state department's view that 60 days is not sufficient to obtain the necessary information that the keystone xl pipeline as presented and analyzed at this time would not srerve the national interest. should that change, we will process any request with accordance with the appropriate procedures based on our authorities and implementing regulations. if hr is enacted the core would not be responsible for requiring a permanent for the operation and maintenance of the pipeline. as present only the corp has the mandate to review keystone xl under section ten of the rivers and harbor hack and second 404 of the clean river act.

no corp permit would be required. i appreciate the time to be here today and i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, very much, ms. smith. mr. poole you are now recognized for the purpose of making an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for inviting the department of the interior. the legislation directs the federal energy regulation to approve the pipeline project. the department has concerns with several provisions of the legislation. the proposed $7 billion pipeline project will span more than 1700 miles. an executive order, 1337 all proposed projects that across the border require a presidential permit, including a determination that the cross border pipeline is in the national interest. the state department reviews

applications to the presidential permit and consults with eight other agencies. the application was received from the pipeline in september of two -- 2008. it includes 42 miles of scattered parcels of federal land from the blm, blm is a cooperating department to identify pipeline routes across federal lands in montana that would minimize pipeline acts in construction. the final eis was issued on august 26, 2011. it has issued approval for

rights of ways for pipelines that acrossed the land. the keystone prongt include e-- comprised 270 acres. temporary rights of way for construction purposes would make up a few hundred additional acres on blm, tracts of land, these applications have not been withdrawn but the processing is on hold. the north american access act appears to make the federal energy regulatory commission the sole federal agency for the project. the bill would give the commission a permit for the

pipeline and related facilities. it's not clear how the maintenance is carried out on the tfederal lands. this departure would keep blm from collecting rents. thank you for the opportunity to testify before the sub committee. i'm open to any questions. >> i recognize myself for five minutes of questions. there has been a lot of discussion on the keystone pipeline about the coke brothers. and the coke brothers have indicated that they have no financial, direct final interest in this pipeline. and for that reason we have never really called them as a witness and i might say that we know that the burlington,

northern santa fe railroad has direct route right into canada and albert a and if the pipeline is not built, maybe some of that oil will move by rail into the u.s. and of course, the owner of that railroad is warren buffett. we have not made any effort to call warren buffett to testify in this hearing because even though his company might benefit if the pipeline is not built, with we do not think he has a direct financial interest in it. and i really in my view do not view, warren buffett and the coke brothers any different on this situation. so, i simply wanted to mention that. i would also say that the state department, when it issued the final environmental impact statement in august of 2011 actually made the comment that it would be better to build this this pipeline than to not build the pipeline. if you were looking at the two

options, it would be better to build it than to not build it. and so, other pipeline projects requiring a presidential permit usually take 18 to 24 months to approve, keystone is now in the 40th month, when these additional delays appeared to be mounting in 2011, the u.s. house passed bipartisan legislation, that instructs the president to make a final decision one way or the other on the presidential permit by november 1st, 2011. the presidential administration said it would not be necessary because the state department would make a decision by the end of 2011. but as the president's campaign

began to warm up for president, the president's political advisers realized that the environmental groups would be quite upset if the president said yes to this pipeline. on the other hand the labor unions were going to be quite upset if the president said month to the pipeline. so, that tat that time, the pre, instead of making a decision, said he would wait until after the election to make a decision. from our perspective, this was really nothing but a political decision and since we have had 40 months of detailed study and analysis on this, we felt like that there was no reason to delay any more because we do need to be less dependent on forei foreign oil. we can bring in the oil from our friendly neighbor to the north, canada and we can create jobs as well.

so, i want to just make that comment about the coke brothers and the fact that i don't see that they are in much of a different position than warren buffett is except that they are on different sides of the benefits. i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. chairman, i would suggest based on your view that maybe you should invite warren buffett and the coke brothers here. that would be a dandy of a hearing. >> that would be, we would get a lot of press in here. >> yes. i want to ask mr. poole, regarding the bureau of land management's current role, i want you to expound on this, how will this affect the role of your agency? >> pardon me?

