internet. the theft of intellectual property and research and development are vulnerable to attackers. on the one hand you have to identify the attribution is as critical as anything he is. what is unique in this venue, you do not know if an attack on a nasdaq or google or sony is undertaken by a russian or a chinese actor, that is a state actor or an organized criminal group. it could be a terrorist group, or an organized crime group. that group could be associated with an intelligence service for a country, or it could just be a group that is doing it for a profit. or it could be a high school student that has hacking

capabilities and has hacked into a financial institution and brought it to it's knees. so you do not know, is it a criminal event domestically or a criminal event. which requires us to come together and develop mechanisms much like we did with the terrorism arena to share information. we have a national cyber task force that we put together with 20 separate agencies, so that when there's an occurrence, we are all at the table bringing our resources to identify it. and then, in addition to this breaking down of the stove pipes, the shares of information is as important if not more important as what we saw in the wake of september 11th. the cyber bills are out there to break down the stove pipes and

allows the sharing of information between the government sector and the private sector is important. the last thing i put in for was a data breech reporting requirement. which requires the institutions that have been hacked into, mandated to report that because if they are not reported we cannot prevent the next event from happening. the 47 states with different reporting mechanisms there has to be one mechanism that requires that reporting structure. >> as the director of the fbi that was a strong statement to say that you feel that cyber attacks could be more serious to our national security than probably count er terrorism andi happen to believe you. does anyone on the panel have an opinion on the threat? >> as we discussed, we all recognize that thits a pro foun

threat to this country. the intelligence community across the board, whether foreign or domestic and i have to acknowledge the other components of the government, dod, d -- >> just a couple moments in the hearing. we are going live now to capitol hill where a house energy and commerce sub committee is holding a hearing on the obama administration administration and the keystone pipeline. >> like many people i was dwas disappointed when the president decided that the keystone pipeline was not going to be

pr approved because there was not enough time to do the research for the application. we know that the application was filed in september of 2008. that was almost 3.5 years ago. as a matter of fact, as far back at march 2010, second of state hillary clinton in response to a question said she was inclined to approve the permit based on the information she had for keystone pipeline. i want to public to know, and i'm sure they are aware of five major unions support the building of this pipeline. in an article the author reported some of president barack obama's biggest supporters are fuming over the

decision. the construction workers that would benefit from building the pipeline, as he said in his article, feel stabbed in the back by unions that joined environmental groups to kill the project. labor's international union general president, terry o'sullivan said the decision was so repulseive and disgusting that he was going to pull his union out of the blue/green alliance, a group of labor unions and environmentalists that represented nearly all that sign a joint statement that supported the president. he said that the groups that had no equity in this work have kicked our union in the teeth. we will not sit at the table with people that destroy our members' livelihood. the labor unions supporting the project issued a forceful

condemning the act as politics at its worst. a study about the jobs that it would create was clear when it was said this decision was really about the president being re-elected. the president's re-election is at stake and there's certainly more at stake here than a simple pipeline. in closing i would like to quote from a chicago tribune, keystone should be approved. it's a good project. it will give us energy and give us jobs. you want stimulus, this is it. this is a $7 billion project to be done with private dollars, taxpayer dollars will not be used. president obama made a decision that we think is the wrong

decisioni decision, and with that, does anyone seek recognition for 1:48? no i'll recognize you later. i yield the balance of my time to you. >> i thank the gentlemen for yielding. i appreciate his comments i was just reviewing the testimony by, i believe it's mr. poole from the bureau of land management. i find it interesting how much our government rules and regulations come into play here for so little land. he said in his testimony, the total permanent right of way on public lands for the keystone project would be approximately 50 feet wide and be a total of 2 ownersh 70 acres. you think how minor a role the federal government is playing in terms of this land, and they

have issued their approval. final biological assessment has been issued and finds no issue for wild life. we have horrible unemployment problem. it's getting a little better. you have a $7 billion investment that could create thousands of jobs and a new property tax base. i think it's time to get it done. i yield back. >> thank you mr. wall. at this time i recognition the gentlemen from illinois for five minutes. >> i want though thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. we -- and to shed light on the

ramifications of the legislation in force, hr 38. mr. chairman, this bill is simply another bite at the afflunet and the attempt to back door the obama administration and glean light a project that has not yet been fully vetted. and what amounts to being the application of the federal government's oversight responsibilities. in fact, why don't we simpliy y call this bill what it really is, instead of the north american energy access act it should be called the republican in congress favor to canada act. this bill does not make sense. legally it doesn't make sense. technically it doesn't make sense because it shifts the

