>> thank you, mr. terry. mr. doyle, my friend from pennsylvania, my neighbor also known as chairman of the steel caucus, i'm as committed as you are to making sure we do all we do to emphasize american manufacturing. i also want to review this issue with you, and i pledge to review this. as you also point out, however, a private company has a right to purchase things wherever it is. if there's any federal dollars in this, i know i support the issue in the past, buy american when it is american dollars. for military equipment or other things. we stand shoulder to shoulder with that. i want to continue to work with you and get to the bottom as well. i yield back to mr. terry. >> will the gentleman yield. >> yeah. >> recognize the gentleman from pittsburgh, mr. doyle. >> i agree with everything my friend from louisiana said. we know the pipe is sitting on the property and they want to use it in the pipeline. i understand that. they have every right to. it's a private company. they can buy it wherever they

want. that pipe comes from india. we specifically asked the permit applicant if there was any of the steel source from india. they told us no. i'm saying hey, let's be straight. i know they don't want to sit there and let it rust. at some point let's stop making claims about this project that aren't true. i'm going to support the project that's done the right way. i wish there were u.s. steel in the project. let's not make people think this is like the greatest thing since apple pie and ice cream. >> i'm going to reclaim my time. let me assert, there's no leap frogging here. we're only here today because the president denied the permit under his authority. he killed the project, just like the sierra club and nrdc asked him to do. when they sent their notice to

congress, pursuant to the law on this, they said it wasn't on the merit. it wasn't on the merit. they just needed more time because nebraska's little 50-mile loop, or whatever it's going to be, the reality is they had time and the president ignored that. we heard testimony from the state department, we had a decision by the 31st. because nebraska, because nebraska, because nebraska we had to kill it. bull. they had all the time they needed on nebraska. so the reality is everything that they said isn't -- that they needed is sitting right here and will be part of what ferc bases their decisions on as well. the information there, they have already said it's not based on environmental issues the denial or anything else. the reality was because they don't want to make a decision

before the election. >> gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to correct the record. republicans are using this as a political ping-pong for them self saying the president is against it, president stopping it, president costing us jobs. that's just not true. it's all politics. the president said he wanted more information. he didn't say he was against the pipeline, he said he wanted more information. republicans wanted to force him to decide the issue. so they held up a bill for people's unemployment insurance and for middle class tax cuts until there was a provision in there that he had to decide it for 60 days. i assume they had to decide it in favor. the president said, no, i don't have to decide it in favor. i'm entitled to get the information. after i get the information to make the decision, now that the president said he wouldn't decide it on their timetable,

republicans are saying let's pass this bill as an earmark, extraordinary earmark that congress would adopt approval of this pipeline, turn it over to the federal energy regulatory commission and give them 30 days. but if they can't decide in 30 days, it's approved. congress isn't try to approve this program to go with this pipeline even if there are unanswered questions. as i understand it, the comments by some members here on this amendment before us, they haven't gotten a straight answer from trans canada as to whether they are going to use american steel or not. they are not getting a straight answer or they are being misrepresented. why do you think they are not misrepresenting other things in you don't want to give the government of the united states and people involved in permitting pipelines to make sure they have got the accurate

fact, to know the truth before they sign off on it. instead the republicans say don't bother us with the information, don't get the facts, just approve it. we want this approved. we are going to blame the president if it's not approved. i just think that the american people ought to see this as strictly political theater and unfortunate when americans want jobs and republicans have not cooperated in getting us jobs. this is their jobs bill. this the only proposal republicans have for more jobs. they have two others. let the people who are upper, upper income keep more of their money. i talked to a fellow who told me if i got another tax cut, i'm still not going to hire more people unless there's demand. the other way they want to create jobs is throw out regulations to protect public health and safety in the environment. throw those out.

