out in favor of keystone xl within 60 days of the bill's enactment, and we all know how well that strategy worked out. again, the majority said ordinary americans might have been negatively impacted by a lack of federal oversight, and who cares if the republican government and legislator of nebraska have yet to even identify a new route for the pipeline. as was the theme all last year, my republican colleagues continued to push this false notion that if you would just roll government oversight and protection for average americans and allow industry to do what it wants without restriction and unfettered, then somehow

miraculously, jobs would be created and millions of out of work americans would be gainfully employed. after all, mr. chairman, we saw how well this well-defined philosophy worked during the bush years with the collapse of our total financial institutions and our economy. mr. chairman, it's ironic that 25 energy and subcommittee and joint hearings, the nine bills that originated from this subcommittee to went to pass the house last year, the only, the only piece of legislation that actually became law was the pipeline safety reauthorization bill, which expanded regulation in order to address public safety. in fact, the pipeline safety

bill enjoyed unanimous support from this committee, and so it would appear that 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 regulations and oversights in order to help industry get what they want and the american public be damned in the process. i'm not sure if the majority's going with something to show transcanada they are working r feverishly on their behalf for more campaign contributions even when they know the legislation would never ever become -- >> i think the gentleman's time

and i want his words take down. >> -- where millions of -- >> move his words be stricken. >> -- is pouring into commercial supporting xl. >> gentleman's time expired. >> yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman made an accusation of saying that we're tied to campaign contributions. a, that's wrong, but that's against our rules. his words need to be taken down. >> we'll have the clerk review the transcript and then we will proceed at that point, and i would remind everyone that we do not need to be making accusations about what people are and are not doing as far as legal campaign finance laws and whatever. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from michigan for five minutes, mr. upton, chairman of the floor

committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i noticed we have a number of referees in the second row. welcome to the big house. i note that you've got red flags and of course, not a yellow flag. red flag usually means it's a review of the play. we look forward to having a review of the play. in fact, that vote did pass in this committee and on the house floor by a 2-1 margin, and we're looking to have the ruling on the field confirmed. again, and perhaps again and again. it's not often that congress can take a single step that will simultaneously help reduce the future price at the gas pump. strengthening the nation's energy security and create literally tens ever thousands of jobs. it's certainly not often that we can accomplish all of these important goals at absolutely no cost to the taxpayer. but that's exactly what approving the keystone xl pipeline expansion project would do, and why i support this legislation hr 3548, the north american energy access act.

keystone is a shovel-ready project whose construction would create badly needed jobs. once completed it would allow more oil from our ally canada to come to the u.s., taking the place of imports from far 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. the pipeline would also provide an outlet for the growing supplies of domestic oil produced in the back form nation north dakota and monday monday montana relieving a bottleneck and every penny of the project paid for by the private sector. given the many benefits of keystone it is not surprise that so many americans consider this decision to be a no brainer. especially since the environmental impacts of the project have been extensively studied for years and found to be minimal. last july the house pass add bill requiring the state department to make the long overdue decision on keystone by november 1st. it was certainly bipartisan.

47 democrats joining nearly all republicans in supporting the reasonable measure. the bill would have garnered more votes if not for the administration's repeated assurances it's going to make a decision before the end of 2011 and the legislative deadline was not necessary. but sadly as the end of the year approached the administration reversed position and postponed its decision until 2013 at the earlie earliest. in response congress gave the president a second chance to do the right thing by providing him yet another 60 days to approve keystone as part of the payroll tax bill, last week he decided to reject the proposal after only 26 days. you see, 60 days wasn't enough. make no mistake, time is of the essence. not only are there unemployed americans anxiously looking for joshgs nome is iran threatens the straits of hormuz and the price at pumps headed towards $5 in the next couple month, the