responsibility for approving a cross border pipeline from the state department to an agency which has no experience in dealing with this type of national project specifically or oil pipelines generally. this bill does not make sense frankly and it does not make sense morally. international environment and scientific affairs, the deny of the permit was made simply because there was not sufficient time for the agency to complete its due diligence and perform

its legal oversight responsibility mainly due to the fact that currently there's not a proposed route for the state department to review. it would have been an act of gross negligence and recklessness for the obama administration to approve a permit for a pipeline that will cut through the heart of the country when the policy in those states that are mostly affected like nebraska haven't even identified the most appropriate route for the pipeline to go through. while the language the republicans passed in their initial effort to force the administration to come up with a decision within 60 days of enactment of the middle class

payroll tax extension was ill considered and irresponsible i must say the language in this new bill was transferring the decision to a completely inexperienced agency, and also required the commission to make a decision within 30 days or the project would be automatically approved is even more irrational. regarding the recommendation, i quote, that decision was based on the fact that the exact route of the pipeline has yet to be identified in critical areas. as a result, there are unresolved concerns for a full range of issues including energy

security, foreign policy, economic affects, health, safety and environmental impacts among other considerations. ms. jones went on to say that the legislation raises serious questions about legal authorities, questions of continuing to enforce all of the state and local and environmental use land use management authority over the pipeline and, mr. chairman, i want to stress this, it over rides foreign policy and national security considerati s considerationsiconsiderations permanents that were assessed by the state department. mr. chairman, with such dire warnings in the bill, i think we owe it to the american public to fully explain the consequences of this legislation to ensure

that the public interest is protected, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you mr. rush, at this time i would like to recognize the gentlemen from texas. >> i won't use that much time, mr. chairman, but thank you. this is a continuation hearing, everything that has been said about keystone has been said but sometimes it needs to be repeated. there is an important project for our nation's future. just in the last month or so, we have had a number of announcements that refineries in the united states, in the northeast and virgin islands will be closed. several in pennsylvania. one in tohio. their taking refinery production off the books.

while the keystone pipeline is not pibuilding a new retinery, it's bringing crude oil where we have refinery capacity. it will be used to refined into products and be shipped up to the midwest and northeast. if you shut down refineries in the midwest and off shore that serve that market and if you do not build keystone. that's a double whammy, prices will go up and shortages will exist and our economy will suffer. on the other hand, if we build the keystone pipeline, additional crude coming in to the united states. it does not offset the closure of the other facilities but it will aleviate them and as my

good friend from oregon just pointed out, to have to go through the red tape that this project has gone through for the reasons it has been subjected to it, just doesn't seem to make good sense in any way. in any way. so, mr. chairman, i look forward to the hearing. there's another hearing down stairs on the chemical facilities act, so i would like to yield the balance of my time to mr. terry in nebraska. >> thank you mr. chairman. to clarify a few points, the state department issued three statements over the summer that they would have all of the information and they were doing all of the due diligence to have

a decision made by the end of 2011 and we took them at their word for that and it turned out to be not true. one of the key points that has been missed in the state department's testimony in particular and the basis for their decision is that they are using nebraska as the excuse to deny the permit and the reality is in the legislation that the president signed specifically exempting nebraska out of this, this was going on in the other states, it carved out a time or a trigger that would review the nebraska portion, the 30 or 40 miles that the pipeline would be moved, based upon when the governor certified that it was ready. so, i am amazed at why that hasn't been brought out.

i am glad the core of engineers are here today, they play a vital point and their testimony raises a valid point that we had already vetted and had planned to change and that is we want to make it clear that what the legislation does is removes the presidential permission part and gives it to the agency, the federal agency that actually has experience in pipelines. we thought that was a rational approach with this bill. so i want to let the core know that we are not usurping and we will change the language of any permanents that crosses the waterway under your jurisdiction. we knew there were other permits that they would have to file and receive once the presidential authorize was made. i'm disappointed that we invited the corp of engineers to our hearing last week and they denied or refused to come but

when henry waxman asked you to testify in opposition, you are here loaded to bare. i think the message that the president's denial of this permit sent the world is that the far left of the environmental community is now in charge of our energy and foreign policy. i yield back. at this time i recognize the gentlemen from california, mr. waxman, for the purpose of opening statement. >> today, we are holding a legislative hearing on a bill to mandate approval of trans canada, pipeline keystone xl, it's hugely controversial and for good reason. the american people will bare the risks and big oil will reap the rewards. with this pipeline we get more

