have the tools that they need to resume their productive lives as civilians. [applause] so i would encourage you and all idahoans to help however you can to make good on a shared commitment of those who safeguard our country's future. their fight is our fight. their success will be our success. i cannot put it any plainer than that. those veterans and our children are gephardt of the idaho that i want to see. i want to see in idaho that is more independent and dynamic, the first. built on a foundation of freedom and personal responsibility and public accountability.

i want to see idaho focus model scarcity or what we lacked but more on prosperous future it is with that idaho in mind i set my budget top priorities for the 2012 legislative session. in the the reality is those priorities are inseparable. jobs and education. almost everything we do this year when pact on those two priorities which i'm confident that you share. let's talk first about the philosophy that underpins those priorities. the philosophy that has seen us through one of the worst economic downturns in american history. about 14 months ago, you and i were elected to idaho with understanding that we would make economic growth in the creation of more career opportunities the centerpiece of our state

government agenda. the interest of us to deliver and to bring to them a more efficient and effective smaller state government and to protect idaho's hard-working taxpayers. our citizens express strong support for our emphasis on government doing more with less as they have had to do. and our steadfast focus on living with in the people's means they embraced our ideas and encourage our efforts and we committed along with each of us to putting the politics of the past in the past and they endo they endorsed our opposition to federal program policies aimed at imposing greater burdens. blocking the natural resources with regulatory roadblocks. thanks to your leadership and

understanding of our constituents's need that i believe only citizens game for that i can possessed. the result is a state government that does not face and will not face staggering deficits, layoffs, shutdowns, tax increases and other problems. [applause] keeping our heads above water is difficult times isn't good enough. not for us and not for the people and represent. we are not here to just get by. we are here to help enable people we serve get ahead. my three broad priorities when first elected governor were to encourage economic opportunity, ensure responsible government and empower idaho's citizens to the architect of their own

destiny. those remain the foundation of my approach to this job. circumstances have converged to raise the stakes. you will continue to see my administration focused on reestablishing state government in our lives. you will see and you will continue to seek our extraordinary idaho independence and self-reliance assert itself in response to federal intrusion on our sovereignty. [applause] you will also see greater emphasis on insuring the efficiency and frugality we establish every state agency of government in the past three years. that will become standard procedure. what we had to do would become our new normal. and you will see a greater

emphasis on building innovative public and private partnerships that limit resources for advancing and achieving our shared goal. that is especially true when it comes to fulfilling the benchmarks. putting more of our 65,000 unemployed back to work and prepare our citizens to fill more of the 18,500 jobs that remain vacant. that is not just job openings or wishful thinking. we're taking concrete steps to address for fact that employment growth, lagging economic indicator has been lagging for too long. unemployment is starting to decline. we have seen some good news with are jobless percentage at its lowest rate in two years but unemployment remains at unacceptable levels. what government can do is limit as it should be. we can and will do a better job

of reaching out to our businesses and employers and partners to start at the top. at the top -- taken over as department of commerce director. he brings with him a wealth of private-sector under reportorial experience and renewed energy, enthusiasm and commitment to engage with the people who make our economy and our communities work and it is already making a difference. staff is joined by roger madsen of the department of labor, bill deal with the personal insurance, brian mattes, urban transportation department of agriculture, gavin keys of the department of finance, our colleges and universities and others providing job seekers and businesses looking to grow with the tools that they need to

succeed. roger in particular, already working closely with global economic development community visas all over idahos. their job is a short we are prepared to take advantage of economic opportunity and create even more with a well trained and motivated work force. targeted investments and minimal government red tape. [applause] they understand the role of government, effective government is not to create the tendency but rather facilitate opportunity. is that the right path forward? after the hundreds of people who will be working for the new yogurt plant. in fact, ask anyone benefiting

from the incredible economic growth and increasing business diversity being made possible by the success of our idaho industry. ask hundreds of idaho citizens who are paying taxes as a result of the sector or the new allstate regional customer service center. ask any of the employees of the supporting business benefiting from the growth of ground force manufacturing work the new underground expansion. or any of the health science research and technology businesses choosing to expand into the court in meridian. other great idaho companies like boise dynamics and eagle, c nw arms process, have the potential to change the economic landscape of this space. the examples and many more are tangible results of idaho's