>> how will this affect the role of your agency? >> it does raise concerns, the blm has a history of authorizing right of ways. we have the experience and experts in the field that are familiar with the right away program and the importance of working through nepa and taking into act any cultural and biological concerns. so, and we have that experience, we have dealt with pipelines many times in the past. so the bill, the way it's worded seems to confer all of our responsibility under the leasing act to furk, and in some of the accelerated timeframes in the bill, it begs the question whether or not there's any additional consultation requirements under section 106 of the protection act, or any requirements that are required

through the fish and wild life department, it's important that blm has established relationships in the west. we have many offices in the west and we are used to working with county and local governments and state governments we work with our federal counter parts as well. so we have been in the process for three years as it relates to our right away, the right away application in montana. so we have an already established relationship with our federal and state agencies, as we work through this project or future projects, and i think it helps with ourselves and the involvement of the federal agencies that we are fulfilling our congressional mandates. >> to your -- excuse me. as far as you are concerned does

furk have the same vast footprint in the west to make similar decisions? >> i know from a jurisdictional/ownership standpoint standpoint they do not. they are a regulatory entity. when it comes to transcontinental gas line, furk usual usually assumes that league. it's important to point out, you know, the more recent example being the ruby pipeline in the west, they had the lead but the mandates that crossed other states and jurisdictions that was under the leasing act and all other mandates were required as well. >> ms. smith, the army corp of engineers have a role in this permitting process and certainly th over step

responsibilities and activity regarding this matter. would you care to expound more on how this bill would affect your role? >> our interpretation and understanding of the bill would eliminate any opportunity for the corp of engineers to process any applications related to section 404 of the clean water act or rivers and harbors act, we would have under the current language, we had no authority to regulate the waters under those laws. >> so this would advocate your traditional responsibilities and the power and authority and experience that the army corp of engineers has built up over centuries. >> yes, it would do remove anything that we could lend to the proposal. >> either of you, coco yul tell

agency or agencies would be responsible for the permit? >> it would be given to the federal energy regulatory commission. >> do you agree? >> that is what we think it is to. it would be conferred to furk and it's important to point out that in terms of you know, blm's right aways programs these are cost reimbursable programs. so the work that we perform and the studies that may be necessary where any pipeline is run across public line, industry provides a cross reimbursablabl

account, we would not have it anymore, we would be out of the picture. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we recognize mr. sullivan. >> president obama turned his back on the keystone pipeline and rejected the advice of his own jobs' council who recommendrecommend ed an all-in approach. li i was surprised at the decision, saying that congress forced the decision with a deadline. if excuses were barrels of oil, this administration would have filled the reserves several times over. the truth of the matter is the administration had three years to reach a decision on keystone xl and failed to do so. if that is not enough time than how much time do you need to secure our energy future, mr.

president. this begs the question of who is in control of our national energy agenda. time and time again we hear about commitment of the president about reducing our dependence on foreign oil and rejects a no brainer. he rejected it to keep his anti-jobs environmental base happy in an election year. by rejecting the pipeline, president obama turned his back on american jobs. what logical reason could there be to say no to 20,000 new private sector jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs why the unemployment rate is above 8%, it's in our economic and national security interests to use the oil reserves right here in our own backyard. mr. president, why not embrace

supporting our energy supply with a stable supply from canada and north dakota instead of opec nations. unlike the failed stimulus law, it privately funded and does not cost the taxpayers one dime. the keystone pipeline is a game changer for energy security, when fully complete would transfer 1.3 million barrels a day to refineries in the midwest and gulf coast. i believe this is in our national interest to move forward with the pipeline and the state department's three-year delay is considering -- in considering this pipeline is a national travesty. three years in the obama's presidency, he has severely limited access to oil reserves and pushed the most strict

