property." i hope my republican colleagues support the private property rights hold even when it's an oil company rather than a democratically elected local government that seeks to use imminent domain. i think this bill is an insult to american citizens who oppose the keystone tar sands pipeline and expects their views to matter. but it will be still worse if this bill by granting the permit without condition unleashes transcanada to bully and threaten american land owners into giving up their property rights. i urge my colleagues to support the rush amendment. >> gentleman from oregon. >> i have a couple questions for the council when it comes to this issue of eminent domain. i'm curious how the provisions being used by this company that is based in canada are different than a utility based in the united states when it comes to

eminent domain? >> i'm sorry, can you repeat? >> does keystone have any special rights or privileges not accorded to a domestic utility? >> no, in accordance with the state's law for the types of utilities. nothing special. >> and would their use of eminent domain have some special power that some city or county would not have? >> no. >> because they're foreign? >> no. >> is there anything because they have foreign ownership that gives them any privilege or right that is above that of a domestically based company? >> no. >> when other pipelines are constructed in the united states, did those companies use imminent domain? >> depending on the law of the state, it would depend on the law of the state. some states have that tool. other states don't. it's a state by state decision. >> it's a state by state decision. and would -- in this case, woule

by state law when it comes to imminent domain? >> yes. >> so they would have to live by whatever the state law is relative to imminent domain? >> that's correct. >> and when these pipelines are laid in this case my understanding is that it will be fairly deep in the ground, is that correct? >> i think for stretches of it. i'm not sure if all of it is undergroungd. >> but that which is underground, oftentimes you can still conduct your agriculture activity above it? >> absolutely, yes. >> and does -- tell me how the pipeline safety law would inter inte intersect. >> for this particular pipeline -- can you get closer? >> the pipeline safety laws continue to apply for this particular pipeline as contemplated under the final environmental impact statement. there are 57 special conditions

that heighten the standard for this pipeline as opposed to most oil pipelines in the country. >> and so i mean ways just hearing about the potential for these leaks and all. does the pipeline safety act not have pretty strict requirements in terms of the safety of a pipeline? >> yes. the pipeline safety laws would continue to apply. >> and so the pipeline safety law in the united states would apply to transcanada's keystone xl pipeline? >> yes, it would apply and at a heightened standard with the additional 57 conditions. >> can you speak to what some of those 57 additional conditions would be? i haven't made it all the way through this here. >> a lot relate to special leak detection techniques to make sure if there is an incident that it is known sooner. so most of them focus on leak detection type issues. >> and are there additional levels of inspection required on this particular pipeline that aren't on other pipelines? >> so that in the -- within the idea of insuring adequate leak

protection, it is increased inspection requirements. >> okay. >> it would have for other oil pipelines that are sited in this country. >> and are there -- when it comes to -- i keep hearing this issue of tar sands which i think really is at the crux of the opposition here is that this is an attempt to stop production. this is my commentary now. i won't ask counsel this, but to stop or hinder the development of oil from tar sands in canada. i really think that is it as it relates to global warming issues that some people are pretty passionate about. but when it comes to the pipeline itself, are there differences in how that tar sand oil would flow from a canadian base field versus anywhere in the domestic united states? >> well, in other places in the united states, they use truck

and rail also. but most oil, large transmission of oil is through pipeline. but there is also truck and rail. >> but the fact that it's tar sand oil, would that change how that pipeline operates? is that really an issue when it comes to the pipeline safety law? >> well, i think embedded in some of the 57 conditions was consideration with the nature of the crude oil from the oil sands. but nothing particularly distinguishable. >> does the state of nebraska agree to imminent domain for this pipeline? >> i think that there is imminent domain authority within the state of nebraska for pipelines. >> and my time expired. >> well, but this company is telling land owners that they can go into imminent domain. do you know whether the state of

nebraska has given them that authority to make that claim? >> i think that it's a process. >> no. do you know whether the state -- >> may i answer the question instead of our counsel? >> this is a legal question. so she doesn't have the answer, then i'd be happy to yield you to. >> mr. chairman, my time expired. i seek unanimous consent to let many terry respond since he's an attorney from nebraska. >> i object. >> the gentleman's time has expired. are there other members who wish to speak? >> the gentleman from texas mr. gonzalez. >> let me ask counsel a question. doesn't the concept of imminent domain contemplate a taking, an appropriation? >> yes. >> i mean that's the whole basis of imminent domain. there is a governmental purpose

or interest that trumps the private property rights of a citizen. >> there's a balance within those compensation but that is a component. >> we can get into compensation forever on that. but it is still a taking. so if you have a pipeline deep in the ground, it is still considered a taking, right? of a private property owner's land. and i just want to make sure that we're -- we know what we're dealing with. secondly, doesn't the power of imminent domain belong to a governmental entity but it can be assigned to the private sector. is that what mr. waxman's question goes to, and that is, has nebraska told transcanada or whatever particular entity with the authority that the sovereign would have? >> the state's authority for imminent domain would be given to it by the constituents of that state.

