then you have to go through nepa. which on average i believe takes three and a half years by recent studies by the government. it can take longer, it can take less. but you have all of that time that you basically have every single agency check the box and make sure everything's compliant with the environmental laws, economic interests, part of the nepa process. you do examine the economic impact. and then you get a final decision. >> by the way are there deadlines associated with those permits? >> on nepa, absolutely not. there actually is none. and you can actually -- it falls under the six-year statute of limitations. that's part of why we're -- why the senate is debating it right now. >> with regard to state and federal permits? mr. durbin or mr. smith? others want to chime in? >> absolutely. maryland dominion is a perfect example. in addition to everything they're doing at the federal level, many state permits they have to get as well. >> my time's expired. i appreciate your testimony today, gentlemen. >> thank y

then you have to go through nepa. which on average i believe takes three and a half years by recent studies by the government. it can take longer, it can take less. but you have all of that time that you basically have every single agency check the box and make sure everything's compliant with the environmental laws, economic interests, part of the nepa process. you do examine the economic impact. and then you get a final decision. >> by the way, are there deadlines associated with those permits? >> on nepa, absolutely not. there actually is none. and you can actually -- it falls under the six-year statute of limitations. that's part of why we're -- why the senate is debating it right now. >> with regard to state and federal permits? mr. durbin or mr. smith? others want to chime in? >> absolutely. maryland dominion is a perfect example. in addition to everything they're doing at the federal level, many state permits they have to get as well. >> my time's expired. i appreciate your testimony today, gentlemen. >> thank

and nepa is often referred to as a modern day environmental magna carta. these are very commonsense ideas. the nepa regulations really do require agencies to actually supplemented already issued environmental impact statements when significant new circumstances or information is found to exist relating to significant environmental impacts of a project. the pending keystone bill, however, would deem that the final environmental impact statement issued last january will fully satisfy nepa. in other words if new circumstances come up that are germane and important they do not get a chance to alter that statement. my amendment would change that and would preserve the obligation of agencies -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. booker: i would respectfully ask for 20 more seconds. my amendment would change that and preserve the obligations of agencies to supplement their environmental impact statements. so, for example, if the route of the pipeline was to change it could mean drinking water supplies and other critical resources will have

you raise the gold standard, nepa the national environmental protection act.derlying bill says everything is satisfied. all you want to make sure of in your amendment is if there's new information that shows this could harm the public, maybe cause more cancer, cause more asthma, cause more problems, that we need a supplemental e.i.s. we need a supplemental study before we approve this pipeline, and right now they're not let you offer -- the presiding officer: all time has sprierd. mrs. boxer: i thank the chair for his patience. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls related to the cloture petition on s. be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hiewsh move to bring to a close debate on the murkowski amendment number 2 to the keystone x.l. pipeline appr

h.r. 161 did not waive or alter any applicable environmental requirements under the clean air act or nepa. while it's true this legislation did not actually amend any provisions of the clean air act or other environmental statutes the pill would require automat -- bill would require automatic issuance of a permit under statutes like the clean air act if the responsible agency such as the e.p.a. has failed to act within the 90 days. this is the 90 days beyond the one year that i mentioned before. so basically that makes ferc the agency that would issue the clean air act permit. under this bill, ferc would decide how to create the b.l.m. or clean water act discharge permit. as a result, the legislation would effectively override the permitting decisions of agencies like e.p.a. or d.o.i. and turn ferc into the superpermitting agency. i just want to point out while it's true the text of the actual clean air act might remain unchanged under this bill, the effect of the bill would be that the clean air act permits would be automatically issued by ferc if e.p.a. fails to act within 90 days. that

has approved all applications that have completed their required nepa review. so there is no backlog or delay at the d.o.e. to speak of. with these permits alone we have the ability to become one of the largest exporters of natural gas in the world. so legislation to impose an arbitrary 30-day deadline on d.o.e. as suggested by the underlying bill is simply unnecessary. with regard to exporting natural gas, we should keep in mind that low domestic natural gas prices can provide an important competitive advantage to u.s. manufacturing. in simple economics tells us additional demand due to unrestricted exports can raise domestic natural gas prices. we should think twice about giving away this advantage for sthorm export profits when we are trying -- short-term export profits when we are trying hard to rebuild our long-term manufacturing base. we should also remember the bill will not shut in l.n.g. export to europe for some time, if at all. although one l.n.g. export terminal is expected to go in operation later this year, all others remain in construction or the

i'm also working on some commonsense amendments to improve the arduous nepa approval process and to protect private property energy production. and i am also going to be offering amendments to set commonsense limitations for federal land designations. i'm excited about the opportunities we have to pursue policies where we can

the national environmental policy act or nepa, as it's known is one of the most emulated statutes in the world. it is something that many people see as valuable in other countries because nepa in fact by many is referred to as the modern-day environmental magna carter. it requires agencies to supplement already-issued environmental impact statements when significant new circumstances or information is found to exist relating to the environmental impacts of a project. the pending keystone bill, however -- and quite surprisingly -- would deem the final environmental impact statement issued last january to fully satisfy this nepa requirement going ahead. this would remove the obligation from permitting agencies to supplement any environmental impact statement if significant new circumstances or information is discovered. this amendment that i'm putting forth -- 155 -- would change that and would preserve a commonsense obligation of agencies to supplement the environmental impact statement for significant new circumstances or information. in other words if very pertinent information come

well, we don't regulate the extraction and we don't -- the permitting statute, the need the -- the nepa statute, the national environmental policy act that we use -- we just try to make sure, if you will, that what we permit is done in the right way safe and environmentally sound. fracking is regulated at the state level and by the epa. i think it is essential that the regulated closely. >> we were mentioning the level of protest that we've seen. has the level of protests and activism at all surprise the commission, or commission members? this questioner wonders, how that plays out as far as going to the filing process, the level of protesting and activism on the filing process. >> well, the fact that people have things to say does not surprise us. these are important issues. our secretary's office does a great job handling thousands millions of documents that come in and getting them into files. some of the things that have surprised me recently are more of the techniques. when i first had a twitter account, i thought i was cool. and then it says, you have eight new entries and i think

i'm also working on some commonsense amendments to improve the arduous nepa approval process and to protect private property energy production. and i am also going to be offering amendments to set commonsense limitations for federal land designations. i'm excited about the opportunities we have to pursue policies where we can champion the productive use of america's energy resources in this congress and where we will be able to capitalize on our country's energy prosperity. and i am excited and looking forward to an open amendment process where we can do our jobs where we can offer amendments where we can debate those amendments. and most importantly where we can vote, because that is the only way that we are held accountable to our constituents, the american people. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president i ask consent that senator newer if i be -- that senator murphy be recognized for five minutes following my racks. the presiding officer: thank you. mr. franken: thank you. i also a

nepa compliance alert, that's what they talk about. i'll tell you something. we have had spills at the tar sands. spills in michigan. spills in arkansas. if you don't believe me, ask those folks, do you know in 2010 mr. president a pipeline ruptured and spilled over a million gallons of tar sands oil into the kalamazoo river in michigan. the local health department ordered the evacuation of 50 households and approximately 100 families were advised not to drink the water. the michigan spill was the largest inland spill in u.s. history and more than four years and a billion dollars later, it is not cleaned up. so wait a minute. you know, let's review. republicans take over, the first bill they give us is the tar sands bill. the only people it helps in my opinion backed up by fact are canadian oil interests. the only jobs it creates permanently is 35 jobs. and what it does to our health, is a disaster. because the tar sands oil is the most toxic dirtiest kind of oil and if there's a spill is the hardest to clean up. who do you think is paying the billion dollars