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 boa

we should listen to fbi director mueller to the ferc and to the warnings coming from russia and china. we should pass that grid act. soon. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman for his comments. we'll now recognize the chairman emeritus of the committee, mr. barton. before i do that, i want to say how important it is to have members who have been so engaged on this and especially we're blessed to have anna here, who served on the intelligence committee and mike rodgers, who chairs it now. and lee terry and mr. lata and mr. murphy is not part of the subcommittee, but were on the cybersecurity task force the speaker appointed. so all of that is most helpful as we tackle both of these issues. so i now recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. >> thank you, chairman upton. i thought mr. markey was going to say the experts said the gen from texas. >> i thought he was going to say that the biggest threat to the grid was the epa, but he went a different way with that. back in 2006. chairman upton held a hearing on this issue and together we sent a letter to the gao to look at this issue

centers and we are integral to those and help pay for all lot of the studies that will go into the ferc decision. we have been pushing hard for communication upgrades for compliance regulations that are out there. one of the things we have talked about a couple of times is the need to modernize our shop and powerhouse facilities to make sure a staff are supported up there and it in a safe and efficient manner. on the regulatory side, on the power facilities, compliance is something that began starting in 2008 but has been growing steadily over time. as you saw in the updated report, we have entered an area where we are now a transmission operator. that is leading to an evaluation of all of the existing things we have to do there and it may mean we have to make some changes coming forward as we start to see what is happening there. again, the regulatory system has been changing on a regular basis and we have to deal with that. we want to limit our exposure to catastrophic events, which has been the essence of what this is all about. again on the water facilities side, complying with the

what troubles me about moving into ferc, i think you can make a case for it. what truly bothers me is the mandate in the bill they have 30 days to approve it and if it doesn't approve it it becomes law anyway. what kind of amendment is that? that's absurd. either you want a real review or you don't. if you don't, what's the whole point in bringing it to ferc, telling them they can review it. but if they don't, too bad, it's going to happen anyway. that doesn't make any sense to me. the problem with nebraska that still hasn't been -- peace hasn't been put together, i would feel a lot better if that piece were in place. i would be happy to ultimately vote for something like this. it seems to me what we're doing here is we're just ramming it through. gentleman from california raises important issues. some might agree. some might not agree. i think certainly we have a real review. the whole point in government doing this, i know some people on the other side don't like government. for me, i want government to protect environmental standards. i want to make sure th

you know, when it comes to transcontinental natural gas lewin, ferc usually -- line, ferc usually assumes that lead. and when they're in that role, we are a cooperating agency. but it's important to point out, you know, the more recent example being the ruby pipeline in the west, they had the lead, but all our other mandates regarding cross-public lands or jurisdictions, that was administered under the authorized mineral leasing act, and all other mandates were required as well. >> ms. gaffney-smith, the army corps of engineers have a role in the implementing process, and -- [inaudible] so your responsibilities and some of your normal activities regarding this matter. would you care to expound more on how this will effect your role? >> our interpretation and understanding of the bill as it's currently proposed would eliminate any opportunity for the corps of engineers to process any applications related to section 404 of the clean water act or section 10 of the lives and harbors act. so we would have under the current language within the bill, we would have no authority to regulate the ac

ferc often issues its permits with conditions and i want to clarify that ferc cannot attach additionalonditions to the pipeline. in other words, only the conditions in the ncis would apply for which there are multiple conditions already in those. those will stay. also it requires ferc into a memorandum of understanding with the state of nebraska, within 30 days of enactment. the state of nebraska was unable to testified two weeks ago to state department objections. but within the testimony that the nebraska deq submitted was a concern that the state department had not entered into an m.o.u. with them, even though the m.o.u. was sitting on the state department's desk ready to sign. this amendment would ensure that ferc cannot be similarly dilatory in executing an m.o.u. with my home state. this gives our, my home state a path forward on this issue. instead of being in limbo as they are now. the third of the three and them and to section would clarify that the holder of any permit issued under the act may begin construction of portions of the pipeline while the proposed nebraska route mo

do you believe that ferc has the experience that blm has to review a permit of this scope? please answer yes or no. >> i don't believe they do. >> thank you. >> ma'am? >> no, sir. >> now, ms. gaffney-smith, do you believe that ferc has the experience that the corps has to review a permit of this scope? that's practically the same question as the prior one, but it's a little more subtle. yes or no. >> no. >> now, i want to thank you, and apologize for the fact that i curtailed you in your time. mr. chairman, we could hurry this process in a way which is going to create lots of trouble. and wind up ultimately with a delay or veto or profound litigation that can ge on for years. if that occurs, we will then find ourselves in the splendid position of having to re-enter this issue with all of the politics that goes to it, and all of the difficulty, or we can begin moving to try and work this thing out. i would like to move in that direction. i hope the committee will exceed to that kind of view and we can begin working on this in that way rather than getting ourselves in a splen