entrepreneurs stepping up and expressing confidence in our future. and the key to their willingness to take a better future on idaho is the degree to which we make a commitment to be part of that project. partnership is the key. there are new programs you will be hearing about it weeks and months to come called ichamp which stands for idaho global entrepreneurial measure. it is patterned on successful programs we have seen in utah and virginia. a similar concept in cholera with industry embracing around the idea. it is not reinventing the wheel. our agricultural industry has had similar programs for years. we are just perfecting it for our university and our community and more idaho business. i got involved industry

entrepreneurs and ira education and the national laboratory and center for dance energy studies. together their focus will be on creating new values on our campus. that will, number one, help existing business grow as well as nurturing the start of a new business and create more jobs and opportunities for idaho. that will require a genuine commitment from targeted investment and perhaps most importantly a significant cultural change as our universities have approached research and working with industry. appreciate university president. [applause] also the state board of education for partnering with us

in that process. i urge you to act decisively in support of the legislative efforts which include collaborative research aimed at job creation, public schools throughout idaho are undergoing cultural and technological changes and we continue implementing the students come first reform that you passed and approved last year. i am committed, along with the superintendent to assuring the success of those reforms. that is why my budget calls for fully funding students come first including its technology and performance element. the modest, targeted and responsible general fund increase i am proposing for public schools the right to fast forward. it will help all resources go further to make our k-12 education system more effective and customer driven.

most important fully funding students come first will help insure the success of our august students in an increasingly complex, competitive, global market. [applause] preparing data host students for a wider world and reaching their greatest potential right here at home, here's the constitutional responsibility for safe government. like supporting our efforts it happens to be the right thing to do for our families and communities and our future. when it comes to education we cannot rely on policies of the past and prepare children for the possibility of the future. [applause] thanks, tom. [applause] that is why i am proposing to fully fund the cost of

enrollment going forward at our universities and colleges and community colleges and in my recommendation that we fully fund the cost of moving in to and operating new facilities on all of those campuses. [applause] >> leaving the island state of the state address. you can see it in its entirety on our web site at c-span.org. we are live on capitol hill. senate energy and commerce subcommittee is holding a hearing on the obama administration's decision to deny permits for construction of the keystone pipeline that would have carried oil from canada to the u.s.. the administration said congress didn't give it time to review the permit. response to the action congressman harry introduced legislation called the north american energy access act that gives approval authority of the pipeline to the federal energy regulatory commission. witnesses include

representatives from the state department, nebraska and federal regulatory commission. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> i would like to call this hearing to order this morning. the subject of this hearing is american jobs now. we are going to be considering a jar 3548, north american energy access act. i would like to welcome those members of the referee training plant. they didn't realize their rig going to be with us this morning but we're delighted you are here on this second row. i hope you will enjoy the hearing as well. today's hearing gives us the opportunity to learn why the obama administration denied a permit to build the keystone pipeline from canada through parts of the united states. how could the obama administration, when presented with the chance to create thousands of jobs and at the same time significantly reduce our dependence on oil from the middle east, say no to the

american people? today we will examine how such a harmful decision was made and explore opportunities to reverse that decision while the administration struggles to find a rational decision to reject the construction of the keystone pipeline, we are going to look for ways to build the keystone pipeline. this is a project that would cost about $7 billion to build. there would not be any government money involved in this project. it is all being supplied by private industry and it would immediately put at least 20,000 people to work. that is certainly sounds like the national interest to me. if our president decides sending three aircraft carrier strike groups to the strait of hormuz to defend the free flow of oil,

if he thinks that is in the national interest one would also think a pipeline from canada that would help us be less dependent on middle eastern oil will also serve the national interest. the president's own state department determined the pipeline would have no significant impact on the environment. the president said himself his rejection of the keystone pipeline is not based on its merits. he said that. which makes us believe the decision to reject the pipeline was fully a political decision to help him be reelected. at this time i would like to yield the remainder of my time to mr terry. >> thank you for holding this hearing on this bill. a couple of points with the couple minutes i have. this is what the state department has by way of environmental studies on the

keystone group. as you can see it is voluminous and difficult to understand why it would be discarded. we will get into some of the points later during questioning. i want to go off my regular script and express my displeasure that the state department decided or objected to our nebraska witness that could put in context the nebraska as the motion and what nebraska is doing that the state department objected because they don't sit on the same panel as a state witness. the head of the nebraska department of environmental quality is worthy enough to sit there and because of time constraints, the ability to answer questions had to be deleted from this panel and our am frankly disturbed by that.