and then it is the states to then delegate it or give it as appropriate that authority that it has. >> but who be making the determination on bl to appropriate someone's property, whether it's beneath the ground or above the ground? it still would be a private enterprise, would it not? >> i actually think that -- i'm not well versed on the specifics of nebraska law. but i think it goes through a process f there was a particular area or right of way that the pipeline operator was looking to exercise authorities related to imminent domain, there is a process involved with that. >> and do you know if that process has been completed in nebraska in order for transcanada to be making the representations to mr. thompson, the property owner? and i will yield to mr. terry because he may know the answer to this. >> it's in state statute. the process is already spelled in and out state statute. so whoever follows the -- >> reclaiming my time.

i know that it is spelled out just like in texas. has it been xwexercised and hast been granted? >> it doesn't need to be granted because it already exists in state law. whether they have used that or not, i haven't heard of an instance in nebraska where they have gone to court or used it. they've been able to negotiate. >> let me ask you mr. terry zshgs that mean at this point in time transcanada has the opportunity to go through the process, has not gone through the process, but is making a representation to mr. thompson that the property owner that they will in essence appropriate his property even though it's below ground level? >> you know, i'm not going to put myself in the minds of transcanada. all i know is there is a state's process spelled out in statute in which they could. now mr. thompson's property is

going to be -- is now irrelevant in this process because there's been an agreement with the state of nebraska to move that pipeline. so that route through his family's property is going to be rerouted. this is why the statute is important and the memorandum of understanding so that they can actually pick a new site and start negotiating with those land owners. >> and reclaiming my time. look, i support the pipeline. i just want it done properly. i don't want to circumvent what we have in existing regulatory scheme with the proper agencies, with the expertise and i surely don't want to circumvent what we have always been established as policy in this country whether it comes to anything that crosses our borders from another country whether it be mexico or canada. that's all i'm asking. but i think when we're dealing with the legal concepts, we have to be very, very honest about what we're doing and who we're

empowering and making sure that it is orderly, fair, and just to the property owner. we're having reports right now of some heavy handedness. i don't know if that's true or not. but let's set the stage for these negotiations as the pipeline goes forward. and i'm happy to yield to any of my democratic colleagues. >> would the gentleman yield? i think this goes to the heart of the matter. mr. terry's -- and mr. terry's answers to the questions from the gentleman from texas mr. gonzalez, he indicated that mr. thompson's property is not even under consideration anymore. well, the fact is that there is not a route that exists. so here we are giving approval to allow keystone xl pipeline to

be constructed without nebraska doing its basic due diligence and giving us a route. so this question will be revisited immediately after nebraska decides the route that it wants this pipeline to travel. so that's the essence of our problem here. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. >> mr. chairman, i just want to give congressman terry the opportunity to respond if he wishes to. >> i'm sorry. i was being briefed. >> i just want to give you the opportunity to respond to the prior question. >> sure. thanks to due diligence of great staff here. the specific statute of nebraska is 57101. and it does state specifically

petroleum pipelines. it's stated in the statute. and so there is a specific process that is spelled out, as i mentioned, through state statute. and those things -- those things are important. i have two points that i want to make to mr. rush's points. one is the reason why there's this kind of catch all is that if you have one land owner that, you know, has aligned themselves with the nrdc and then you have one land owner that can stop at 1700 mile pipeline and i think that's really what the basis of this amendment is. but also what it does is it usurps nebraska law. it makes nebraska law that's been vetted, has been adopted by the state legislature that the

people are behind saying we're going to make this law irrelevant or nonapplicable here. and that's what this really does here. and so the other part of this is they are duly compensated. there is due process of law in this process. they have to be compensated at market prices. so all the rights done here. what you're doing is saying that beer going to block state law. we're going to nullify state law. and i just don't see why we want to go here and block state laws in the way that they have chosen to deal with these companies. so i will yield back to my friend. thank you. >> i yield to the zmt chairman. >> thank you, mr. barton. and imminent domain is always a contentious issue. the way these questions are being asked on the other side,

