shelters received and a provision that waives compliance with the national environmental policy or nepa act, part of the ongoing republican agenda to gut environmental protections, but a policy waiver which has nothing to do with managing our federal property. when assets are transferred, they have important roles in communities whether urban, suburban or rural are common practice is a critical piece ensuring that all stake holders are taken into account. if there is a flaw with nepa, fix it elsewhere but not in the context of the bill that allows us to sell off excess property. another problem with this bill is the new programs funded under this bill are not funded. the nonpartisan congressional budget office stilts that this bill would cost $68 million over the next five years. now some on the other side might argument that delrg 68 million isn't much money, but as a matter of principle, it should have an offset. this violates the cut-as-you-go protocols and example of the majority spending without saying where it's going to come from. this bill in its current form would increase our

the review process through nepa already? >> our segment was reviewed through the nepa process led by the state department. >> all right. >> and so, the segment that we're associated with through our mandates was evaluated and as a result, what came out in august we didn't identify any major strengths to that pipeline authorize. >> you've done the full review, been through the eis, the seis, the -- final environmental impact statement, and this is all about a 50-foot wide swath that covers 278 -- now, the other land that you talked about, did you say 900 -- roughly 900 acres? >> we issue -- >> temporary in and out? >> it is. it's temporary, used permits or grants to facilitate staging during the construction phase. >> and then that would revert back? for a three-year period. talk to me about any issues related to the work your fine agency did on the biological opinions related to the endangered species act. did you find any threat to, threaten or endangered species? >> i think the initial biological opinion that was provided

they're complying with nepa. we're talking about 60 miles out of a 1,700 mile pipeline that will be resolved in the state of nebraska. so i just want to end by the crs report in talking about who does have the authority, who really does have the authority to confirm or reject this pipeline? and the crs did a report answered quote on page 6 sourts of congressional thourt to regulate foreign congress. article i authorizes congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations. whereas an independent presidential authority in matter affecting foreign commerce derives from the president's more general foreign affairs authority, congress's power over foreign commerce is plainly enumerated by the constitution suggesting that suggesting in ts field is preeminent. that's us. in a review of the origins of the constitution's foreign commerce clause, the justice department's office and legal counsel emphasizes the placement of the foreign clause stating that the power to regulate foreign commerce at the national level must be v

department determined that it would prepare and environmental impact statement or eis consistent with nepa, the national environmental policy act of 1969. we also carried out processes mandated by the national historic preservation act of 1966 and the endangered species act. following nepa requirements we engaged in a robust public outreachest including meetings along the proposed pipeline route. on august 26th, 2011, we issued the final eis. following its issuance we began an interagency review period for the natural interest determination and countried an additional public comment period that closed on october 9, 2011. we held meetings along the pipeline route including in the sand hills. these meeting were passionate with strong opinions an rationales on both sides. in nebraska we heard concerns about the fragile and unique sand hills of nebraska. we heard about their importance to the nation and to the people of nebraska. indeed, the people of nebraska felt so strongly about this issue that their legislators met in special session to draft a law to ensure the sand hills would be protec

the lengthy nepa process to be combined so we can get things done. you've heard the stories, i'm sure you have, problems with everything from endangered species to other environmental concerns that caused these things to drag on and on and on and expenses so much greater. we're eliminating a lot of those categorical exclusions or increasing the number, so that we will able to get that much more done. we have -- another thing that is -- is in this law, this is very complicated. it's called enhancements. i opposed back years ago when they started putting enhancements on the -- on the highway bill, i've always said that it's a moral issue. when people pay their 18.4 cents a gallon and it goes into the highway trust fund, they are led to believe that that money is going to be going to transportation, to improving the roads and the bridges. that's not quite true because the other deals have kind of moved in so that they're involved with it and they passed this thing called enhancements where 2% of the total highway funding would have to go to what they ca

these bridges fall under the category of categorical exemptions, exclusions per ceqa and nepa, but there are definitely studies that caltrans is asking us to support those findings. culture resources is one, making sure we take a look at all of the cold war resources here in the area, particularly those that of american and looking at the potential historic significance of the bridges, since they were built quite some time ago. we have an accelerated schedule given the type of approval we believe we are moving forward with with caltrans and f. h. wa -- fhwa. we are looking at late fall to early summer. that is the funding and that we have, getting these environmentally approved and design by early 2013, to meet the construction funding the nine we have agreed to with the state of california. finally, the updated cost. because we have some bridge replacement. three of the costs are significantly higher than what had been initially thought. we have approximately a $33 million project. the good news is, we have the funding program for all phases of the project, in particular, for the remain