but we are going to get in to the false excuse of using the state of nebraska as the reason, reading your testimony, as the reason for the denial. in fact, the bill was written so that you wouldn't have to make that decision and we will get into those statements. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i might say also that last night the president in his state of the union address talked about the importance of infrastructure for america to remain competitive. >> i would like to really going to have to say regular oil isn't -- the five minutes is up so we should proceed because the regular order is up. it is up, mr. chairman. >> when you said that there were

still 30 seconds left. >> five minutes. >> we will enforce the five minute rule. >> thank you for recognizing me. i am also delighted to referee -- a good opportunity to exercise their craft but i expect a big battle to take place at this morning's hearing because today we are holding yet another hearing on the keystone xl pipeline as a follow-up to the last hearing. and where the majority of attempted to force the obama administration to hastily make a decision on the keystone xl pipeline. let me remind you the majority first tried to move legislation that required the administration to forgo its legal obligation and due diligence and come out

with a favorable decision for keystone xl last year. majority irresponsible view, so be it if the american public was left unprotected because of the administration did not have the time needed to conduct a thorough review of the personal a thorough review and a oversight of this project. my republican colleagues, as long as industry got what it wanted, that was the most important role of this congress. as that tactic failed the majority held hostage the payroll tax cut extension which would benefit millions of middle-class working families in order to attach a rider that

attempted to force president obama to come out in favor of keystone xl within 60 day's of the bill's enactment and we all know how well that strategy worked out. the majority -- ordinary americans might have been negative impacted by lack of federal oversight. who cares if the republican governor and legislators of nebraska have yet to even identify a new route for the pipeline. that was the seam all last year. my republican colleagues continue to porche this notion that if you would just roll that government oversight and protection for average americans and allow industry to do what it wants without restriction and

unfettered then somehow jobs will be created and millions of americans will be gainfully employed. after all, mr. chairman we saw how well this philosophy worked during the george bush years with the collapse of our total financial institution and our economy. and the 9 subcommittee and joint hearings, nine bills that originated from this subcommittee that when to passed the house last year, the only piece of legislation that actually became law was the pipeline safety reauthorization bill which expanded regulation in order to address public

safety. the pipeline safety bill enjoyed unanimous support from this committee. so it would appear my republican colleagues are not always opposed to federal regulation and oversight. especially when their districts are directly affected. so mr. chairman, today we are here on another proverbial fishing expedition. by the majority party again to try to sidestep federal regulation and oversight in order to help industry get what they want and the american public be damned in the process. i am not sure if the majority is going to show transcanada or feverishly own their behalf for more campaign contributions. or the underlying legislation

would never become law. >> i think the gentleman's time is taken down. >> with $1 million -- [talking over each other] >> execute in 2 commercials supporting keystone xl. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman made an accusation, saying we are tied to campaign contributions. that is wrong but that is against our rules. his words need to be taken down. >> we will have the clerk review the transcript and we will proceed at that point. i would remind everyone that we do not need to be making accusations about what people are or are not doing as far as legal campaign finance laws and whatever. than this, would like to

recognize the gentleman from michigan for five minutes. the chairman of the full committee. >> president and mr. chairman, we have a number of referees in the second row. welcome to the big house. you got red flags and a yellow flag and a red flag that usually means to review -- we look forward to having a review of the plan and that vote did pass in this committee and on the house floor by at 2-1 margin and we are looking to have the ruling on the field confirmed again and perhaps again and again. it is not often that congress can take a single step that will simultaneously reduce the future price at the gas pump, strengthening the nation's energy security and create tens of thousands of jobs. it is certainly not often that we can accomplish these important goals at no cost to taxpayers but that is exactly what is in the case of the keystone xl pipeline expansion project and why i support this