regulatory agenda in the history and sent money to solar company in solyndra. our country needs all the energy that we can get to continue growing our economy. with gas prices expected to rise in the coming months his decision to reject the keystone pipeline means that the energy security is now in the hands of china and iran and other opec nations. not a good choice. mr. chairman, the keystone pipeline is the right thing to do to create jobs and make our nation more energy secure and i would like to yield the balance of my type to the congressman from nebraska. >> if the gentlemen doesn't mind, can i reject that because i only have a 1:30? >> yes you can. >> i appreciate it though. >> mr. chairman, the topic that we are discussing is the keystone pipeline, but i must say the republicans are like keystone cops in the way they

have handled this whole issue. they have been going way out on a limb to get this pipeline approved. even to the point where a tax cut for middle class americans and unemployment benefits and money for physicians was, a bill was held up to make sure that there was a provision to give special treatment to the keystone pipeline. but these brilliant people put in a provision that said the president had to decide the issue within a certain period of time. they forgot to say how they will decide it and the president said i want to get all the facts first and i'm not going to approve it in this timeframe now they came up with a bill. this is a remarkable bill. this bill says, i wish people would read it. it says, the pipeline in this bill is the keystone kpcxl

pipeline. and they are exempted from review except for 30 days but if they do not get a permit in 30 days it will be deemed approved. they are not taking in chances now. and in addition they say the two other agencies and all the other agencies that might be involved in reviewing this bill will no longer have the so the application has to be approved in 30 days or it's

approved. for this one project, now, we o. now, we wanted to find out what interest the coke industries had. now, why did we want to find that out? well, the coke industries is one of the largest crude oil exporters in canada. the coke industries own the terminal in canada where the pipeline would begin. the coke industries has a refinery near where the pipeline would end. and the chairman said he'd take their word for it. they don't have any interests. even though there's evidence to the contrary. but then he throws out a real herig and no keystone cop could do. he said, wait a minute. there's another guy who agrees with the democrats some of the time who own as railroad and they might put the coal, tar, sand, on the railroad.

so really what the democrat, doing is fronting for another industry. boy, does that make sense. you've got the crude oil owner with a pipeline and the refinery and we should just take their word for it. they have no interest, but we should then point the finger at warren buffett's company, and then what did they do? they say in hearing, well we know what's going on. we're attributing the worst possible motives to the president of the united states. it's all political. well, that's quite a statement. how did they get into the president's head? what the president said is, i want to get information before i approve it. and they said, uh-huh! what is really going on is the president is trying to take care of the environmentalists and he's going to annoy the -- they've got it all written out. newsradio. they've figured it all out without getting more information. well we have two witnesses right now, and before acting, we should get some further

information about this special interest bill. it directs the ferc to deal with the matter, but ms. gaffney-smith under the section 404 of the clean water act, u.s. army corps of engineers has a permitting process to ensure that wetlands are protected from discharges of dredge or fill material. now, doesn't this bill take away jurisdiction of your agency over >> it appears to do so, yes. >> -- your agency has to do with -- wildlife. tell me what your agency would ordinarily review and whether you have that ability to review it. >> congressman, all these type actions we review for land use plans. that's the congressional mandate and -- >> are you being taken that jurisdiction taken away? >> it appears we would no longer app apply -- >> we used to have a party in this country known as the no-nothings. the people pushing this bill

know nothing about this pipeline except what the propose want to us know. if the coke brothers are proponents and are going to e nefit, i'd like to know abouto ought to know about it as well. my time is expired and i hope we have another round. >> this time right now, the gentleman from oregon, for five minutes. >> i thank the gentleman very much. mr. pool, tell me again the agency you're with. >> bureau of land management. >> and tell me how many acres are at play in -- that you've reviewed as part of the keystone pipeline review process. >> the majority of that acreage is in montana, but a little over a 42-mile segment that comprises, given the linear width, 250 acres, with an additional 900 achers that would be needed probably for staging during the construction phase. >> yeah. timony.hinking, looking for it i thought it was actually 270

acres, is what your testimony was. 5270. you've done work on that. right? the review process through nepa already? >> our segment was reviewed through the nepa process led by the state department. >> all right. >> and so, the segment that we're associated with through our mandates was evaluated and as a result, what came out in august we didn't identify any major strengths to that pipeline authorize. >> you've done the full review, been through the eis, the seis, the -- final environmental impact statement, and this is all about a 50-foot wide swath that covers 278 -- now, the other land that you talked about, did you say 900 -- roughly 900 acres? >> we issue -- >> temporary in and out? >> it is. it's temporary, used permits or grants to facilitate staging during the construction phase.