at the bottom of the slide we referenced the process under nepa. that includes the regulation for the coast guard to manage traffic along the bay as well as these permits to use park lands and that process is moving forward. it will take longer to publish their documentary different departments. you'll see that later this spring in may 2012 and hopefully a final findings in june 2012. a quick few points on the economic benefits. the economic study commission prior to signing the host agreement looked at the full range of economic potential impacts to san francisco and the bay area and called out over $1 billion of impact and over 8000 jobs created by the events. these impacts and jobs are spread across a number of sectors as listed here. construction, transportation, and general events. hospitality and that sort of thing. something we have pointed out to people as we talked about these economic impact is they are not coming from a single point. these impacts are from diffuse points and different spectators and people interested in the events come t

just anybodyle away enough so that nepa has no -- just nibble away enough so that nepa has no meaning. the natural gas industry obtained an exemption for natural gas tracking from the e.p.a. the result at least in pennsylvania, and in new york, was extraordinary trouble for the natural gas industry. so let's not rush forward here. there's a process in place that provise for a -- an exemption, a very quick process to determine if that particular well is appropriate and allowed to go forward. where there's trouble, don't do it. i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. labrador: i yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamborn: thank you and i thank my colleague from idaho. this would expedite the development of geothermal energy on federal lands. being from colorado, i know well the potential for geothermal energy development. in fact, just last year the national renewable energy laboratory teamed up with ikea to bu

you waive other applicable requirements under nepa. if fert doesn't act on the permit, within 30 days it's received, the permit is deemed to be approved. what kind of legislation is this? if that's not leapfrogging, then i don't know what jumping is. now, there are members on this side of the aisle that are with you on supporting the pipeline, but they, reservations about how this is being done. and the warning of the chairman of meredith that the route that you're taking with all of this leapfrogging is going to end up in a mountain of litigation. so i think that this is offensible. i'm not going to su gu are all getting this done. i'm not going to stop it, i'm just saying slow down a little and make sure these pipes are safe enough to carry something that could be highly detrimental. >> the gentlelady's time is expired. the gentleman from oregon. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and all i know is i'm just glad that every pipeline sought to be constructed in america needs to approve itself in congress or none of them would even get done. i

you waive all other applicable requirements under nepa. 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 f

they are complying with nepa. talking about 60 miles out of a 1700-mile pipe process that will be resolved in the state of nebraska so i just want to end by the irs report and talk about who does have the authority? who really does have the authority to confirm or reject the pipeline? the crs did a report. a source of congressional authority to regulate foreign commerce. article i section 8 the constitution recognizes congress to regulate commerce whereas an independent presidential authority in matters respecting foreign congress to arise from any authority, congress's power over foreign commerce is plainly enumerated to the constitution suggesting that its authority in this field is preeminent. in a review of the origins of the constitution borne commerce clause this warrant special counsel of the department of justice legal counsel emphasize the placement of the commerce of power stating that the power to regulate foreign commerce at the national level with the vested in congress. the debate at the philadelphia

in the context that the overall nepa product. >> ms. gaffney-smith, did the corpses provide views on the permit application? >> in three core districts in galveston, fort worth and tulsa districts we received a preconstruction notification for nationwide permit 12, we initiated coordination with other agencies, and we did provide a response to the applicant in accordance with our nationwide permit rules based on comments we received from the department of state. >> so the answer's yes? >> are yes. >> under h.r. 3548, the environmental review process would need to be completed within 30 days even though blm would no longer be involved in the permit review process under this bill, is 30 days enough time for blm to do the necessary due diligence on submitting its views for the keystone pipeline, yes, or no? >> congressman, i would say, no, it's not enough time. >> very good. ms. gaffney-smith, the same question to you. is 30 days enough time for the corps to submit its views? >> no, i don't believe so. >> do you believe -- this goes to bot