legislation, h r 4530, the energy access act. keystone is the shuttle ready project that would create badly needed jobs. it would allow more oil from our allied candidate to come to the u.s. taking the place of imports from less friendly producers. the oil would go to refineries in the midwest and the gulf coast increasing the supply of american made gas and preserving domestic refining jobs. would provide an outlet for the growing supply of domestic oil produced in north dakota and montana relieving the potential bottleneck. every penny of the $7 billion project will be paid for by the private sector. given the many benefits of keystone is no surprise so many americans consider this decision a no-brainer especially to the environmental impact of the project have been extensively studied for years and found to be minimal. last july the house passed a bill requiring the state department to make a long

overdue decision on keystone by november 1st which certainly bipartisan, 47 democrats joining nearly all republicans supporting the reasonable measure. probably would have garnered more votes after the administration's repeated assurances that it is going to make a decision before the end of 2011 and the legislative deadline was not necessary. sadly as the end of the year approach the administration reversed position and postponed its decision until 2013 at the earliest. in response congress gave the president second chance to do the right thing by providing yet another 60 days to approved keystone as part of the payroll tax bill but last week decided to reject the proposal after only 26 days. sixty days wasn't enough. make no mistake. time is of the essence. not only are there unemployed americans anxiously looking for jobs pleaded not only iran threatening the strait of hormuz and not only is the price at the pump heading $45 in the next

couple months but the canadian government is understandably growing impatient with the endless red tape and delays from washington. canada is rapidly increasing its oil production and if the u.s. foolishly refuses to be a customer for these new supplies canada will build a pipeline not to the south but to the pacific coast and the oil will be exported to china where they are -- they wanted. that is why we are offering an opportunity and she's done. this legislation giving the decisionmaking decision to the federal regulatory commission is a good one. i look forward to moving it through committee and i would yield to anyone on our side that would like time and if not we will yield back. >> the gentleman yield the balance of his time. i would like to recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

today we once again consider legislation to approve the keystone xl pipeline. this legislation stands one pet project from every federal and state committee requirement. yes, one budget -- the exempted from every review. is that a way to approved an important and controversial pipeline? are hardly think that is the case. the fact is the legislation we are considering today is an earmarked that benefits just one project. remember the republicans saying they were against earmarks? not when it helps their friends. and the arguments for the project just does not stand up. to scrutiny. this tar sands pipeline won't

boost our energy independence for lower gas prices or create jobs being promised. why have the the republicans introduced a bill over bill to short circuit the committee process on keystone xl? they say it will make the country more energy independent. that is a myth. oil prices are set by the global market. this pipeline will have no impact on our vulnerability to price spikes or iranian brinkmanship. in fact keystone won't even reduce our imports. it will simply allow canadian oil companies to use the united states as a conduit for shipping their tarzan's overseas to china. i know they say that if they don't get this pipeline they will go to the west coast. that is a problem because there are those in canada who don't

want this pipeline going in that direction. it is not so clear-cut they will get the approval to do that. republicans say it will cut gasoline prices but the opposite will happen. canadian oil that is now being refined in the midwest is a rising tide in the market to be diverted to the gulf coast for export costing consumers in the midwest billions of dollars. republicans say they support the pipeline because it will create tens of thousands of jobs but that is not right either. according to transcanada companies seeking to build the keystone xl pipeline, the project will have, quote, a peak were forced -- workforce of 3200 construction personnel. some labor groups describe the

gop's antics on keystone as the politics as usual strategy of a do nothing republican congress. if the republicans were seriously and actually concerned about jobs they would work with the president has in his jobs bill. they have no solution to the jobs crisis. the jobs crisis must be responded to by carrying away regulations that affect public health and safety. we will have more jobs and let millionaires keep more money and it will trickle down to more jobs. then they say this one project will provide the jobs we need. it is amazing to me. the fact is the legislation we are considering today is one that is hard to understand. we ask the hope brothers whether this was -- this committee has an obligation to understand who