canadian government is understandably growing impatient wit endless red tape and delays coming from washington. canada is a rapidly increasing its oil production and if the u.s. foolishly refuses to be a customer for new supply, canada will build yet a pipeline not to the south but to the pacific coast and the oil will be exporting to china, where they're waving their hands, because they want it there. that's why we are, again, offering an opportunity to approve keystone. i believe that this approach, this legislation, giving the decision-making authority to the ferc, federal energy regulatory commission is a good one. i look forward to moving it through the committee and would yield to anyone on our side that would like time, and if not, will yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. at this time, recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes, mr. waxman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today we once again consider legislation to approve the

keystone xl tar sands pipeline. this legislation exempts one pet project from every federal and state permitting requirement. yes, one project would be exempted from every review. now is that a way to approve an important and controversial pipeline? i hardly think that's the case. the fact is that the legislation we're considering today is an earmark that benefits just one project. you remember the republicans saying they were against earmarks? well, not when it helps their friends. and the arguments for the project just does not stand up. the scrutiny. this tar sands pipeline won't boost our energy independence or lower gas prices or create the

inflated jobs being promised. why have the republicans introduced bill after bill to short-circuit the permitting process on keystone xl? they say it will make the country more energy independent. that's a myth. oil prices are set by the global markets. this pipeline will have no impact on our vulnerabilities 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 tar sands overseas to china. now i know they say that if they don't get this pipeline they're going to go to the west coast. well, that's a problem, because there are first nations in canada who don't want this pipeline going in that direction and it's not so clear they can

get the approval to do that. the republicans say it will cut gasoline prices, but the opposite will happen. canadian oil now refined in the midwest and suppressing prices in the market will be diverted to the gulf coast for export costing consumers in the midwest billions of dollars. the republicans say they support the pipeline, because it will create tens of thousands of jobs, but that's not right either. according to transcanada, the company is seeking to build the xl pipeline, the project will have "a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel." now, some labor groups have recently described 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'd work with the president in passing his jobs bill. they have no solution to the jobs crisis. the jobs crisis, they say, must be responded to by tearing away regulations to protect public health and safety. we'll have more jobs if we let billionaires keep nor money. it will trickle down to more jobs and then they say this one project will provide the jobs we need. it's amazing to me. the fact is, the legislation we are considering today is one that is hard to understand. we asked the koch brothers whether this was -- this committee has an obligation to understand who benefits from this legislation.

last year news organizations reported that one company, koch industries, would be one of the big winners, if this pipeline were constructed. we asked koch whether this was true, and we're told they have no interest whatsoever in the pipeline, but then we learned that they've told the canadian government that they have a direct and substantial interest. something does not add up. to understand this situation better, mr. rush and i requested that we invite the koch brothers or the koch industries y s ties here and testify. the chairman hasn't even responded to our letter. we, therefore, mr. chairman, are invoking the minority's rights under rule 11 of the house rules to have a minority days of hearing. it's important we hear from the koch and other stakeholders. i think this pipeline is a bad idea. it ignores the concerns of -- >> gentleman's time is expired. i would also tell the gentleman, we will certainly accept the

letter and we will follow the rules, but we are not going to be subpoenaing the koch brothers and we're not asking the koch brothers to appear, because the koch brothers have nothing to do with this project. >> how does -- >> at this time i would like to -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. you made a statement where you were not recognized for time, cut me out ut in the middle of a sentence. i'd like to know the substantiation-doctor. >> your time was up mr. waxman. we're going to recess this hearing for ten minutes, and then we're going to come back. >> are you calling the koch brothers during the recess? >> let me tell you something, if you want to talk about that, let's talk about the millions of dollars that the obama administration gave companies like solyndra to people like george kaiser out there bundling money for the president. would you like for us to subpoena him too? >> why are you interrupting members and then take unlimited time for yourself? >> i'm responding to your questions, your allegations.