it leaves the impression that transcanada is getting some special privileges. is there anything in the terry legislation that would give transcanada some special privilege relating to imminent domain that any other pipeline in the country or any company willing to build another pipeline would not receive? is there any special privileges given to transcanada under this legislation? >> no. >> so it's being treated like any other pipeline company that wants to do this, is this correct? >> that's correct. >> would the gentleman yield? >> twint yield to the gentleman from georgia. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and being a non-nonattorney member, i need to ask some legal questions. it does seem to me that the amendment from the gentleman from chicago, mr. rush, would essentially if it were successful change nebraska law regarding imminent domain.

i will ask counsel her opinion on that. >> that is correct. currently under federal law there is no imminent domain for oil pipelines. what this would do is for as it applied to the state -- to any state, it would change their law. it would change their law if they had em nint douimminent do authority. >> this has been brought up a couple of times in regard to imminent domain and this issue, taking, and imminent domain for public purposes and the ucsual way of thinking that is to build a school or a transportation corridor. in this situation, and this is my question of counsel, this taking under imminent domain,

and i think mr. terry just addressed it briefly, fair market value, that's anybody's determination or they offer fair market value under the power of imminent domain granted to them by the state of nebraska. if the property owner is not satisfied with that fair market value, my question to counsel, they do have recourse in the superior court system or the state of nebraska and, of course, the appellate court system all the way to the supreme court in regard to the true market value if they are opposed to the taking of their property by imminent domain. is that not true, counsel? >> that's correct. >> thank you. i yield back. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'm happy to yield to mr. rush my last 13 seconds. >> would this whole amendment, isn't this in the essence of one you might call a special

privileges? isn't this a special privilege for one corporation to do whatever it wants to do to direct the administration within 30 days make a decision. if they don't make a decision, then this matter automatically approved. isn't that the essence of a special privilege? the whole thing here, i might add, is about the special privilege of one company, keystone, transcanada. special privileges of transcanada. if this is not about a sole corporation's special privilege in spite of the fears of american citizens, then i don't though what a special privilege is. i yield back.

>> the gentleman's time expired. the chair will recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mark for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's only to kind of point out that back in 2005 the supreme court brought down a case called kilo versus city of new london. and in that case, the supreme court upheld a local government's use of imminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic vdevelopment. now the majority's response was quick and furious. they publicly condemned the decision and brought a resolution to the floor expressing the grave disapproval of the house of representatives regarding the supreme court case. and every republican on this committee who was in congress then supported that resolution.

so it's interesting to see that while the republicans believed that this was a krcritically important federal issue, today they seem happy to allow a foreign corporation to exercise imminent domain. so just want to, you know, make it very clear that it's being noted on our side how this has changed as the circumstances have changed. i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman yields back. >> the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, i'm glad to see my friend from massachusetts concerned about private property rights. it's good thing to do. if the staff will put up the slide on the screen. let's put this all in perspective. it's going to come up. come on. staff, don't let me down. okay. those are the pipelines in the

united states currently. canada and united states, you have a pipeline from edmonton to puget sound, edmonton to detroit, montreal to chicago, calgary to barstow, ft. nelson, goldbory to westbrook. this is in my district. just to point that out. quebec to new jersey. toronto to boston. toronto to new york. winnipeg to omaha. winnipeg to detroit. edmonton to win sore. now we have two pipelines that are flowing from the united states to canada, portland to montreal. that's a long distance. portland and another one for portland to montreal. the bay to edmonton. from new mexico to the united states. renosa to el paso. folks this isn't stuff we haven't done before. there is a system by which we

approve pipelines. and especially the ones that -- so my point is this is not new. and we do it for the public interest and the public good to make sure that we have a free flow of oil and refined products. environmentally safe. can you imagine if all that product was moving by truck? or by train? this is such a ridiculous debate that i'm -- i -- it's just furious at we don't understand how much product flows by pipeline today and the environmental benefits of that but here we're demagoguing one pipeline to make it more energy secure and i think my friend from texas mr. green would like some time. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would. >> taking advantage of your map, i want to show members why i'm concerned about the legislation. but this amendment is a bad amendment to a bad bill. if you look at central part of