benefits from this legislation. last year news organizations reported that one company, cote industries would be one of the big winners if this pipeline were constructed. we asked if this was true and were told they have no interest whatsoever in the pipeline. but then we learned that they told the canadian government they have a direct and substantial interest. something does not add up. to understand the situation better mr. rush and i invited the hope brothers or coke industries to testify. the chairman has responded to our letter. we therefore are invoking the minority's rights under rule 11 of the house rule to have a minority day of hearing. it is important we hear from the coke and other stakeholders. i think this pipeline is a bad idea. it ignores the concerns -- >> the gentleman's time is

expired. i would tell the gentleman we will certainly accept the letter and we will follow the rules but we're not going to subpoena the cote brothers and we are not asking the cote brothers to appear because the cote brothers have nothing to do with this project. at this time -- >> point of order. you made statements -- you cut me out in the middle of a sentence. i would like to know the substantiation -- >> your time was up. we are going to recess this hearing for ten minutes and then we're going to come back. >> recalling the coke brothers during the recess? >> let me tell you something. you want to talk about that let's talk about the millions of dollars the obama administration gave companies like solyndra and people like george kaiser who is out there -- would you like us -- would you like us to subpoena him? >> wire you interrupting members and take a limited time for yourself?

>> i am responding to your questions and allegations. i am the chairman and i'm telling you right now we're going to recess for ten minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the senate energy and commerce subcommittee is taking what looks like a ten minute recess and we will continue bringing you live coverage of the hearing on the keystone xl pipeline as soon as it gets underway. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> looks like we are in a holding pattern in the house energy and commerce subcommittee hearing on the keystone xl pipeline. we expect it to get underway in just a moment. we will take you back to the start of this hearing and show you some of the opening statements. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i would like to call this

hearing to order this morning and the subject of this hearing as american jobs now and we are going to be considering h.r. 3548, north american energy access act. i would also like to welcome those members of the referee training -- said it realized they would be with us this morning but we're delighted to have you here in the second row and i hope you all enjoy the hearing as well. today's hearing gives us the opportunity to learn while the obama administration denied a permit to build the keystone pipeline from canada through parts of the united states. how could the obama administration, when presented with a chance to create thousands of jobs and at the same time significantly reduce our dependence on oil from the middle east say no to the american people? today we will examine how such a

harmful decision was made and export opportunities to reverse that decision wild the administration struggles to 5 or rational decision to reject the construction of the keystone pipeline. we are going to look for ways to build the keystone pipeline. this is a project that would cost $7 billion to build. there would not be any government money involved in this project. it is all being supplied by private industry and it would immediately put at least 20,000 people to work. that certainly sounds like the national interest to me. if our president besides sending three aircraft carriers strike groups to the strait of hormuz to defend the free flow of oil, if he thinks that is in the national interest one would also

think a pipeline from canada that would help us be less dependent on middle eastern oil would also serve the national interest. the president's own state department determined the pipeline would have no significant impact on the environment. the president -- >> opening remarks in this hearing on the keystone xl pipeline. back to live coverage. [inaudible conversations] >> the hearing is back in order and we will hear the testimony of our two witnesses and i would like to welcome both of you to this hearing today. first of all we have the hon. kerri-ann jones who was assistant secretary of state of the bureau of oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs. we also have mr. jeffrey wright who is director of the office of energy projects at the federal energy regulatory commission.

once again i welcome you to this hearing. each one of you will be recognized for five minutes and then we will have questions at that time. mr. jones, i will recognize you for five minutes. >> thank you and good morning. >> turn your microphone on. >> i think it is on. good morning, chairman whitefield and ranking member rush. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. u.s. department of state received the application for the keystone xl pipeline project in september of 2008. we undertook a rigorous and transparent process to determine whether issuance of a presidential permit for this pipeline -- >> please pull the like closer to you. >> is that better? >> much better. >> i think you know that first are already. in december congress passed a

temporary payroll tax cut continuation act of 2011 which required determination of the president. within 60 days of whether the keystone xl pipeline project would spur the national interest. on january 18th, 2012, department of state recommended to the president the application for presidential permit be denied due to insufficient time to conduct necessary analysis. the president accept a recommendation and determined the keystone xl pipeline project as presented and analyze at that time would not serve the national interest. i would like to provide further details about this process and comment briefly on the administration's view of h r 3548. on april 30th, 2004, president bush issued executive order 13337 which designated and empowered the department of state receive the application for presidential permits for oil infrastructure projects that

cost -- crossed the u.s. border. executive order indicates the permit should be granted based on whether it is in the national interest. the national interest determination factors include numerous issues including energy security, foreign policy, economic affect legal health, safety and environmental considerations including climate change and any other factor the department believes is relevant to the national interest. to make an informed decision the department is directed in the executive order to request additional information as needed from the applicant. in order to analyze potential environmental impact of the project as required by the executive order the department determined it would prepare environmental impact statements consistent with the national environmental policy act of 1969. we also carried out processes mandated by the national historic preservation act of 1966 and the endangered species act.