it directs the ferc to deal with the matter, but ms. gaffney-smith under the section 404 of the clean water act, u.s. army corps of engineers has a permitting process to ensure that wetlands are protected from discharges of dredge or fill material. now, doesn't this bill take away jurisdiction of your agency over >> it appears to do so, yes. >> -- your agency has to do with -- wildlife. tell me what your agency would ordinarily review and whether you have that ability to review it. >> congressman, all these type actions we review for land use plans. that's the congressional mandate and -- >> are you being taken that jurisdiction taken away? >> it appears we would no longer app apply -- >> we used to have a party in this country known as the no-nothings. the people pushing this bill know nothing about this pipeline except what the propose want to us know. if the coke brothers are proponents and are going to e nefit, i'd like to know abouto ought to know about it as well. my time is expired and i hope we have another round. >> this time r

if ferc doesn't act on the permit application within 30 days, the permit is deemed to have been approved. i've never heard of such a thing. this is my 20th year in congress. i've never heard of such a this evening. -- thing. no route in nebraska but there are people that are being challenged, let's put it that way, by the oil company in question. what bothers me the most is the sense that the american people have that we're not looking after them, that every other interest, special interest, whatever it is, whether it comes to money and campaigns, whether it comes to oil companies, whatever it is that that all comes before their interests. are there some interests that are going to benefit from this? no question about it. do i think the jobs are inflated? i do. there are some jobs that your going to be created in this. but what is so deeply troubling to me is how roughshod this is, that no matter what the facts are, they just doesn't matter. and i believe that this decision, if it's finally approved, it's going to come home to haunt us. it's going to come home to haunt the congress becau

ferc usually assumes the lead on gas lines. we are cooperating agency. the more recent example was one where they have the lead. crossing the land required other permits as well. >> does the army corps of engineers have a role in the permitting process? does this leave is a rate some of your responsibilities -- does this eve disarray -- does this eviscerate your responsibilities? >> our understanding of the bill is it would eliminate any ability to process applications related to the clean water act or rivers and harbors act. under the current language, we would have no authority to regulate the waters under our jurisdiction. >> it would do away with your responsibilities. >> it would remove our authority in any experience with could lend to the review of the proposal. >> which agency or agencies would be responsible for enforcing the terms of the environmental impact statement? >> from the corps of engineers perspective, it looks like the entire responsibility would be provided to the federal energy regulatory commission. >> that is the way the bill com

so it seems reasonable to adopt the terry legislation because basically what it says is, yes, ferc is going to make the decision within a certain period of time. the state of nebraska has the opportunity to look at this route, make their environmental decisions based on that route. the nepa that has already been adopted would stay in place and the pipeline could go on and we could start building the pipeline in areas outside of the state of nebraska while nebraska is going through its process to finalize. so i think this pipeline has been adequately studied. everyone that's looked at it indicates that the protections are there and the only issue is like 60 miles within a 1,700 mile pipeline. so with all the respect we have for the gentleman from michigan, i believe the adoption of his amendment would really defeat our purpose and would probably lead to this pipeline never being built. so with that i would respectfully oppose his amendment. >> would you yield me your last 30 seconds? >> be happy to yield. >> thank you, mr. whitfield. the two feet of documents over here is the environme

so what my amendment today requires is that ferc review the results of the study before issuing a per it in. that's really what the heart of the amendment is for the keystone xl pipeline. under the amendment, construction of the pipeline could begin but not until we know the standards that are in place from the same transportation and pollute the. i think it is important to the safety of people which i blamed earlier. and i think the approach makes sense. this is far less costly to build pipelines correctly than it is to try to fix and replace the lines that are already built and i think another very important consideration is the following. that is the recent oil spill could have occurred particularly the spills from trans canada's keystone pipeline which have linked 21,000 gallons of crude in north dakota are a warning to all of us. we need to get this right. so for these reasons, mr. chairman, i offer my amendments and ask my colleagues to support it. i yield back. >> you yielded back? >> yes. >> are there other members wishing to speak on the amendment? i supported her amendment.