that's the wish list of these industries that don't want to spend any money. even the industries that are going to be required to meet these obligations are not asking for what the republicans are advancing. they want to make people think the reason we don't have jobs is because there are regulations, the rich aren't rich enough. this pipeline will provide jobs. well, i think the american people can see through that. that's not a formula for creating jobs. a formula for creating jobs is to put money in people's hands, get jobs for them. real jobs, not pipeline jobs that seem to fit the republican agenda. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'd be happy to. >> the president's own commission said one place to look for job development was building pipelines. that was the president's commission. >> the president appointed a commission. i assume you're talking about the deficit reduction commission. >> the one that recently spoke

of -- >> president convene people to give him ideas on jobs as he convened a commission to give him ideas on how to reduce the deficit. it doesn't mean he has to agree with every position there. >> it's not just republicans but also the president's advisers who say pipelines are the way to crete jobs. >> pipelines may be a way to create jobs. having pipelines that take tar sands oil and have to spend enormous energy to refine that oil just so it can go through a pipeline is a lot different than other kinds of pipelines. this is a unique pipeline. that's why i thought it was important for the eshoo amendment to be passed. we want to know, are we endangering communities to a pipeline taking this particular kind of oil. >> will the gentleman yield? >> not yet. when there's a study that's supposed to determine whether that's safe or not. so i think that the eshoo amendment should be adopted and members ought to understand if

you're getting misrepresentations on american steel being used or not, you may be getting other misrepresentations as well. my time is expired. >> time is expired. i would like to suggest a time for debate on this amendment that ha expired. seeing no one, we will reconvene at 2:45 with a roll call vote. we have three minutes.

>> so as you heard, members heading to the house to swear in a new member replacing david wu who resigned last august. the committee will return at 2:45 for more testimony. this the first of two meetings on keystone xl pipe hein taking place today.

the senate finance committee meeting this afternoon at 3:00. they will be discussing the same issue. right now, though, we're going to take you back to testimony from earlier today in this house, energy and commerce committee. this began at 9:00 this morning. >> committee will come to order. at the conclusion of openings statement call up hr 3538, north american energy access act. i would note because of the conference committee on the payroll tax expense, i want to thank members for getting here to start this morning. we're intending to stop temporarily at 10:00. and resume, it's my understanding, our understanding, that the conference is going to meet from 10:00 until noon.

we will then come back at noon here and work until it's done. we expect votes will occur at 1:30, so we'll maneuver around that. so anyway, the chair would recognize mr. terry for the purposes of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate you bringing up the amendment and the nature of a substitute. i introduce 3548 -- >> if the gentleman will suspend, call up the amendment. >> call up the amendment. >> clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment in the nature of the substitute to hr 3538 offered by mr. terry of nebraska. >> without objection reading of amendment is dispensed with, gentleman recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment and the amendment will be circulated. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i introduced 3548 in december last year. through the committee's vetting

good ideas and suggestion i want to incorporate in my bill. the changes are relatively simple but i want to walk my colleague through them. the first in section 3, specifically the amendment in the nature of a substitute clarifies that ferc must issue the permit without additional conditions. ferc often issues with conditions and i want to clarify ferc cannot attach additional conditions to the pipeline. in other words, only the conditions and fdis would apply, which there are multiple conditions already in those. those will stay. also requires us to enter into a memo of understanding within 30 days of enactment. the state of nebraska was unable to testify two weeks ago due to state department objection but

was in the testimony that the nebraska deq submitted was a concern that the state department had not entered into an mou with them, even though the mou was sitting on the state department's desk ready to sign. this amendment would ensure ferc could not be similarly dilatory in executing an mou with my home state. this gives our home -- my home state a path forward on this issue, instead of being in limbo as they are now. the third of the three amendments to section 3 would clarify the holder of any permit issued under the act may begin construction of portions of the pipeline while the proposed nebraska route modification is being determined. last change in this amendment comes in section 4. i'm clarifying only federal law