following these requirements we engaged in a robust public outreach effort including meetings along the proposed pipeline routes. on august 26, 2011, we issued the final e r a s. we began integration review period for the national interest determination and we conducted an additional public comment period that closed on october 9th, 2011. we held meetings along the pipeline route including in the sand hills. these meetings were passionate with strong opinions and rationale on both sides. in nebraska we heard concerns about the fragile and unique sand hills of nebraska and their importance to the nation and the people of nebraska. the people of nebraska felt so strongly about this issue that their legislators met in special session to draft a law to ensure the sand hills would be protected. that is why we caused the process in november of 2011. based on experience with pipelines of similar length we estimated it would take until

early 2013 to complete our assessment. in december of 2011 as we were cooperating with the department of environmental quality the temporary payroll tax cut continuation act was enacted into law. we knew 60 days was not enough time to complete the work and analysis needed relevant to the national interest determination. we decided based not on the merits but the inadequate time period and incomplete review to recommend the president denied a permit. 6 brings me to h.r. 3548. the proposed legislation imposes time constraints and create automatic mandates that prevent informed decision. we feel legislation rate -- raises a serious question about existing legal authority and appears to override foreign policy, national security considerations implicated by the permit which are probably assessed by the state

department. mr. chairman, internationally we remain engaged with our key partners and suppliers including canada as we work on issues of energy security and diplomacy. to do this the state department remains committed to carrying out its responsibilities under the executive order with diligence and fairness to the applicant but ultimate concern for the best interest of the american people. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i am pleased to answer any questions. >> thank you. you're recognized for five minute, mr. wright. >> chairman would feel beleaguered the ranking member russia, my name is jeffrey wright of the department of energy project at the federal energy regulatory commission and i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. the office of energy projects is responsible for another thing is the certification of interstate natural gas pipeline's pursuant to the natural gas act. h r 3548, north american energy access act addresses the keystone xl pipeline project. i have no position on a proposed

bill but should congress direct to act on an application for the project the office of energy projects as commission infrastructure review branch would likely take the primary role advising the commission on a matter. i will offer comments on the proposed bill when the goal is seeking to ensure that if congress gives the responsibility to the commission legislation should provide clear and effective procedures for conducting this review. before commenting on specific sections i note the authorization provided by the bill would differs from the natural gas act and the proposed act does not make any explicit provision for procedures such as public notice, public comment, support a commission decision, or judicial review in conjunction with the commission consideration of an application. i turn to specific provisions of the act. section 3 a would require the commission to approve the project within 30 days of receipt of an application and if the commission has not acted on

the application within 30 days the application is being approved. the 30 day deadline would not permit construction of an adequate record or allow meaningful public comment on arriving at a decision. section 3 could be read as giving of the commission no discretion in the issuance of the permit. this section states the permit is to be implemented in accordance with the final environmental impact statement. it is not clear whether the commission or any other entity would have authority to ensure and enforce compliance with measures required by the document. section 3 b 1 allows the applicant or permit holder to propose a modification of the route or other turns of the final environmental impact statement for the commission law rise such modification. the bill does not articulate a standard process for such a decision. section 3 the 2 states the commission will enter into a memorandum of understanding for effective and timely review under the national environmental policy act of any route modification of the project in

the state of nebraska. upon approval of the modification by the governor of nebraska the commission will have 30 days to finish and approve the modification. in section 3 b 3, a modification shall be deemed approved. the proposed process is not clear. to contemplate that some entity, the commission or the state will issue a document regarding the -- nebraska modification after which the governor of nebraska will have the opportunity to approve the proposal. the commission would have 30 days to complete consideration of such modification. the section could be read to mean the commission has no discretion but to approve a nebraska modification and it does not appear to provide a process for public notice and comment opportunity for hearing or rehearing. section 4 of the proposed legislation states a permit issued under this would be the sole legal authority required to construct and operate the pipeline except for the safety oversight of the department of