about -- the only time the government actually steps in is -- well, there is ferc issues. but in terms of the one you're worried, concerned about is the one that goes across the border. >> right. >> and then that's a state department issue. >>i atoints. your technical advice, again, the department of energy. this administration's department of energy, the report i cited said that the keystone pipeline will lower gas prices, not may, but will lower gas prices, east coast, gulf coast, and in the midwest. in addition the report also says that it concludes that the pad 3 refiners, will likely consume additional can iddian oil sands well in excess of what would be provided by keystone xl pipeline. the reason i cite this is because some of have we'll bring it in from canada and then export it somewhere else. but your own experts have said that it will be used here, and we're going to need more. not less. so it won't be exported. on your technical advice you said the department of energy will reduce prices and it will be used here, not exported. i appreciate your technical advice

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

removing all federal reserve of all agencies except ferc and mandating they issue the permit to me doesn't sound like we're really weighing the pros and cons. we're rushing to make a decision on one side. the health and safety of the american people is parra mouni . it really troubles me. the other thing that troubles me is i have, you know, i feel much more comfortable if i knew that the oil that was coming down to be refined from canada, to be refined in texas went for domestic consumption in the united states, i sat through hearings that this committee has had. i'm still not satisfied or convinced that that oil isn't going to get shipped to china or some other place. so those are some of the questions that i have about this. >> mr. chairman, just for the record, i misstated. i said the word coal. i didn't mean coal. i meant oil. this is the dirtiest source of oil in the tar sands. that's what i meant. >> glad you were not talking about coal. >> no, we're not. i wouldn't want to take you on on that issue. >> at this time i would like to introduce the panel. the second panel. we have witn

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 wo

the committee trying to allow the ferc committee, which is an energy regulatory committee that would have the responsibility for the keystone xl pipeline. a note that the senate at the moment has no plans to take up the pleasure. an environmental group giving its own scorecard, assessing members of the house and senate democrats and republicans on just what kind of performps they have when it comes to greenishes, the environmental scorecard today, sayre rare chiefo spoke to reporters earlier in the day. here is her assessment. >> the national environmental scorecard is scored on the number of pro environment votes cast divided by the total number of votes scored. an absence is counted as a negative vote. for over 40 years, the national environmental scorecard has been an important source of objective factual information for the public about the most important legislation considered and the corresponding voting records of all members of congress. includes 11 votes from the senate and an unprecedented 35 votes from the united states house of representatives. leaving no area of the envi

this turns ferc into a yes man corps the project. it is a bad idea. >> the chairman yells back.shing to speak. seeing non, are there any bipartisan amendments to the substitute? seeing none, are there any amendments to the substitute? the gentleman from illinois. >> i have an amendment. >> the clerk will read the title. >> amendment offered by mr. rush of illinois in the nature of a substitute. >> it will be considered as read. >> mr. chairman, last week during the hearing on hr 3548, the subcommittee heard compelling testimony from made nebraska rancher -- a nebraska ranchers. he urged the committee not to hastily approved a pipeline without allowing the agencies of jurisdiction to conduct their due diligence and responsibilities. among his many concerns was the hostile and belligerent manner in which transcanada approached many nebraskan claiming imminent domain in the quest to take away the property and land of ordinary american citizens in order to push forward plans to construct a yet to be approved pipeline. mr. thompson's testimony before the subcommittee, he noted, " man

it requires the ferc, the federal energy regulatory commission, to review the results of phmsa -- of the phmsa study before issuing the permit for the keystone x.l. pipeline. i think this review is important for the safety of the americans who will be living near this pipeline for decades to come and who rely on the rivers and the streams and the aqua fers it will cross -- aquafirs it will cross. this is better than to replace or fix a line that is already built. for all of these reasons i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. and i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. whitfield: to speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: and i do so reluctantly because we all have such great respect for ms. eshoo of california. that is a hardworking member of the energy and commerce committee and provides great leadership. but we oppose this amendment for a couple of simple reasons. numbe

removing all federal review of all agencies except ferc and then mandating ferc issues the permit to me doesn't sound like we are really weighing the pros and cons. we are rushing to make a decision on one side. the health and safety of the american people is paramount, and if we are not going to take that seriously, it really troubles me. the other thing that troubles me is that i have, you know, i would feel much more comfortable if i knew that the oil that was coming down to be refined from canada, to be refined in texas, went for domestic consumption in the united states. i sat through hearings this committee has had and i'm still not satisfied or convinced that that oil isn't going to get shipped to china or some other place. so those are some of the questions that i have about this. >> just for the record, i said the word cool. i didn't go. i meant oil is the '30s source of oil in these tar sands and that's what i meant to say. [inaudible] >> i wouldn't want to take you on on that issue. >> at this time i would like to introduce the panel, second panel. we have with us retired