the united states where texas is at, so many of the pipelines are there. we have existing law already on the national basis. we have ferc that regulates natural gas pipelines. they don't regulate oil pipelines. but with this legislation, we're changing it with this amendmentment we're eliminating imminent domain that my colleague talked about that have come across the border. so i don't like the bill. i don't think we ought to remake federal law for a pipeline. i support the pipeline. hopefully it will be built. i don't want to mess up things along the way. and if this bill passes with this amendment, it will be doubly worse because imminent domain has been part of our being since railroads were cutting across -- since railroads were cutting across nebraska. and private entities have that right for imminent domain. and there are regulations honored. if the land owner doesn't like it, you go to the courthouse. you can oppose it. you up getting more money from

it. but there's a way to do it in this bill and in this amendment would make it much worse for the rest of the country. >> reclaiming my time. the gentleman from california yield? >> yeah, i appreciate that. one of the things i think we have to remember, too, we're setting a precedent here. this is a precedent not only going to apply to oil lines but will set the precedence. this is what we're going to do with the easements with transmission. as my colleague from massachusetts who has been brave about standing up for wind generation even in a state against opposition, the greatest barrier for renewable tos to geo cities is the creation of transmission lines down the line. you start setting a precedence that you're going to now not only not expedite the process, you're going to slow down the process of being able to make a linkage between where the energy can be created and consumed. th central wind mill, i'm sorry we don't have a map to show the greatest potential for wind generation is and where the demand is. you follow this precedence and go down the line, there are

people who will not be able to invest in wind generation because they'll know this government will not back up the ability to transmit that clean energy. be careful where you go with this, guys. you may be aiming at the poor canadians because you don't think they care about the environment. but what happens to our strategy when we set the precedence that use of imminent domain is not allowed for natural gas transmission or clean energy. remember, clean energy has a transmission problem two or three times longer than traditional energy. this is going to be a big issue we should be woshing together with, not setting this preceden precedence. >> to define the map was that this was for crude oil, natural gas, and products as refined product after it goes from the refinery. i just want to put that on the record. yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentle lady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in looking at the amendment and

the nature of the substitute, on the second page toward the end it says "while a route modification is under consideration in nebraska, the permit applicant may begin pipeline construction in all states other than nebraska." now given this, how does it come to be that the company is issuing letters of imminent domain to people if there is not even a route in nebraska? >> is that question to counsel? i think the provision is looking at areas outside of nebraska and for much of the route is already secured by the pipeline company. >> but let's go back to the -- maybe to the heart of my question. which comes first? letters of imminent domain or a route for the pipeline so that people know where it's going to go and -- >> i think the route --

>> -- you know, move along accordingly. >> the route is defined both in transcanada's application and the final environmental impact statement. so the route except for a segment of the nebraska route is defined. and so this provision -- >> but it isn't all defined, correct? >> a small segment or a segment within nebraska is not defined. the rest of the pipeline is. >> whether it's small, large, or all of it, you're saying that it's small, there are still letters of imminent domain being issued to land owners according to the testimony that was given. i wasn't here for the testimony. but i did listen to the -- i think i need to get a life. i listened to the hearing on tv. i was captivated by the witnesses and what they had to say. >> will the gentle lady yield? >> i'd be glad to. >> thank you. the land owner that testified was for the old route in nebraska and the counsel is

correct with your application, you've already worked with the agencies. you know where the route is. then they go and negotiate. but our governor asked transcanada to move it off the sandhills. so that letter and the testimony is on the old route. that's what's causing the confusion here. there is no new route because the permit has been denied and nobody knows if they're supposed to move forward and determine a new route. that's why we have written in here the specifics about entering into a memorandum of understanding, carving out specifically nebraska from this so that they can proceed to determine a route at which then the pipeline company will sit down and negotiate and then use nebraska law if necessary. >> well, reclaiming my time. i appreciate that. when does nebraska come up with its route? >> well, when the president denied the permit for this pipeline, according to the governor's office, they were within a week to ten days of

announcing a new site beginning the environmental. they have not announced the site because they don't know if they're moving forward or not. so it could be any time. but they need to know which agency they work with under the past application. the state department said they were going to work with the state of nebraska. and then when nebraska sent them a memorandum of understanding, they refused to recognize it. >> all right. thank you. >> gentle lady's time has expired. i believe all time has expired for the debate on this amendment. therefore, the vote will occur on the amendment. all those in favor of say aye. all those opposed will say noment. >> no. >> no. being the chair the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. wax m