transportation pipeline and hazardous material safety administration and commission existing rates and tariffs of 40. the language makes it unclear whether such permits from other federal agencies would still be required. further while the department of state is responsible for issuing the presidential permit and authorize the border crossing facilities individual states or subdivisions depending on state law have authority to site oil pipelines within their jurisdiction. this proposed legislation could be construed as providing federal jurisdiction to local authority. this concludes my testimony and i will answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much, mr. wright. i will recognize myself for five minutes of questions. miss jones, in october 15th, 2010, secretary of state clinton said she was inclined to approve

the keystone pipeline permit. on october 31st, 2011, white house press secretary jay carney stated the fact is this is the decision that will be made by the state department. and the very next day president obama said the decision would rest with him but in the president's announcement last week to reject the pipeline's permit he said he had accepted the state department's recommendation to do so. my question would be review involved in the decision made at the state department and did you recommend to the president that he rejected this permit? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the recommendation that went to the president was a state department recommendation and it

came from the state from my bureau and other bureaus. it came through the deputy and to the secretary to the president. >> you recommended the permit be denied. >> yes. >> what other bureaus at the state department were involved in that decisionmaking? >> the bureau of economic affairs, the state department looks at this pipeline across all the other issues that are involved so there are multiple bureaus involved in all the meetings and discussions that we have. we have energy expertise and of course the regional bureau which handles matters with canada. >> i think mr. walden over there has copies of impact statement which is voluminous. but isn't it true that the state department draft environmental impact statement concluded that the keystone pipeline would have limited adverse environmental impact?

>> mr. chairman, what the statement said was it suggested that there would be little adverse impact to most resources. it then went on to say if that was the case, the applicant followed all of the state and local rules and all the mitigation procedures that were outlined it then went on to say their three or four areas that were of concern that called up spills, possibility, cultural resources related to native americans, called all wetlands and other areas where trees and shrubs would not be put back after the pipeline was put in. statement, environmental impact statement is very long. the summary is just a page but there are many other pieces throughout the document. >> isn't it true the state department's own environmental impact statement included review of an alternative not to build

the pipeline at all and didn't the environmental impact statement concluded that building the pipeline along the preferred route was better environmentally than no pipeline at all? >> in the environmental impact statement we looked at many alternative routes and we analyzed those and we looked at routes that afforded the sand hills and looked at route that took short little dog and made changes the. the environmental impact statement did not identify those alternative routes as more preferable to the proposed routes and that time based on different environmental considerations different routes had as well as economic and technical issues. mr. chairman, the denial of this permit is related not to all of these pieces but to the timeline

we had and we did not have a complete move to look at at this point. >> miss jones, reading directly from the federal environmental impact statement it says as a result of these considerations the department of state does not regard the no action alternative that is not to build the pipeline, we do not regard that alternative to be preferable to the proposed project. this language is very clear. as opposed to not doing anything, the state department concluded it was preferable to build the pipeline. we find ourselves confused about how all of a sudden the state department and the president reversed themselves on this. this was a study that went on for 40 months or so. my time is expired. of the like to recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, for five minute.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. miss jones, most people would agree that haste makes waste. so my question is eager to why didn't the state department recommended that the president denied the keystone xl pipeline? >> we recommended the denial because we did not have the time to get the information that was needed on the alternative routes in nebraska and without getting that information we would be unable to look at the other factors, socioeconomic factors, environmental factors and foreign policy and energy security. we did not have the time to do that. that is why we recommended denial. was not based on the merits of

the project. >> maybe you can further explain this. why was the, quote, full assessment not completed by the arbitrary deadline set forth by the republican bill? and what additional issues did the state department not have time to consider? >> in november when we identified the need for additional information and in-depth analysis of alternative routes that would avoid the ecologically unique area of the sand hills in nebraska, we recognized there are many pieces to that information. the first peace which we don't have yet is to identify what those alternative routes may be. we don't have a complete rout for this pipeline which goes through the whole part of the central part of the country. that is one thing we don't have.