it's gone through the full nepa process. they have had the full environmental impact studies done. even the state department said that there would be a decision before the end of last year. so for the entire time that the administration is in office, trans-canada is working to go through the process with e.p.a. and the department of state, and the department of state says they'll have a decision before the end of last year. but we still don't have a decision. you have to ask why. why don't we have a decision? and that's what we're talking about. it is long past time to act. let's just take a look. what are we talking about really? let's get down to what we're really talking about. we're talking about another pipeline, aren't we? we're talking about another pipeline. just like the one that's already been built. and how about hundreds or maybe i should say thousands of pipelines that we already have. but somehow we can't build this pipeline? it doesn't make any sense. somebody needs to explain this to us. so we have legislation with 45 senators. 45 senators. 45 sponsors that are sayi

jenna: judge and drew nepa napolitano is our judicial analyst. 14 plots, is it legal? >> reporter: he took and oath to uphold the constitution. the constitution says the police can't do anything until they have articulable suspicion to pursue someone. the police cannot surveil or profile or monitor someone without a belief that that human being has committed a crime. and they can't decide who to monitor people on the basis of a religious group to which people belong. that's well stabbed in our law and history. jenna: we have had different events that have been tied to different mosques around the area if we do know that in the past a place like a mosque has been used to rile up radical muslims, maybe not all the people are attending it are that way but there's one or two isn't that enough to say, listen we've got to take a special focus on this community? >> reporter: no he can go to a judge and get a search warrant. he can tell the judge what it is about these people that causes him to believe that they are likely to commit a crime and gives the

nepa, we've done streamlining that is something we've been trying to do for a long time. but let me mention, the one area that -- of reform that i want everyone to listen to because this is significant. we have had a friendly disagreement, senator boxer and i, on enhancements, transportation enhancements. these are things that it can argue -- you can argue do not affect transportation directly. i've always felt that these things that we spend money on whether it comes from the highway trust fund should go into transportation projects. but they haven't. there's 2% of the highway funding is required to go to enhancements. that equates to 10% of the surface transportation money. so you can use 10% or 2% depending on which one you're applying it to but it's a lot of money. if you take 2% of the total funding, that is a lot of money. that has to go to enhancements. now, enhancements are things that people criticize us for and i think that criticism is just. so how do you handle this situation? how do you get a highway bill in the highway title portion of it, senator boxer and

mandate in this bill but also because the bill would gut critical environmental laws like ccma and nepa, the very laws passed in response to the 1969 spill off the santa barbara coast. it's outrageous, this bill specifically denies california and only california any role in new offshore drilling decisions under the coastal zone management act. it also removes california citizens' ability to voice their concerns about new drilling during the environmental review process. i find it ironic that some of the same people in this body who decry an overarching federal government have no qualms about forcing new drilling upon a local population which is directly against its wishes. this approach rubberstamps restrictive drilling, cuts out virblee reviews and closes down the public's input. it might be good policy for oil companies but bad policy for my constituents and it's bad energy policy for our nation. so mr. chairman, american families want us to pass a balanced transportation bill that creates jobs, fixes our roads and bridges and ensures that they have a safe way to get to work and back

why not streamline nepa so you don't have that duplicative regulation that shuts down our water projects? and while we're at it, we can fight all we want on where the water that we currently have is delivered or who wins and who loses. but we lose as a state, we lose as a country until we get more water storage. we put an amendment in this bill in committee that will authorize new water storage, whether it's in my area. but we have to have more offstream storage. and an area in congressman garamendi's own district, in his own backyard, we can have water storage today without any cost to the federal taxpayers. we've got users that are willing to pay for more water storage and the water's desperately needed. why wouldn't we approve those projects? that's authorized in this bill. this bill deals with certainty. this does deal with a number of years of a problem and it certainly deals with drought years as well as certainty in wet years. but it also deals with greater water storage. so if you want to end this debate once and for all, let's make sure we keep up with the population growth of c

made very clear after going through the full nepa process, including the full environmental impact statement, doing all of the due diligence, all the work over more than three-year period, that they've had -- that they'd have an answer before the end of the year. butted administration says that -- but the administration says nope, we don't have enough time. we don't have enough time in more than three years to make a decision, so the decision is no. the decision is no. and you ask, well, why would that possibly be? why would that be? is this such a unique project that we've never done this before? that after more than three years of study -- not 60 days, three years of study -- that somehow this is so unique that we can't make a decision in that amount of time? so the administration says no. well, on this chart, you see this red line. it runs from arkisty, which is alberta, canada, all the way down to illinois, to refineries we have in this country. this is the keystone pipeline. that was approved in two years' time, roughly 2006-2008, and then constructed and it now moves almost 600,000 bar