pipeline, this bill would require the federal energy regulatoryommission or ferc to approve it within 30 days. the keystone x.l. pipeline will create more than 20,000 american jobs and displace less stable ergy imports with millions of barrels of safe and secure north american oil. since this president took office, mr. chairman, gasoline prices have climbedy 91%. meanwhile, iran is threatening to close off the straight of hormuz which is responsible for transportation -- strait of hormuz which is responsible for transportation of 17 million barrels of oil today or 20% ever all oil traded. price also own climb higher if we don't take action now to increase our energy independence and develop our own energy resources. today, mr. chairman, republicans are moving forward with a plan to create more jobs and create more american energy. with at, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, is recognized. mr. markey: i thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume

we should listen to fbi director to the ferc and the warnings coming from russia and china and we shouldass the grid act soon. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments and we are now going to recognize the chairman emeritus committee mr. barton. before i do that i just want to say how important it is to have members so engaged in this and we are blessed to have an out here who served on the intelligence community and mike rogers to cheers at now and mr. latta and mr. murphy is not part of the subcommittee but all of that is most helpful as we tackle both of these issues. i would now recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. martin. >> thank you chairman upton. i thought mr. markey was going to seek -- say the biggest threat to our grid was epa but he went a different way with that. back in 2006, chairman, subcommittee chairman upton held a hearing on this very same issue and as full committee chairman he and i sent a letter to the gao asking them to take a look at this issue. the response are we received then was the response that we are receiving today and that is that it i

we have ferc that regulates natural gas -- natural gas pipe and but they don't regulate oil pipe us.hanging it for all pipelines but with this amendment we are eliminating eminent domain for all those pipelines my colleague from illness talked about that already come across the border. so i don't like the bill because i don't think we are to remake federal law for a pipeline. i support the pipelines and hope that it will be billed but i don't want to mess up things along the way. and if this bill passes and is this a minute, it will be doubly worse because eminent domain -- [inaudible] since railroads were cutting across. since railroads were cutting across nebraska. and private entities have that right for eminent domain. there are regulations on a. if their land owner doesn't like it you go to the courthouse. you can oppose it, and you end up getting more money from it, but there's a way to do it. this bill and this amendment would make it much worse for the rest of the country. so thank my colleague. >> and reclaiming my time, with the gentleman from california yield? >> i appreci

to study but shouldn't we create a path defined success by giving the information's on this website ferc symbol we have a skilled matchmaker and investment calculator's of people can literally look at different careers to say what they should go into because there's different opportunities and jobs. so again if he were to review the programs instead of making it prospectively to prescriptive but say we are going to hold you accountable for connecting with jobs if you'll is accountable to see how many are we working within the developing to treat progress with those are all great metrics and then just give the flexibility to deliver and partner with you on doing that. >> in my role as the chairman of the workforce protection subcommittee, we provide oversight to the various aspects of the department of labour. one of those in the primary program with the department of labour is osha to read in the course of our hearings we found out that many states had, like michigan, michigan osha, that is given the primary responsibility for regulating the on site work force protection program working

the primary agency, ferc, who had the responsibility to oversee the project, came to the conclusion there were no significant adverse environmental impacts that were associated with this project and on the verge of approval at the department of state if i remember correctly, the primary mission is to deal with plementic issues because this pipe crosses an international border, the president used the final act from an agency who is focused on diplomatic issues reached in and for political purposes said no. and i applaud the gentleman from arizona and i associate myself with his words that we were given another chance to the president to do what is right in our and my opinion. this is a project that is ready to go. it will put 20,000 people back to work. and that's what we have been talking about here for months, is improving this economy, jobs, jobs, jobs, and with a stroke of a pen, the president said no to 20,000 jobs and 100,000 jobs on top of that. and he put an obstacle in the barrier of his own state of the union message that we are going to accomplish energy independence with an all

to study but shouldn't we create a path defined success by giving the information's on this website ferc symbol we have a skilled matchmaker and investment calculator's of people can literally look at different careers to say what they should go into because there's different opportunities and jobs. so again if he were to review the programs instead of making it prospectively to prescriptive but say we are going to hold you accountable for connecting with jobs if you'll is accountable to see how many are we working within the developing to treat progress with those are all great metrics and then just give the flexibility to deliver and partner with you on doing that. >> in my role as the chairman of the workforce protection subcommittee, we provide oversight to the various aspects of the department of labour. one of those in the primary program with the department of labour is osha to read in the course of our hearings we found out that many states had, like michigan, michigan osha, that is given the primary responsibility for regulating the on site work force protection program working