we also don't have the level of detail. if we were to have a route we would have to get in to the level of detail regarding all the different kinds of information. the topography, number of bodies of water crossed and any aquifers. and we would also have to look at any endangered species issues and of course we would have to interact with the community along that new route to hear their concerns and understand what any issues might be. that overall process would take several months and the estimate that we put out there was supported approximately by the applicant and the state of nebraska when we talked about this. this is a process we have defined and work with partners both the applicant and the state of nebraska to understand what would be needed to get the information we thought we needed to make a decision. that would be very

well-informed. >> do you think it would have been irresponsible, reckless, and potentially harmful to the american public had he tried to make -- grant permits within these artificial deadlines has established by the republicans in this situation? >> i think it would have been irresponsible because we didn't have to find a significant portion of a major pipeline that would be a major piece of infrastructure that would affect our country for many years. having their information was an important piece and that is what we based our first decision on and this most recent decision is based on the fact the we did not have the time to get the information we think we needed. >> in all of your experience in

your particular capacity, and the state department, have you had any similar instances whereby congress enacted some artificial deadline that did not allow you the time to for early and completely perform your responsibility to the american public? >> not that i can recall, congressman. >> i yield back. >> thank you, mr. rush. i would like to recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> i need to make a disclosure before i ask my questions. my congressional district of texas if it were a state at one time would have been the fifth largest energy producing states in the country. i have producing oil wells

producing natural gas wells, producing coal mines, coal-fired power plants and gas-fired power plants, oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, water gas pipelines, existing and in use and some are not in use are still underground. i have a big pipeline that little pipelines. so i think i know a little bit about this subject. i have listened with interest to the gentlelady from the state department's explanation and i will say she puts the best face possible on a terrible decision that her department has made. one of the things you just said that there were socioeconomic factors that had to be considered. where is that in the law? especially the state department. socioeconomic factors.

>> congressman -- >> is it in the law? i don't need a long dodge answer. is very statute under a law that says the state department has to consider socioeconomic factors, yes or no? >> it is in the executive order. >> that is not a law. i would like you to provide it if there is the case. is it a socio-economic factors that a project might bring thousands of high-paying jobs to a region? is that a factor? >> yes. >> is it a socio-economic factors that a project might bring much needed energy to the mid continent and lower southwest were southeastern states? is that a socioeconomic factors? >> yes. >> for those considered? >> absolutely. it was not based on those factors. >> those socioeconomic factors

might be the reason until the radical environmentalists began to protest and petition against it when the secretary of state was asked in california, the status of the application, she indicated she was inclined or the state department was inclined to approve it. is that a fair statement? >> we consider -- we were considering all those factors you were mentioning. but we were unable to complete the analysis because of the deadline that was put forward. >> what is the statutory deadline in the law for consideration? was it 180 days after receiving the application? >> i am not sure. >> i know it is not four years. i think it is -- i won't swear it is 180 days but i think it is 180 days. >> my understanding is in previous cases where we reviewed pipelines that have taken two years or so, i don't know what

the statutory time line is. >> there are three phases of the pipeline. you have the construction phase, the operation face and on occasion you can have a catastrophic accident once it is in operation. were their concerns about the construction of the pipeline? what i am trying to get at is the primary concern of the state department, construction phase concern or operation phase concern or is it a concern about some sort of catastrophic event that would still oil into the environment? >> our concern is we did not have time to do the analysis. all the dimensions of the issue you're talking about we had been studying. certainly this bill, issues around construction and operation. the reason the decision was

taken was because -- >> we fought in world war ii in less time than it takes to evaluate this project. with all due respect, it is an insult to the american people to say you need more time. there ten and other agencies that reviewed this project. correct me if i am wrong but my understanding is the corps of engineers approved it. the department of agriculture approved it. the energy department approved it. department of interior approved in. department of transportation approved the. environment protection agency approved it. the defense the power to approve the. the justice to come approved it. the hole lead security department approved and the the part of commerce approved it. only the state department which i believe by law is required to look at the international implications since it is transcanada, only the state department did not approve it. >> the gentleman's time is