i'm the chairman and i'm telling you right now we're going to recess for ten minutes. call the hearing back to order, and at this time we'll hear the testimony of our two witnesses. and i would like to welcome both ever you to this hearing today. first of all swreshgs the honorable carrie ann jones, assistant secretary of state, bureau of oceans and international and environmental and scientific affairs and also mr. jeffrey wright who is director office of energy

projects at the federal energy regulatory commission. so once again i welcome you all to the hearing. each one of you will be recognized for five minutes, and then we'll have questions for you at that time. so ms. jones i will recognize you for your five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and good morning mr. chairman and -- >> be sure and turn your microphone on. >> oh. okay. i think it's on. good morning, chairman whitfield, ranking member rush and others on the committee on energy and power. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. the u.s. department of state receives the application for keystone xl pipeline project in september 2008. we undertook a thorough rigorous and transparent process to determine werther issuance of a president's permit for this pipeline was in the national interests -- >> would you please pull the mike closer to you. thanks? >> how's that? better? >> yes. >> i think you know that first

part already. in december, congress passed a temporary payroll tax cut continuation act of 2011 requiring a determination by the president within 60 days of whether the keystone xl pipeline project would serve the national interest. on january 18th, 2012, the department of state recommended to the president that the application for presidential permit be denied due to insufficient time to conduct the necessary analysis. the president accepted our recommendation and determined that the keystone xl pipeline project as presented and analyzed at that time would not serve the national interests. i would like to provide further details about this process and also comment briefly on the administration's view of hr 3548. on april 30th, 2004, president bush issued executive order 13337 which designated and empowered the department of state to receive the applications for presidential

permits for all oil infrastructure projects that cross the u.s. border. the executive order indicates that the permit should be granted based on whether it is in the national interests. the department's national interest determination factors include numerous issues including energy security, foreign policy, economic effects, health, safety and environmental considerations, including climate change as well as any other factor the believes is relevant to the national interest. to make an informed decisions the department is directed in the executive order to request additional information as needed from the applicant. in order to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project as required by the executive order, the department determined that it would prepare and environmental impact statement or eis consistent with nepa, 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 nepa requirements we engaged in a robust public outreachest including meetings along the proposed pipeline route. on august 26th, 2011, we issued the final eis. following its issuance we began an interagency review period for the natural interest determination and countried an additional public comment period that closed on october 9, 2011. we held meetings along the pipeline route including in the sand hills. these meeting were passionate with strong opinions an rationales on both sides. in nebraska we heard concerns about the fragile and unique sand hills of nebraska. we heard about their importance to the nation and to the people of nebraska. indeed, 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 2011, paused's process. based on experience with

pipelines of similar length we estimated that it would take until early 2013 to complete our assessment. in december 2011 as we were cooperating with nebraska's department of environmental quality, the temporary payroll tax cut continuation act was enacted into law. we knew that 60 days was not enough time to complete the work, and the analysis needed relevant to the national interests determination. we decided based not on the merits but on the inadequate time period and incomplete review to recommend that the president deny the permit. this now blings to hr 3548. the proposed legislation imposes narrow time constraints and creates automatic mandates that prevent and informed decision. we also feel the legislation raises serious questions about existing legal authorities and appears to override foreign policy and national security considerations implicated by a

cross-burner permit which are properly assessed by the state department. mr. chairman, internationally we remain fully the state department remains committed at carrying out its responsibilities with diligence and fairness to the complicates but with ultimate concern of best interests of the american people. thank you again for this opportunity to testify. and i'm pleased to answer any questions. >> thank you, mrs. jones. mr. wright, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. chairman, ranking member rush and members of the subcommittee, my name is jeff wright. i'm the director of the energy products. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. the office of energy projects is responsible for among other things the certification of interstate natural gas pipelines pursuant to the natural gas act. hr 3548, the north american energy access act, addresses the

keystone xl pipe loin project. i have no position on the proposed bill. should congress direct the commission to act on an application for the project, the office of energy projects has the commission's review branch will likely take a primary role in advising the commission on the matter. therefore, i will offer comments on the proposed bill with the goal of seeking to insure that if congress gives this responsibility to the commission, the legislation should provide clear and infective procedures for conducting this review. it would differ from the natural gas act and it doesn't make any provision for procedures such as public notice, public comment, issuance of an order, supporting a decision, hearing or judicial review in conjunction with the application. i now 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 within 30 days, the application is considered approved. this would not permit construction of an adequate record or allow fog meaningful public comment in arriving at a decision. section three could be read as giving the commission no discretion in the issuance of the permit. the section also states that permit is to be implemented in accordance with the term environmental impact statement. however, it is not clear whether the commission or any other entity would have authority to insure and enforce compliance with the measures required fwha document. section 3-b-1 allows a modification for the route or other terms of the environmental impact statement and for the commission to authorize such a modification. the bill, however, does not articulate the standard or a process for such a decision. section 3-b-2 states that commission will enter into a memorandum of understanding for

