name. wouldn't you know it, we had a flat tire in a new car. guess what it costs? 80 euro. that is $120 to have a tire changed. >> i have to ask you with all due respect, almost at the age of 96, how do you do it? how do you stay young? >> i don't try to stay young. i happen to be very healthy. i don't have any aches or pains. if i have the flu, i have it 12 hours. i just luckily am one of those people i don't get tired. it's god given. of course, growing up in california could have something to do with it. two or three glasses of fresh orange juice every day. you are outside constantly. you live on fresh fruit and vegetables. i always was very athletic. >> roberta mccain.

she has a sister. celebrating her centennial today. we extend birthday wishes to roberta mccain. we will continue the conversation here on c-span3. we have congress member max thornberry. he will join us to talk about the pentagon budget. and bill pascrell will join us among other issues with the payroll tax deadline at the end of the month. we will look at the caucuses as well. that is tomorrow morning. thanks for joining us on this tuesday. i hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.

in a few moments, the house energy and commerce committee would markup a bill to give the regulatory commission 30 days to approve the keystone xl oil pipeline. in four hours, the confirmation hearing with the ambassador to india. then david grossman. my most important point on who should run and who the republican leader is, we can't tell them. i think it would be better if a month before the election we announce who was running for president because the media's obsessive desire to know who is your leader? is it michael steele or glenn beck? they want us to tell us who our

leader is so they can fixate on them and destroy. >> this year's political action conference begins thursday and c-span will cover it. watch it online at the c-span video library at c-span.org. this is c-span3 with poll continues and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend american history tv. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. get our schedules and see past programs on our web sites. join in the conversation on these social media sites. the house commerce committee has voted on the keystone oil pipeline. it would give the federal regulatory commission 30 days to approve the pipeline taking the

decision out of the hands of the white house. ehrlir early earlier this year, president obama denied a permit for the project. the committee meeting is less than four hours. >> 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 extension, 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 with the state of nebraska. 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 depoliticize the issue and 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 transcanada'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. it's ferc's 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 exploit the 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, are there 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 subcommitee 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 transcanada 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 claiming imminent domain in its quest to take away the property and land of ordinary american citizens in order to push forward all plans to construct a yet to be approved pipeline. and mr. thompson's testimony before the subcommittee, he noted, and i quote, many nebraskans knew transcanada as an only 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 transcanada approached nebraskans over eminent domain mr. thompson went on to say in the heartlands, 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 decided the use of eminen 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 they are a private company and they negotiate. and at least in the state of nebraska, i've met with ranch owners who had no problems 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 eviserates 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 eminent 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 eminent 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 eminent domain and initiate condemnation proceedings against this property." well, absent mr. rush's amendment, this bill will empower foreign companies 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 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 eminent 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 eminent 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, would transcanada have to abide by state law when it comes to eminent domain? >> yes.

>> so they would have to live by whatever the state law is relative to eminent 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 under ground. >> 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 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 i was 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 eminent domain for this pipeline? >> i think that there is eminent 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 en