carbon pollution, land seizers by a foreign country and higher oil prices in the midwest. big oil gets the ability to extract more profits from the midwest, a conduit for exporting tar sands and i'll listen to differing views of american citizens and make a responsible decision. he would not approve the pipeline through the sand hills area of nebraska but the state department would consider an alternative route. nebraska is taking the time to find a route that is acceptable and the president is making sure that he has all the information that he needs to make the right decision. this bill takes the opposite approach. it gives the pipeline an

unprecedented regulatory earmark. it directing the federal energy regulatory commission, even though we do not know what route it will take. it exempts them from requiring permits for the corp or engineers before going the through rivers. i have been asking the simple question, who benefits from this extraordinary congressional intervention in the regulatory process. last year reuters reported that coke industries would be a big benefiters. we know they own an oil terminal

in canada where the pipeline would begin. and we know it has a refinery in texas, near where the pipeline is going to end. last myear i contacted coke to ask about their interest in the pipeline, and they responded despite the evidence to the contrary they had no interest in whether the pipeline was built or not. i accepted that answer and then i learned that coke had told the canadian government that the company had a direct and substantial interest, end quote in the pipeline. i want to know why coke would tell the u.s. conference one thing and the canadian government the exact opposite. so i had coke industries invited to testify today, well, they refused and coke refused to appear without an invitation from the chairman.

so we are left with unanswered questions. why is coke industries being placed at a witness protection program? what does the company have to hide? and why does a company get special treatment while the american people get left in the dark? i also ask the chairman to invite the operator of the pipeline, transcanada, members of our side want to ask transcanada reasonable questions, like what route it plans to follow in nebraska. we want to know about the claims of jobs. the state department testified that we would get 5,000 to 6,000 temporary jobs. these jobs would be around for two years and transcanada said the jobs would be 100,000, that is looking at the lifetime of the pipeline for a hundred years. this is the republican jobs

bill. 20,000 jobs they say, maybe 1 100,000 jobs, the state department did an analysis and they said 5,000 to 6,000 jobs for two years. i am glad we have excellent witnesses here today that will give us their views, two departments that will be excluded from giving their usual review of the project, that might change, and two gentlemen who have special insight at what this project will mean. thank you for this seven seconds beyond the time and i yield back whatever time i have left. >> thank you mr. waxman, today we have two panels of witnesses. those of you on the first panel, if you will come forward, that is ms. smith, who is chief

regulatory for army corp of engineers and mr. mike poole, deputy director of u.s. land management shs department management, department of the interior. we appreciate you both being here and we will ask each of you to give a five-minute opening statement, and at the end of that time, questions asked. i will point out that we have been told that there will be five or six votes on the house floor somewhere around 11:0 0 or so, we will proceed as long as we can and then we will vote and then come back. thank you all for being with us this morning, at this time, ms. smith, i would like to recognize you for five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement and be sure to turn your mike tonight -- microphone on, you are now

recognized. >> thank you, i'm chief of the the regulatory program for the u.s. army corp of engineer, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the corp's regulatory authority under section 404 of the clean water act and section ten of the rivers and harbors act related to utility line projects and to discuss our regulatory involvement in the keystone xl pipeline. it requires authorization from the corp for the construction of any structure such tas the keystone pipeline, in, under or over any river in the u.s. it requires authorization from the corp for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the united states. utility line projects may require permits for temporary fills such as access road ways storage and work ways temporary

and permanent impacts. when discharges of dredged or fill material is expected to cause no more than minimal effects individually may not require a permit. it's processed through the standard permit procedures t corp is neither a opponent or supporter of any project we make decisions that protect the environment and are not contrary to the public interest. the authority to make final decisions on the terms is among all the departments. it may be used to authorize on utility line construction. the permit authorizes the discharged of dredged and or fill material in association

temporary or permanent activities with the removal of utility lines provided it does not result in the loss of.5 acre of wetlands for a single and complete project. there are seven notification requirements and if any of them are triggered a preconstruction notification must be submitted to the appropriate office before they begin work in the waters of the united states. other statutes impact the ability of the corp to enact the permit. no activity will be authorized that would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangers species or destroy the habitat of such species. the requirements of 106 have to

be fulfilled before approval. the nationwide permits do not require other permanenits. transcanada submitted preconstruction notifications and requested that work in the water in the u.s. in association with the keystone xl pipeline be verified under nationwide acts. it was requested that permit 12 be suspended for dredge and fill materials associated with the keystone xl pipeline application, these decisions were made because of concerns identified by the department of state that could not be addressed until a final decision was made on the pending presidential permit application. the president has since