>> and then that would revert back? for a three-year period. talk to me about any issues related to the work your fine agency did on the biological opinions related to the endangered species act. did you find any threat to, threaten or endangered species? >> i think the initial biological opinion that was provided indicated there would not likely be a jeopardy to the existence of threatened, endangered species. obviously, it was subsequently withdrawn, and, but it was d -- >> feis as well? gone through the full -- >> correct. issued after the issuance of the fdis. >> right. so your agency, your biologist, all the people that do this work have thoroughly reviewed the keystone part that would cross land of which you have jurisdiction and found no likely

jeopardy of any threat to endangered speersz and a total of 270 acres roughly for the full pipeline? correct? so the state department had all that information. >> yes, they do. >> by the public lands? >> yes. cooperated to the state department, one of many. >> right. >> but that's the -- that's the area we are responsible for as a processed public land. i think we have a sliver amount, a mile and a half in south dakota. the majority crossing on public lando dmurs montana. >> i appreciate that. i think that's important for the record, because we've heard a lot of spinup rhetoric here and i just want to get to the facts. i went through some of the feis in the last hearing we had, and you know that we hear about this jobs number. it gets batted all over. you know. i think we'd want private sector investment, and this is $7 billion, i believe in shovel ready private sector construction job, and there are estimates of 20,000. now, i think what mr. waxman

referenced was actually only the construction jobs during the phase of the construction, but i know having been a small business owner for more than two decades that when you get involve fld a big project, it's nots -- i mean, we were just in the radio business, but, you know if i bought a transmitter, somebody had to build that thing, and i had to hire an engineer to install it. and i had to go through a lot of other efforts. there were a lot of other indirect jobs associated, and i think that's maybe where the difference of opinion here is on the jobs. if you only looked at just exactly the, you know, several thousands of jobs that would be will for two years in an industry that's been devastated over the last three years, i'd take whatever jobs we could, and if there's no environmental impact on the federal lands, and doesn't appear there would be, i think we can make the change, mr. terry recommended to deal with the issue that ms. gaffney-smith if we change this bill to allow you to continue to

have your statutory authority that wouldn't be a problem. would it? >> no. we'd evaluate all the crossings and the impacts under the current statutory authorities -- >> you have didn't that already? >> no. we haven't done it. only received pre-construction notifications for certain aspects of the pipeline i. see. my time's expired. thank you very much. >> recognize gentleman from texas mr. gonzalez for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and welcome to the witnesses, and we had a witness from ferc, the way i recall his testimony was, one, they weren't really equipped to do it. two, the timeline imposed by this particular bill, 3548, was not realistic, and i believe what you provide and what you bring to the equation, building this pipeline safely, is invaluable and essential and i don't believe that this bill is the best method of accomplishing

the building out of the keystone pipeline which i support. i just don't think this is the way to do it. my greater fear, and we're going to have some other witnesses that may address some other implication, and that is unrealistic expectations of what this pipeline is going to provide this countries. i'm going to do this as briefly as i can. first of all, when it comes to price. fuel prices reduces economic growth. at a very, very sensitive time in this country. high gas price rees deuce economic growth in this country in 2012 by 0.5%. when we know that total growth for the year we're looking at around 2%. so it was substantial. i do not believe that the keystone pipeline would reduce fuel prices, and that's what's we're telling the american public and we keep going on. i wish we had a hearing that would really explore the impact on price. because eventually it will be our