i intend to supersede with this legislation is a requirement a presidential permit must be obtained for the pipeline. this change was brought up in the rule 11 hearing from the first panel. all other federal and state laws continue to apply. by taking the issue out of the president's hands and entrusting the issue with an expert pipeline agency, i hope we can get the pipeline and jobs and energies that comes with this pipeline. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair will recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i opposed this amendment. this bill is an unprecedented regulatory earmark. the legislation singles out one project for special treatment. in some ways mr. terry's

substitute amendment improves the legislation but in other ways it makes worse. as introduced it calls on the federal regulatory commission to approve trans canada's permit in 30 days. representative terry has presented this as simply putting the project in the hands of an expert agency. he introduced the legislation, he said that, quote, going forward with ferc is simply moving the authority to an agency that understands pipeline, end quote. but this legislation is not about letting experts do their job. ferc testified before that it was impossible to allow for public comment and build a record that would yield a defensible position in 30 days. now it goes even further. its first duty and practice to impose conditions on permits when circumstances warrant. for instance, to serve public interest purpose. apparently there is concern that

the expect that ferc find it necessary to find a condition to the keystone xl permit. this substitute makes it absolutely clear that ferc may not do this, no matter how compelling the reason may be. this amendment says we're going to tell the experts at ferc to issue the permit but first we're going to put them in a straight jacket. ferc won't have time to identify any problem. if they do, the law won't allow ferc to address them. under the keystone xl project, the american people will bear the risks and big oil will reap the rewards. with this pipeline we get more carbon pollution, more dangerous oil spills, land seizures by a foreign company, and higher oil prices in the midwest. big oil gets the ability to extract more profit from the midwest, a conduit for exporting

products to china and the green light to explore tar sands at maximum speed regardless of the consequences. president obama listened to differing views of american citizens and made a responsible decision. he said he would not approve the pipeline through the ecologically fragile sandhills area in nebraska, but the state department would consider an alternative route. nebraska is taking the time to find an alternative route, and the president is making sure he has all the information he needs to make the right decision. if mr. terry really wants to let the experts at ferc do their job, he may wish to take this legislation back to the drawing board. as currently drafted this bill simply turns ferc into a yes man for this project. the tar sands pipeline is a bad idea and so is this bill. yield back the time. >> gentleman yields back.

members wishing to speak on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. seeing none, there are any bipartisan amendments to this substitute? seeing none, are there any amendments to the substitute members are wishing to offer? gentleman from illinois. >> i have an amendment. >> if the clerk will read the title of the amendment. >> amendment offered by mr. rush of illinois, amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> the amendment will be considered as read and gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> mr. chairman, last week during the subcommit hearing on hr 3548, the subcommittee heard compelling testimony from a nebraska rancher by the name of

randy thompson who urged this committee not hastily approve the keystone xl pipeline without allowing the agencies of jurisdiction to conduct their due diligence and oversight responsibility. among mr. thompson's many concerns was the hostile and belligerent manner in which trans canada approached many nebraskans claiming eminent domain in his quest to take away the property and land of ordinary american citizens, to push forward on plans to assert a yet approved pipeline. and mr. thompson's testimony before the subcommittee, he noted, and i quote, many

nebraskans use trans canada as an aggressive company whose thought into bullying and intimidate is way across our state. and having witnessed transcanada's actions during the application process has made us weary of what they could and are trying to do if empowered by premature permit. in detail trans canada approachd nebraskans over eminent domain mr. thompson went on to say in the heart lands, many of us feel that approval of this project would strip us of our individual

property rights. we feel this way because we will be forced to give up a portion of our hard earned property for the personal gain and benefit of corporate entities." mr. chairman, even if we cannot come together and agree on the necessity of hastily approving the keystone xl pipeline without the appropriate time frame and federal oversight, surely, mr. chairman, at the very least each of us as representatives of the american people should watch out for the public's best interests all to agree that it is morally wrong and incomprehensible that we will allow a foreign company