an effective and timely review of any route modification, other project in the state of nebraska. upon approval of the modification by the governor of nebraska, the commission will have 30 days to finish its review and approve the modification and section 3-b-3 provides the commission has not acted within 30 days, that modification shall be deemed approved. the proposed process is unclear. the bill appears to contemplate that some entity, either the commission or the state, will issue a document regarding a nebraska modification. after which the governor of nebraska will have the opportunity to approve the proposal. the commission then would have 30 days to complete consideration of and approve such modification. the section could be read to mean that commission has no discretion but to approve a nebraska modification and further the section does not appear to provide a process for public notice and comment, opportunity for hearing or rehearing. section four of the proposed legislation states that a permit issued under this act should be the sole legal authority to

require and construct the pipeline except for the safety of the department of transportation's pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration and commission's existing rate and tariff authority. 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, it authorizes the border crossing facilities, individual states or subdivisions thereof depending on the state law have authority to cite oil pipelines within their jurisdiction. this proposed legislation could be construed as providing the federal jurisdiction to plants and local authority. this concludes my testimony. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much, mr. wright. i recognize my self for five minutes for questions. on october 15th, 2010, secretary

of state clinton said she was inclined to approve keystone -- the keystone pipeline permit. on october 31st, 2011, white house press secretary jay carney stated the fact is that this is a 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. so my question would be, were you involved in the decision made at the state department and did you recommend to the president that he reject 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 through the secretary to the president. >> so your bureau recommend the permit be denied? >> yes, sir. >> and what other bureaus at the state department was involved in that decision making? >> the other bureau involved is the bureau of economic affairs. the state department looks at this pipeline across all of the issues that are involved. so there are multiple bureaus involved and all of the meetings and discussions that we have, we also have some energy expertise and we also have, of course, the regional bureau which handles matters with canada. >> now, i think mr. waldon over there has a copy of the impact statement. but isn't it true that the state department's draft environmental impact statement concluded that the keystone pipeline would have

limited adverse environmental impact? >> mr. chairman, with the statement said was it suggested that there would be little adverse impact to most resources. it then went on to say that was the case if the applicant followed all of the state and local rules and all of the mitigation procedures that were outlined. it then went on to say there were three or four areas that were of concern where there could be impact. called out spills, possibility. called out cultural resources related to native-americans, called out wetlands and some other areas where trees and shrubs would not be put back after the pipeline was put in. the statement -- the 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 that 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 conclude 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 avoided the sandhills. we looked at routes that took short little jogs and made different changes. the environmental impact statement did not identify any of those alternative routes. >> we're leaving this keystone xl hearing from last month to return to the capitol for the second panel in today's keystone hearing. we're expecting remarks today from the representative of transcanada corporation among others. >> -- come back and ask questions. since they're not here, i am going to recognize mr. billboard

for three minutes to say whatever he wanted to say about the corps of engineer or whatever the issue was. >> thank you, pletsch. and mr. chairman, i appreciate you giving me the time. it is frustrating that you think you have an agreement and i think some of these questions are important. i will raise them even with the army corps here. i have a little experience in 404 permit. i was actually cited or given my miranda rights for a potential violation of the 404 permit because i was involved in damming up sewage coming in from mexico. and they constituted it a sewage break as possible inand a halfable water. it is very near and dear. also, mr. chairman, there's a lot of talk here in washington, d.c. about, certain jobs by the federal government. and the tennessee authority was one of them that's been cited again and again. and i like to point out to everybody that the tennessee authority, though it