to push american citizens off their land for the sole purpose of allowing a pipeline that will ultimately be used to export oil overseas. my amendment simply reads, and i quote, permit shall not be issued or deemed to have been issued under this subsection absent of conditions that prohibits the permit recipient from initiating or threatening to initiate proceedings to invoke the power of eminent domain for the process of taking ownership, rights of way, easement or other access or use of private property in the united states for the purposes of constructing oil operating keystone xl pipeline against the

will of the property's owner. mr. chairman, in 2005 when the court decide d the use of eminet doma domain, the house moved quickly to condemn that decision and a bipartisan manner with 220 republicans voted with me in favor of the house resolution expressing our disapproval of the decision. i hope that today we can again find our way across party lines and do what's right and in the best interest of ordinary american citizens. i urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment. with that, yield back the remainder of my time. >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. >> to speak against the amendment, first, i -- before i get to the merits of mr. rush's

amendment here, i want to state that there is a phrase used push them off their land. this is a right of way. where they'll take not take but use 50 feet, bury it, and the land owners then continue to ranch on top of it or grow their crops on top of it. so it's not pushing anyone off their land. i just want to set that straight. because i think that it shows an image here that's just not accurate to begin with. now there are private company and they negotiate. and at least in the state of nebraska, i've met with ranch owners who had no problems negotiati negotiating an agreement for the right of way. now with the movements of the lands, one is even concerned

that they're losing their right of way money. nonetheless, though, if there is an issue with being able to negotiate that is always handed -- handled by state law. so if there's a land owner in montana, montana law handles that. if it's -- there's an issue in south dakota, south dakota law handles that. and the same for nebraska. so in essence what this does, this amendment does is advice rates the state's rights to handle utility issues in their own states. whether it's this project or forever but that's what this does is just says we're not going to trust nebraska or south dakota or montana on this to do what their state law says to be done here. i think for states rights

advocates this is a bad amendment. so i'll yield back. >> chairman yields back. other members? mr. waxman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i support this amendment by our colleague mr. rush. it says -- simple amendment. congress will give transcanada this extraordinary legislative earmark to rubber-stamp their permit application but only on one condition and that is that they not -- that they commit to stop bullying american land owners and seizing their property through imminent domain. my colleagues may not be aware of the fact that transcanada has been using threats of imminent domain to force american land owners along the pipeline route to give up their property rights. transcanada has even taken land owners to court to cease their property rights through imminent domain even before receiving a permit to build the pipeline.

last friday mr. rush pointed out that randy thompson a nebraska rancher testified that in the heartland many feel approval of this project would strip us of our individual property rights. transcanada is a foreign corporation. they've been trying to strong arm american citizens along this proposed path of the pipeline. they're telling property owners, here's some money for the rights to go underneath your land. but if you don't accept this amount within a certain short period of time, we're going to initiate proceedings to condemn your land and take what we need through eminent domain. this is an imperious approach. it sounds unbelievable but it's true. i don't know whether the state of nebraska gave them this authority or not. i think that it will be interesting if the state of

nebraska gave them authority for condemnation of land at the same time they're trying to figure out what the route is going to be in the state of nebraska. i have a copy of a letter that transcanada sent to mr. thompson on july 21, 2010 informing him that the proposed path will cross his property. in it transcanada offers him this money for these pieces of land and tells him if he doesn't accept within a month, "we will be forced to invoke the power of imminent domain and initiate condemnation proceedings against this property." well, absent mr. rush's amendment, this bill will empower frn company to bully our citizens into giving up their property rights. most americans simply don't have the money or time to defend themselves in court against an oil company with billions of dollars in assets. ranchers and farmers like randy thompson will be forced to live

with a tar sands oil pipeline running through their property. that may jeopardize their safety, health, livelihood with a single leak. and it's not unexpected that there might be leaks because existing pipelines that they already have has already had many leaks in a very short period of time. this amendment should receive bipartisan support. in the past, republican members voiced great concern about the use of eminent domain to cease private property rights as we saw in the debate of the property protection act of 2005. speaker boehner stated then that allowing someone's property to be taken "represents a complete departure from the very core value upon which america was founded. your natural human right to your